Comments on: The Garbage Gene http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/13/the-garbage-gene/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sat, 26 May 2012 14:59:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: rilkefan http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/13/the-garbage-gene/comment-page-3/#comment-61301 rilkefan Wed, 16 Feb 2005 02:50:57 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2868#comment-61301 <b>x</b>, you managed to omit the "One doesn’t have to accept the evolutionary explanation to appreciate how greater male variability could explain, in part, why more men end up with extreme levels of achievement." without which your argument about Pinker might actually be reasonable. x, you managed to omit the “One doesn’t have to accept the evolutionary explanation to appreciate how greater male variability could explain, in part, why more men end up with extreme levels of achievement.” without which your argument about Pinker might actually be reasonable.

]]> By: Martin Bento http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/13/the-garbage-gene/comment-page-3/#comment-61300 Martin Bento Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:07:37 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2868#comment-61300 Yes, the article is dumb, but let us be precise in our objections. What most people here have objected to is the genetic reductionism. That's not evolutionary psychology - that's selfish genery. One can be a "group selection" evolutionary psychologist (like David Sloan Wilson) or one can embrace selfish genery without applying game theory and other tools of evolutionary psychology. Since selfish genery is the established view in biology, most evolutionary psychologists embrace it, but it is not a logically necessary component of evolutionary psychology itself, AFAICT. I do think there is a case to be made for religion enhancing survival by positing cosmic enforcement (Last Judgement, karma) of moral principles that optimize game theory problems that otherwise would not be solved as well, at least not in complex societies (where people have to frequently deal with strangers). I don't say this because I am Republican or Christian: I am neither. In fact, I think the "new age" movement is, at least potentially, a religion, and one which tends to be sympathetic to many liberal ideals, such as tolerance and sexual freedom. The Right does not own religion. Furthermore, if religion does fufill a genuine need - which seems likely since religion itself is so widespread and believed in so fervently - it behooves us to understand that need whether or not we are religious or think that religion also has destructive effects. "Dopamine is very complex, but it appears linked to both spirituality and promiscuity, possibly explaining some church scandals.)" It's also dramatically upped by cocaine use. Should we expect great religiousity from cokeheads if the big D is a proximate cause? Boy George the Lesser may be an example of this, but he seems to be much the outlier. Yes, the article is dumb, but let us be precise in our objections. What most people here have objected to is the genetic reductionism. That’s not evolutionary psychology – that’s selfish genery. One can be a “group selection” evolutionary psychologist (like David Sloan Wilson) or one can embrace selfish genery without applying game theory and other tools of evolutionary psychology. Since selfish genery is the established view in biology, most evolutionary psychologists embrace it, but it is not a logically necessary component of evolutionary psychology itself, AFAICT. I do think there is a case to be made for religion enhancing survival by positing cosmic enforcement (Last Judgement, karma) of moral principles that optimize game theory problems that otherwise would not be solved as well, at least not in complex societies (where people have to frequently deal with strangers). I don’t say this because I am Republican or Christian: I am neither. In fact, I think the “new age” movement is, at least potentially, a religion, and one which tends to be sympathetic to many liberal ideals, such as tolerance and sexual freedom. The Right does not own religion. Furthermore, if religion does fufill a genuine need – which seems likely since religion itself is so widespread and believed in so fervently – it behooves us to understand that need whether or not we are religious or think that religion also has destructive effects. “Dopamine is very complex, but it appears linked to both spirituality and promiscuity, possibly explaining some church scandals.)” It’s also dramatically upped by cocaine use. Should we expect great religiousity from cokeheads if the big D is a proximate cause? Boy George the Lesser may be an example of this, but he seems to be much the outlier.

]]> By: x http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/13/the-garbage-gene/comment-page-3/#comment-61299 x Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:51:56 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2868#comment-61299 Mary Kay, I was responding to both your post and the topic in general, not attributing to you everything I was responding to. No offence was meant by getting your name "wrong" by reading only the first and not the second name. Sorry! Neil - "No one invloved in EP denies the influence of the environment." No, but, again, when someone makes the following statement (see <a href="http://www.theennead.com/amptoons/blog/archives/2005/02/09/the-thoughtful-steven-pinker/">this post</a>): bq. Boys are more likely to be learning disabled or retarded but also more likely to reach the top percentiles in assessments of mathematical ability, even though boys and girls are similar in the bulk of the bell curve. The pattern is readily explained by evolutionary biology. Since a male can have more offspring than a female–but also has a greater chance of being childless (the victims of other males who impregnate the available females)–natural selection favors a slightly more conservative and reliable baby-building process for females and a slightly more ambitious and error-prone process for males. and that someone happens to be Pinker, not Kristof, how is it a "misrepresentation" of Pinker to observe he is a) positing differences in academic results equal differences in academic skills and b) "explaining" that (without actually explaining it) simply by making a jump into another field entirely, ie. biology, reproduction, with the accompaniment of colourful vignettes from prehistoric times to boot? How is that reasoning not a way of dismissing the complexities of phenomena in which social, cultural factors do play a relevant part? Forgive me for expressing my thoughts in such simplistic ways that do not stand up to the kind of exact scrutiny required by the most strenous defenders of the most bombastic claims by the most prominent evolutionary psychology theorists. I am taking for granted the distinction someone pointed out, which I didn't think would need pointing out, between that kind of claim as Pinker's above, and the mere, simple idea that there may be a biological, genetic component to certain _behaviours_. Talk about straw men. You don't need to be a Pinker fan to accept that. Especially when it comes to specific kinds of behaviour, such as behavioural disorders, for instance, that can be observed a bit more precisely than complex historical, social, cultural phenomena. For those phenomena, be they academic performance or religious faith, simply positing, or affirming ("can be easily explained"...) a genetic predisposition via a jump from sociology into biology is not the same thing as genuinely researching the possible hereditary factors of, say, alcoholism, addiction, depression, or OCD. peter - <i>And I’m not even sure x’s stuff isn’t preferable, despite its ignorance, to those like John Quiggin who will happily concede that all sides agree human behaviour, the mind etc. are a mixture of genetics and environment</i> Everyone is "happily conceding" that, it's not some kind of controversial revolutionary concept. What's being denied is that making an unsupported leap from revealed preferences in complex social phenomena to biological differences is enough of a genuinely scientific approach. "Evidence" is dismissed when it's not real evidence but simply assertions. Again, see the <a href="http://www.theennead.com/amptoons/blog/archives/2005/02/09/the-thoughtful-steven-pinker/">above-linked post</a> for another obvious example of what's being debated. Mary Kay, I was responding to both your post and the topic in general, not attributing to you everything I was responding to. No offence was meant by getting your name “wrong” by reading only the first and not the second name. Sorry! Neil – “No one invloved in EP denies the influence of the environment.” No, but, again, when someone makes the following statement (see this post): bq. Boys are more likely to be learning disabled or retarded but also more likely to reach the top percentiles in assessments of mathematical ability, even though boys and girls are similar in the bulk of the bell curve. The pattern is readily explained by evolutionary biology. Since a male can have more offspring than a female–but also has a greater chance of being childless (the victims of other males who impregnate the available females)–natural selection favors a slightly more conservative and reliable baby-building process for females and a slightly more ambitious and error-prone process for males. and that someone happens to be Pinker, not Kristof, how is it a “misrepresentation” of Pinker to observe he is a) positing differences in academic results equal differences in academic skills and b) “explaining” that (without actually explaining it) simply by making a jump into another field entirely, ie. biology, reproduction, with the accompaniment of colourful vignettes from prehistoric times to boot? How is that reasoning not a way of dismissing the complexities of phenomena in which social, cultural factors do play a relevant part? Forgive me for expressing my thoughts in such simplistic ways that do not stand up to the kind of exact scrutiny required by the most strenous defenders of the most bombastic claims by the most prominent evolutionary psychology theorists. I am taking for granted the distinction someone pointed out, which I didn’t think would need pointing out, between that kind of claim as Pinker’s above, and the mere, simple idea that there may be a biological, genetic component to certain behaviours. Talk about straw men. You don’t need to be a Pinker fan to accept that. Especially when it comes to specific kinds of behaviour, such as behavioural disorders, for instance, that can be observed a bit more precisely than complex historical, social, cultural phenomena. For those phenomena, be they academic performance or religious faith, simply positing, or affirming (“can be easily explained”…) a genetic predisposition via a jump from sociology into biology is not the same thing as genuinely researching the possible hereditary factors of, say, alcoholism, addiction, depression, or OCD. peter – And I’m not even sure x’s stuff isn’t preferable, despite its ignorance, to those like John Quiggin who will happily concede that all sides agree human behaviour, the mind etc. are a mixture of genetics and environment Everyone is “happily conceding” that, it’s not some kind of controversial revolutionary concept. What’s being denied is that making an unsupported leap from revealed preferences in complex social phenomena to biological differences is enough of a genuinely scientific approach. “Evidence” is dismissed when it’s not real evidence but simply assertions. Again, see the above-linked post for another obvious example of what’s being debated.

]]> By: Peter http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/13/the-garbage-gene/comment-page-3/#comment-61298 Peter Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:04:19 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2868#comment-61298 "Maybe genetics is a more complex thing than simple determinism, when it comes to personality, emotions, thoughts." Why is Steven Pinker accused above only of dealing with straw men when this sort of post is typical of exactly how most criticisms of EP are raised? Is x a straw man of Steven Pinker's creation? And I'm not even sure x's stuff isn't preferable, despite its ignorance, to those like John Quiggin who will happily concede that all sides agree human behaviour, the mind etc. are a mixture of genetics and environment, but will then go out of their way to deny and discredit any studies and evidence - sorry, "Garbage" - that are summoned to demonstate specifically where that genetic influence might actually take effect - and not only that, but will boast of how much they dislike the whole discipline, the entire field of science, that tries to find these things out. “Maybe genetics is a more complex thing than simple determinism, when it comes to personality, emotions, thoughts.” Why is Steven Pinker accused above only of dealing with straw men when this sort of post is typical of exactly how most criticisms of EP are raised? Is x a straw man of Steven Pinker’s creation? And I’m not even sure x’s stuff isn’t preferable, despite its ignorance, to those like John Quiggin who will happily concede that all sides agree human behaviour, the mind etc. are a mixture of genetics and environment, but will then go out of their way to deny and discredit any studies and evidence – sorry, “Garbage” – that are summoned to demonstate specifically where that genetic influence might actually take effect – and not only that, but will boast of how much they dislike the whole discipline, the entire field of science, that tries to find these things out.

]]> By: no prescription needed http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/13/the-garbage-gene/comment-page-3/#comment-61297 no prescription needed Mon, 14 Feb 2005 23:45:36 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2868#comment-61297 Interesting. Have any of you checked out the <a href='http://www.medicare.gov/'>prescription information on Medicare</a>? In case you need any <a href='http://www.noprescriptioneeded.com/'>no prescription needed</a> medication, I recently got mine through this site http://www.noprescriptioneeded.com/ and I have already received my <a href='http://www.noprescriptioneeded.com/'>no prescription needed</a> meds. Or you can find more information on <a href='http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginformation.html'>no prescription needed pharmacies here</a>. Again, awesome point. Interesting. Have any of you checked out the prescription information on Medicare? In case you need any no prescription needed medication, I recently got mine through this site http://www.noprescriptioneeded.com/ and I have already received my no prescription needed meds. Or you can find more information on no prescription needed pharmacies here. Again, awesome point.

]]> By: seth edenbaum http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/13/the-garbage-gene/comment-page-3/#comment-61296 seth edenbaum Mon, 14 Feb 2005 23:21:02 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2868#comment-61296 This thread became silly a long time ago. It reminds me of the argument about the anthropic principle with the difference being that the difference between the 'strong' and 'weak' principles is ignored. SAP is the religious argument that the world being as it it, it was designed for us. WAP is the common sense understanding that the world is such that it is possible for us to exist. There have been a few comments here, including mine, that make no claims against a weak EP, and it should be obvious that the one does not lead to the other. Dan made the point well: "FWIW, there’s a weaker form of evolutionary psychology that avoids both the just-so stories and the stupid claims of the sort that Kristof makes. The “ecologically rational” view suggests that humans evolved to make good decisions quickly in uncertain environments, and so human cognition can be understood as a kind of statistical learning process with biases that are tuned to particular types of environments. So some kinds of prior assumptions are built into our decision-making processes, but particular beliefs are not. Moreover, to avoid circular reasoning, you actually have to look at the statistical structure of the environment. Unfortunately, no-one seems to be interested in writing editorials about this kind of work." And please lets stop using 'spirituality' as a term of reference. It's meaningless. 'Faith' makes more sense, since it means a faith in something. People tend to have a faith in stories, some more than others. It only makes sense that this has some evolutionary function, or is related to one. The argument over whether there is another 'plane of existence,' however, is not worth having. I'm not going to argue with the Pope any more than I am with a Yanomami. This thread became silly a long time ago. It reminds me of the argument about the anthropic principle with the difference being that the difference between the ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ principles is ignored. SAP is the religious argument that the world being as it it, it was designed for us. WAP is the common sense understanding that the world is such that it is possible for us to exist. There have been a few comments here, including mine, that make no claims against a weak EP, and it should be obvious that the one does not lead to the other. Dan made the point well: “FWIW, there’s a weaker form of evolutionary psychology that avoids both the just-so stories and the stupid claims of the sort that Kristof makes. The “ecologically rational” view suggests that humans evolved to make good decisions quickly in uncertain environments, and so human cognition can be understood as a kind of statistical learning process with biases that are tuned to particular types of environments. So some kinds of prior assumptions are built into our decision-making processes, but particular beliefs are not. Moreover, to avoid circular reasoning, you actually have to look at the statistical structure of the environment. Unfortunately, no-one seems to be interested in writing editorials about this kind of work.” And please lets stop using ‘spirituality’ as a term of reference. It’s meaningless. ‘Faith’ makes more sense, since it means a faith in something. People tend to have a faith in stories, some more than others. It only makes sense that this has some evolutionary function, or is related to one. The argument over whether there is another ‘plane of existence,’ however, is not worth having. I’m not going to argue with the Pope any more than I am with a Yanomami.

]]> By: RS http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/13/the-garbage-gene/comment-page-3/#comment-61295 RS Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:59:05 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2868#comment-61295 “Still no substantial challenge to the hypothesis that religiousness has a genetic component.” I know a few people working in personality genetics (bored psychiatric geneticists by and large) and they tell me that it is very very very very difficult to establish gene associations with personality traits, the sample sizes required for these sorts of effects are currently unfeasible because the effects are so small, and replication is nigh impossible. So I am, unsurprisingly, skeptical about data that the author won't publish, because I can guess why. “Still no substantial challenge to the hypothesis that religiousness has a genetic component.” I know a few people working in personality genetics (bored psychiatric geneticists by and large) and they tell me that it is very very very very difficult to establish gene associations with personality traits, the sample sizes required for these sorts of effects are currently unfeasible because the effects are so small, and replication is nigh impossible. So I am, unsurprisingly, skeptical about data that the author won’t publish, because I can guess why.

]]> By: Alex Fradera http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/13/the-garbage-gene/comment-page-3/#comment-61294 Alex Fradera Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:26:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2868#comment-61294 <BLOCKQUOTE><em>“Meanwhile, many of the people enthusiastic about evolutionary psychology seem without a scientific brief, and it seems to me its popularity is partly due to the fact it allows you to play at science without really knowing very much science at all.”</em> Many people enthusiastic about evolution have no science background. Evolution must therefore be wrong.</BLOCKQUOTE> Not at all. The statement was about EPs popularity, not an inductive case for it being invalid. But I think its worth noting that it gets press and popularity out of proportion to its popularity with people who seriously study brain and behaviour. I think it's interesting - and would suggest its because a lot of scientists don't have a lot of confidence in its ability to tackle the ground it has chosen with its particular toolbox, at this moment in time. I agree with someone up-thread that in the future Evolutionary Psychology may BE psychology, or at least one strata of explanation, and if it was really delivering we would all be evolutionary psychologists now. It's not, in the main, so we don't. Not to say there isn't good work coming out of it -as in many areas of psychology, a young science of a hugely complex subject - just that we should apply our skepticism, especially when people are making big claims about immutability, or being designed <eM>for</em> anything.
“Meanwhile, many of the people enthusiastic about evolutionary psychology seem without a scientific brief, and it seems to me its popularity is partly due to the fact it allows you to play at science without really knowing very much science at all.” Many people enthusiastic about evolution have no science background. Evolution must therefore be wrong.
Not at all. The statement was about EPs popularity, not an inductive case for it being invalid. But I think its worth noting that it gets press and popularity out of proportion to its popularity with people who seriously study brain and behaviour. I think it’s interesting – and would suggest its because a lot of scientists don’t have a lot of confidence in its ability to tackle the ground it has chosen with its particular toolbox, at this moment in time. I agree with someone up-thread that in the future Evolutionary Psychology may BE psychology, or at least one strata of explanation, and if it was really delivering we would all be evolutionary psychologists now. It’s not, in the main, so we don’t. Not to say there isn’t good work coming out of it -as in many areas of psychology, a young science of a hugely complex subject – just that we should apply our skepticism, especially when people are making big claims about immutability, or being designed for anything.

]]> By: RS http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/13/the-garbage-gene/comment-page-3/#comment-61293 RS Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:12:00 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2868#comment-61293 Further to my other post (which may or may not show up)...forgot about the twin studies - more similar levels of religiosity among MZ versus DZ twins may not indicate a genetic basis of religiosity per se - rather it could be due to the closer relationship of MZs and their, therefore being more likely to do things together (like go to church, which is I think the measure of religiosity). Further to my other post (which may or may not show up)…forgot about the twin studies – more similar levels of religiosity among MZ versus DZ twins may not indicate a genetic basis of religiosity per se – rather it could be due to the closer relationship of MZs and their, therefore being more likely to do things together (like go to church, which is I think the measure of religiosity).

]]> By: Mary Kay http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/13/the-garbage-gene/comment-page-3/#comment-61292 Mary Kay Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:08:21 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2868#comment-61292 Dear x: It isn't supposed to be support for genetic basis of religiosity; as said in my first sentence, I doubted the existence thereof. The rest of your post seemed completely irrelevant to what I said. And it's Mary Kay thanks, if you wish to address me by name. Chris: No and no. I mean I studied the stuff in college as part of a wide undergrad education and read Gould devotedly but that's it. However, as the possessor of a brain with certain physiological problems, I know as much as possible about the functioning of brains and the interaction of brain and perception and experience. I do have a postgraduate degree but it's in Library and Information Science not in any of the biological areas. MKK Dear x: It isn’t supposed to be support for genetic basis of religiosity; as said in my first sentence, I doubted the existence thereof. The rest of your post seemed completely irrelevant to what I said. And it’s Mary Kay thanks, if you wish to address me by name. Chris: No and no. I mean I studied the stuff in college as part of a wide undergrad education and read Gould devotedly but that’s it. However, as the possessor of a brain with certain physiological problems, I know as much as possible about the functioning of brains and the interaction of brain and perception and experience. I do have a postgraduate degree but it’s in Library and Information Science not in any of the biological areas. MKK

]]> By: neil http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/13/the-garbage-gene/comment-page-3/#comment-61291 neil Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:07:30 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2868#comment-61291 John, I take that point back, there would have to be something as you suggest. But just because Kristof doesn't outline something is hardly a major criticism. It's a newspaper artilce not a scientific paper. John, I take that point back, there would have to be something as you suggest. But just because Kristof doesn’t outline something is hardly a major criticism. It’s a newspaper artilce not a scientific paper.

]]> By: RS http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/13/the-garbage-gene/comment-page-3/#comment-61290 RS Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:05:38 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2868#comment-61290 "Still no substantial challenge to the hypothesis that religiousness has a genetic component." Yes there is. As far as I can tell your evidence, apart from hand-waving speculation, is a single association study (VMAT2 with a measure of spirituality) done by Hamer, that doesn't seem to have been published. Why hasn't he published it? What was the methodology - did he fix the high and low groups so that he could get a spurious association? What is the probability of this association being due to chance? etc. “Still no substantial challenge to the hypothesis that religiousness has a genetic component.” Yes there is. As far as I can tell your evidence, apart from hand-waving speculation, is a single association study (VMAT2 with a measure of spirituality) done by Hamer, that doesn’t seem to have been published. Why hasn’t he published it? What was the methodology – did he fix the high and low groups so that he could get a spurious association? What is the probability of this association being due to chance? etc.

]]> By: freply http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/13/the-garbage-gene/comment-page-3/#comment-61289 freply Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:05:09 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2868#comment-61289 Ah. Thanks. I may have misparsed the original statement. Ah. Thanks. I may have misparsed the original statement.

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/13/the-garbage-gene/comment-page-3/#comment-61288 John Quiggin Mon, 14 Feb 2005 20:51:48 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2868#comment-61288 freply, the problem here is that there is no evidence as to the advantages of religiosity in the past, only some dubious claims about its advantages in the present. So its the opposite of the situation with myopia freply, the problem here is that there is no evidence as to the advantages of religiosity in the past, only some dubious claims about its advantages in the present. So its the opposite of the situation with myopia

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/13/the-garbage-gene/comment-page-3/#comment-61287 John Quiggin Mon, 14 Feb 2005 20:47:14 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2868#comment-61287 "John Q’s first line of argument against the hypothesis is that if it were true then atheists would be extinct. That is not a vaild argument in the same way that the non-extinction of homosexuals contradicts a genetic explanation for homsexaulity is not vaild." Reread the post, Neil. I pointed out that to make the story work you need a stable mixed-equilibrium model like the "helper gene" theory of homosexuality that got a run in the early days of sociobiology. Neither Kristof nor his sources provided such a model. “John Q’s first line of argument against the hypothesis is that if it were true then atheists would be extinct. That is not a vaild argument in the same way that the non-extinction of homosexuals contradicts a genetic explanation for homsexaulity is not vaild.” Reread the post, Neil. I pointed out that to make the story work you need a stable mixed-equilibrium model like the “helper gene” theory of homosexuality that got a run in the early days of sociobiology. Neither Kristof nor his sources provided such a model.

]]>