Nature Vs. Nurture: Waging War Over the Soul of Science 235
derekmead writes "Wherever determinism appears, controversy attends, raising specters of days when colonialists, eugenicists, public health officials, and political idealists believed they could cure the human condition through manipulation and force. Understanding those fears helps shed light on the controversy surrounding a recent paper (PDF) published in the American Economic Review, entitled, 'The "Out of Africa" Hypothesis, Human Genetic Diversity, and Comparative Economic Development.' In it, economists Quamrul Ashraf and Oded Galor argue that the economic development of broad human populations correlate with their levels of genetic diversity—which is, in turn, pinned to the distance its inhabitants migrated from Africa thousands of years ago. Reaction has been swift and vehement.
An article signed by 18 academics in Current Anthropology accuses the researchers of 'bad science' — 'something false and undesirable' based on 'weak data and methods' that 'can become a justification for reactionary policy.' The paper attacks everything from its sources of population data to its methods for measuring genetic diversity, but the economists are standing by their methods. The quality of Ashraf and Galor's research notwithstanding, the debate illustrates just how tricky it's become to assert anything which says something about human development was in any way inevitable."
Economists aren't Exactly Neutral (Score:2, Interesting)
Economists tend to be interested in how human behaviour relates to the study of money. Which is not exactly a neutral research direction.
It was also an economist (Herbert Spencer) that studied Darwin and to give us the famous "Survival of the Fittest" instead of the more accurate "Survival of the Fit".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Economists have just about the worst track record of any major specialty in terms of quality research.
In this case, diversity is far less likely to do with it than the fact that Africa is less than a century out of independence from various European powers. Look what Europe was like until relatively recently. Corruption is still rampant and there isn't a lot of investment that's going on there.
Re:Economists aren't Exactly Neutral (Score:5, Insightful)
Africa is less than a century out of independence from various European powers.
Using colonialism as an explanation for lack of economic progress isn't supported by the evidence. The African country with the longest and most pervasive colonization was South Africa. The country with the least was Ethiopia, which maintained its independence except for a few years of Italian control in the 1930s. Yet South Africa is near the top of the African economic pile, while Ethiopia is near the bottom. There are plenty of other examples. Countries with long periods of colonization, much interaction between the locals and the colonists, and lasting European-style laws and civil institutions, are doing far better than countries where colonialism was less influential.
Re:Economists aren't Exactly Neutral (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's forget about colonialism and the last 100 years.
What I'm interested in is how the paper reconciles the notion that genetic diversity correlates with economic growth, that genetic diversity correlates with migratory distance from Africa, and the periods in time where the greatest centers of civilization, trade and economic growth were in Africa, while areas more distant were as to Ethiopia today?
Are they suggesting that genetic diversity rapidly tracks up and down with the rise and fall of nation-states absent any explanatory mass influx of immigrants or genetically-selective die-offs? Where did all the genetic diversity come from in Europe that led to today's economic growth if it was not there when Europe was in economic doldrums?
Or could this simply be yet another case of a researcher starting with the assumption that the socio-economic tapestry of today and only today is the natural, inevitable workings of biology?
I give them props for considering the entire globe, at least. It's really funny when someone only looks at a specific time and place and declares it the perfect reflection of inherent biological differences.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me the argument is backwards. Genetic diversity should be, and is, larger in Africa because that population has been evolving longer. Japan? A study in cooperation among genetically similar people.
JSTOR: An Error Occured (Score:4, Informative)
Re:JSTOR: An Error Occured (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. The article can be found here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/669034 [jstor.org]
That backwards African continent... (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly, the African continent is home only to the most primitive peoples. It's not a place that would birth historically powerful, flourishing civilizations whose large-scale engineering feats would be regarded among the "wonders of the world" millennia later. Oh, wait...
Er, I Think You Misread That ... (Score:3)
Clearly, the African continent is home only to the most primitive peoples. It's not a place that would birth historically powerful, flourishing civilizations whose large-scale engineering feats would be regarded among the "wonders of the world" millennia later. Oh, wait...
Um, the article was confusing, it showed like a White Pride info graphic ... yet if you read the paper, the genetic diversity is noted as being increasing over time the closer you are to the birthplace of humanity (as pictured here [motherboard.tv] the heterozygosity is reduced the further away from Africa). The second part that the article woefully left out was that this article examined the year 1500 CE.
Re:Er, I Think You Misread That ... (Score:5, Informative)
In that case, though, similar historical arguments hold just as as well --- highly economically advanced civilizations also formed far from the original "cradle of civilization." From the Inca and Aztec empires in South America, to continent-wide trade relations and the mound-building cultures in North America (basically "re-discovered" only after the invention of aerial photography, when people started realizing that some big oddly-placed hills were actually man-made structures), highly sophisticated and economically advanced civilizations have sprung up all over the place, from all sorts of "genetic stock." Tying genetic characteristics to economic advancement is an extremely iffy proposition, since there are far stronger fluctuations from historically contingent accidents. At best, you'll end up confusing cause and effect from correlating powerful, aggressive societies (conquering, assimilating, and intermarrying other surrounding populations) with the resultant genetic diversity of expansionist conquest.
Re: (Score:2)
"Tying genetic characteristics to economic advancement is an extremely iffy proposition, since there are far stronger fluctuations from historically contingent accidents."
From the abstract, it does appear that the authors suggest a cause, rather than mere correlation. That might have been unwise on their part.
Re:Er, I Think You Misread That ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Just looked at the actual paper... wow, that's a load of rubbish.
The figures showing the data that they use to prove the "hump shaped" correlation of economic status against an optimal "middle ground" genetic diversity are just big sprays of uncorrelated points, through which you could draw basically any curve you want with equal statistical probability. The parabolic-shaped curves that they've chosen are basically entirely determined by a couple outliers in South America. No statistically reasonable interpretation of their results would give them anything publishable to say --- at least outside the especially low standards of Economics.
Re: (Score:3)
just big sprays of uncorrelated points, through which you could draw basically any curve you want with equal statistical probability.
So it's up to the level of the usual grad student paper.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what have they done the LAST 5000 years?
Don't get me wrong, the Pyramids are a stunning achievement - but you can't really contend that the last, say, 1000 years have been anything but pathetic.
Seriously, though: I'm not sure where the answer lies.
The fact is that it is a bloody interesting question: North-East Africa/South-West Asia and "humanity worth speaking of" were pretty much synonymous in the 1000+ BC era. Yet, by about 1000 BC they were clearly being outstripped and outcompeted by their near No
Re:That backwards African continent... (Score:4, Insightful)
For arguments based on racial/genetic makeup, a couple thousand years don't matter (significant genetic changes and the timescale for the initial "out-of-Africa" spread of humanity are over tens of thousands of years). Over the time scale of just a couple millennia, accidents of history unrelated to underlying racial makeup will be the dominant source of fluctuations in where the centers of geopolitical power (and corresponding economic advancement) lie. If Africans a couple thousand years ago were producing world-leading centers of technology and culture, that is a strong indication that the present-day underdevelopment of the African continent is due to factors besides racial/genetic disability (such as centuries of colonial exploitation following the shift of the regional center of power from Egypt to Rome, and eventually Northwestern Europe).
Re: (Score:3)
Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox [wikipedia.org] for an example of faster evolution.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's why today the Scandinavians are relatively more peaceful while the Brits are famous for their football hooligans roaming Europe to get drunk and fight.
I can make up theories too
Re:That backwards African continent... (Score:4, Insightful)
For arguments based on racial/genetic makeup ...
It's exceedingly difficult for me seeing that people are still doing that. The genetic difference between homo sapiens and Chimpanzies is vanishingly small, yet some portion of the population continues to believe the outward physical differences between Blacks, Caucasians, and Orientals are significant. Why haven't we outgrown that crap yet?
Alexandria is in Africa. Egypt was the world's first superpower. Ancient Uganda was a superpower. The Zulu were a superpower. Africa's had a few lousy centuries mostly due to the bullies (European empires and various slavers) that surrounded them. Now they've finally been shaken off, I expect greatness from Africa in the future (if they can fend off the Chinese).
I wish I'd gone off grid and stayed in Khartoum. :-( Sigh.
Re: (Score:2)
some portion of the population continues to believe the outward physical differences between Blacks, Caucasians, and Orientals are significant
Turn on ESPN sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
Turn on ESPN sometime.
OK. Hmmm, all I see here is a lot of hybrid vigor.
Yeah. They kind of trivialize athletic accomplishment ("Basketball" == "Black Ball", and all that (apologies to Fletch and the Bird)). Jackie Robinson mattered. Pele mattered. Jesse Owens mattered. This's [wikipedia.org] an interesting read:
However, when threatened with a boycott of the Games by other nations, he relented and allowed Black people and Jews to participate, and added one token participant to the German team—a German woman, Helene Mayer, who had a Jewish father.
Schmuck!
The next scheduled games in 19
Re: (Score:2)
Jewish science left two cities glowing in the dark?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Herr Einstein was particularly Jewish, nor much religious in any other way. Was Oppenheimer? There was a lot of people working on the Manhattan Project, not just Jews. Truman wasn't a Jew and it was done on his authority. A lot of the people involved in MP thought the problem it was intended to solve disappeared on VE Day.
Re: (Score:2)
There are many breeds of dogs. They're all dogs and they can all interbreed. But defining different breeds helps more accurately describe the physical reality. Ditto wi
Re: (Score:2)
Now, visually observable differences is not the only way to group humans or dogs, and may not be the best way, but it's a quick and dirty way which conveys some pieces of information.
Useful information?
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the information one is looking for:
1) Leader says, "I need someone for this assignment who won't burn in the sun." Okay, so a Finn is probably out. Someone with darker skin is a better candidate.
2) Leader says, "I need someone brave and strong for this assignment." Okay, well, you say the black is physically powerful. But random selection provides an Urkel. [wikipedia.org] Or random selection could provide a Pat Tillman.
3) Leader says, "I need someone really smart for this assignment." Okay, the black choic
Re: (Score:2)
1) Leader says, "I need someone for this assignment who won't burn in the sun."
Yakuza.
2) Leader says, "I need someone brave and strong for this assignment."
Yakuza.
3) Leader says, "I need someone really smart for this assignment."
Yakuza. Not Tyson. Michael Jordan or Magic Johnston maybe. Bo Jackson? Okay. Will Smith? Naaaaahh.
So, another thing to remember is that these group differences are at best, only true in terms of aggregate measures and statistical sampling. They don't provide a reliable way to provide information about any particular individual, except on the attributes which actually define membership in the group.
That's what the Samurai spent hundreds of years trying to perfect. They had it pretty much nailed until they overstepped at Pearl Harbour.
"They don't provide a reliable way to provide information about any particular individual ..."
That is what I've been saying all along here, isn't it? On the inside, every dog's a dog, from Chihauhua through to Great Dane. Ditto for homo sapiens.
Re: (Score:2)
The genetic difference between dog breeds is vanishingly small as well. That doesn't mean that there aren't significant characteristics that define each breed.
Mostly cosmetic, gee, just like Afros vs. Caucasians vs. Orientals! On the inside, pretty much any dog is just like any other dog. Gee, just like homo sapiens!
Are you aware there were Nubian Pharaos, and the Northern part of Sudan is pretty much indistinguishable from Southern Egypt, historically even?
We're focusing on inconsequentials. Get past that crap. It don't mean nothin'.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
On the inside dogs are TOTALLY different. Different breeds of dogs suffer from different conditions that are hereditary. Different breeds of dogs also have vastly different senses of smell, sight, hearing.
Cosmetic. Differences of degree, is all. A dog's a dog's a dog.
Re: (Score:3)
And a mammal's a mammal. A carbon lifeform is a carbon lifeform. Any self-organising structure subject to the rules du jour in Universe A is any self-organising structure in Universe A.
Sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you have chihuahuas as guard dogs then for your home. After all, according to you, those chihuahuas are just as good at de fending your house as a pack of pit bulls would be!
A Chihuahua yaps just as loud as a pitbull woofs, but a Chihuahua won't mistake your kid for food and try to eat it.
Re:That backwards African continent... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a place that would birth historically powerful, flourishing civilizations whose large-scale engineering feats would be regarded among the "wonders of the world" millennia later.
No, it's not. Any example?
The Egyptian pyramids, and the lighthouse of Alexandria were both considered to be Wonders of the World [wikipedia.org], and both are/were located in Africa.
Re: (Score:3)
Offered for your consideration. [dailymail.co.uk]
This is one of the reasons... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is one of the reasons... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is said in regard to hard sciences. Not the soft, "social" sciences. Trying to equate the two is to try to muddy things.
Re:This is one of the reasons... (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to be kidding. The very definition of hard sciences is in the rigour. Things like testable predictions, controlled experiments, quantifiability, etc., are the hallmarks of the hard sciences.
It's not that the soft sciences are without any rigour, but it isn't to the same degree because we can't do it to the same degree.
Also, in the last paragraph, there are two problems. First, the whole paragraph is an argument that hard vs. soft is a meaningful distinction that is more prone to the science being settled, which was exactly the GPs point that you were arguing against, so you paradoxically just started arguing against yourself.
Second, you say
the "soft sciences" are a hell of a lot _harder_
. It's hard to tell whether this is meant to be cute wordplay or you're really equivocating, but you should say "more difficult" instead of "harder". I would agree that it's more difficult to come to a consistent conclusion in the soft sciences. I would disagree that they are simply more difficult -- the fact that you can take more steps in physics and chemistry is an invitation to take those steps. All the sciences are beyond humanity's grasp so they are all basically equally difficult on their frontiers.
The problem with the soft sciences... (Score:2)
The problem with the soft sciences is that they can only yield statistical correlations, and make best guesses at the mechanisms yielding the correlations. The hard sciences can identify the actual physical mechanism of action.
This
Re: (Score:2)
What have I said that makes you think that I don't understand the difference between correlation and causation?
Re: (Score:2)
...ruined mods. I am AC above.
Science is settled ... until it's not (Score:2)
When scientists in the "hard sciences" use terms like "settled science" it should be taken with the understood "... unless of course we get new evidence."
"Settled science" means that just about all scientists agree that the existing evidence leads to a given conclusion, and that the evidence and logical arguments have already been picked to death and barring actual new evidence or some currently-inconceivable way of interpreting existing evidence, the "scientifically settled conclusion" will be treated as s
Re: (Score:2)
Newtonian physics was "settled science" for centuries ... until new data rolled in [...] at which point previously-settled science became ... unsettled.
I agree with your main point, but this example doesn't fit in it very well. It's true that Newtonian physics has been superseded by relativity and quantum mechanics, but it's still "settled science" -- it's taught in every physics course and it's widely used. Just because we know some model doesn't fit perfectly every possible situation, it doesn't necessarily mean we stop using it.
Newtonian physics (like classical electromagnetism, thermodynamics, and a lot of other theories in Physics) is still useful whe
Genetic vs. Cultural Diversity (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me that genetic diversity and cultural diversity would be related. In other words, cultural isolation and genetic isolation tend to go hand-in-hand.
Therefore, if the argument is that economic development is correlated to genetic diversity, then it is also necessarily correlated to cultural diversity. This now frames the issue in a more intuitive way; The more ideas and ways of looking at the world you bring to the table, the more diverse your solutions and creativity, and the more developed your economy becomes. This seems to be broadly supported by history as well, since the most prosperous trade often occurred when and where cultures mingled freely.
And now that the genetic element has been effectively abated, the controversy evaporates. You're welcome.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3)
The more ideas and ways of looking at the world you bring to the table, the more diverse your solutions and creativity, and the more developed your economy becomes. This seems to be broadly supported by history as well, since the most prosperous trade often occurred when and where cultures mingled freely.
The Middle East and the US Senate/Congress of late would seem to be exceptions...
That's Some Nice Armchair "Feels Like It" Science (Score:2)
And now that the genetic element has been effectively abated, the controversy evaporates. You're welcome.
Thanks, but you offered absolutely zero proof or research nor did you even talk about how you verified that "genetic diversity and cultural diversity would be related." Armchair genetics is not progress.
I mean, I can pull explanations out of my ass too: the paper focuses on the distance from the cradle of humanity so while they may be correct in genetic diversity they are actually witnessing the exploitation of resources in new lands as humans traveled further and further. Their "just so" sweet spot
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, I'm sure it seems that way to the GP.
Another misleading headline? Perish the thought. (Score:4, Interesting)
The summary's typical inflammatory crap. THe paper takes an existing economic hypothesis ("Genetic diversity plays a role in economic development, and there is an optimal amount of diversity which has a net positive effect. There are also suboptimal amounts which have negative effects.") and then tries to justify it by pointing out that certain _genetic regions_ of the globe (not geographical, though they tend to fall along those lines) are better off than others.
Most importantly, this study does not correct for external factors, and as is typical for most of the junk that economists push, it assumes that if there's a correlation, that correlation will hold true no matter how many factors are not analyzed in the data. Further, it's a bunch of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" arguments with some handwaving to hide the stark (and, at least from the references in the paper, unsupported) assumptions they make.
Is it bad science? Sure. But economics isn't a science, and if you disagree, you probably don't have a degree in a hard science.
"The quality of Ashraf and Galor's research notwithstanding, the debate illustrates just how tricky it's become to assert anything which says something about human development was in any way inevitable.""
Let me fix that for you:
"Data be damned. If two people with degrees say it, they must be pioneers of truth hunted by the system, and if you say their argument is weak and laughable, you can't even see how deep your own bias runs!" Thank you, Slashdot. Sometimes I forget that you got bought out by sensationlists.
I have an explanation why the article is b*llsh*t (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I have degrees in both "hard" and "soft" sciences.
I disagree that economics isn't a science - it is. Whether or not this paper is bad science is beside the point from your rather broad generalisation to the whole of economics. You seem to be mistaking the inherent difficulty of the subject with the quality of the practitioners.
The distinction between "hard" and "soft" is usually the ability to conduct experiments to verify your hypothesis. In "soft" sciences people get really annoyed when you arbitrarily ex
Re: (Score:2)
Kudos to you for getting it completely, right down to the point about ethics. Of course, most of the people you respect to fancy themselves some sort of intellectual elite that think that since they are good at some parts of (say, physics) that they can disregard something like psychology in favor of their own intuitions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Intersting side note. It almost sound like that they think diversity is possitive correlation. We might be reading it backwards, because the genetic diversity among humans is greater in Africa, especially south of Sahara than anywhere else in the world. So are they arguing the diversity is harmful, or are can the authors really be the retarded racists they sound like?
Re: (Score:2)
We're Too Close For Objective Research (Score:2)
A caption from the linked article sums it up: "Opponents of genetic determinism argue that it ignores the effects of colonialism."
Within the US, at least, I believe that the on-going effects of 250 years of slavery, and an added 100 years of systematic segregation, still leave Americans as a group unable to divorce ourselves from their effects when trying to ascertain what - if any - biological basis there may be to the economic performance of southern Africans, and their diaspora in the US. There is such a
Re: (Score:2)
It is possible that different races have different characteristics because of genes, but I'm pretty skeptical about all such claims. It's really really hard to show such things, and if they can be shown, I really think a study like the one under discussion is not the way to do it.
Guns, Germs, and Steel (Score:3, Interesting)
He talks of certain events happening repeated in different groups and at different times. For instance, the development of crops and the different rates of adoption of those crops, even by neighbors who can be assumed to genetically similar.
This really has nothing to do with fear, anymore than saying that a light bulb is turned on by a human flipping a switch and not a human praying to a god who then allows the flip to be switched. It has to do with a long line of research that shows simplifying variation amount humans is problematic, and mostly a result of forcing generalities. For instance, asian people are short and thin is a genetic disposition. But when fed an western diet, many become tall and fatter.
We all know that economist are basically are free to say whatever they want, because really, they make no testable conclusions. Cutting income does increase the amount of stuff we can buy, because, really,, how can we say that it is the conclusion that is incorrect and not just that we are too stupid to apply it. OTOH, if a geneticist says something, and it later proved false, the gentisist is not free to go around and say that her failure is caused by the lame media, and not bad science.
Hmm. Some thoughts. (Score:4, Insightful)
a)If this is the case, then, the most economically successful (based on the premise described in the Slashdot article, I haven't read the paper) would be the Native Americans on the East coast, as they came from Africa, through Asia, across the Bering Strait, and then across what is now the United States, putting them about as far from Africa as you can get. While the American natives had a far more advanced culture than classic stereotypes portray, I'm not sure you could call it more economically advanced than the Europeans had when they landed here, as the Europeans had already invented such advanced economic developments as usury, debtor's prison, embezzling, and insurance fraud. I have not heard of any Native American cultures having developed those vital economic tools prior to contact with Europe, but I will accept I could be wrong.
b)I'm absolutely certain the xenophobic far-right will seize with gleeful delight on a study that says "exogamy, multiculturalism, and mixing of ethnic groups/continual intermarriage is the key to success". (That was sarcasm.)
c)Given that, I'm not sure why the left, which presumably favors multiculturalism, mixing ethnic groups, etc, would OPPOSE a study that says, "Yes, the more genetically diverse your population is, the better off you're going to be."
d)"Argument from consequences" is a severe logical fallacy. If the paper is factually wrong, then, prove it wrong -- but don't say, "This can't be true because it would be BAD if it was true." That's the equivalent of saying, "I know my spouse isn't cheating on me, because I'd be utterly heartbroken if they were. That proves they're not."
Oh, please ignore the above (Score:2)
I managed to misread the original summary, which implied generic diversity, in the study, correlated with economic success, rather than the LACK of genetic diversity correlating with economic success.
Which, in turn, implies that the Alabama and other states in the "mah family tree doesn't fork" regions of the US should be the more economically successful. Still doesn't seem right.
The link in the summary (Score:5, Informative)
Article is Crap, Move Along (Score:3, Insightful)
Wherever determinism appears, controversy attends, raising specters of days when colonialists, eugenicists, public health officials, and political idealists believed they could cure the human condition through manipulation and force.
Well that sounds pretty epic ... also, very confusing. "Cure the human condition"? "Manipulation and force"? What does any of that have to do with this paper? Also, I find it counter-intellectual to take a paper that has been submitted for peer review and renounce it along with colonialists, eugenicists, public health officials and political idealists just because it contains correlated determinism. You're free to attack it based purely on what it says but to say that just because it suggests determinism in humanity's history doesn't mean that they are Nazi scientists and Ku Klux Klan members.
Curiously the article accompanying this paper leaves out a key detail. From the paper:
This study therefore employs cross-country historical data on population density as the dependent variable of interest in the historical analysis and examines the hypothesized eect of human genetic diversity within societies on their population densities in the year 1500 CE.
(emphasis mine) Okay, after reading the article I would have said this study is obviously overlooking the British Empire that came back and started to systematically colonize the world despite it being further from the cradle of civilization than the very people it was colonizing. So 1500 CE was prior to a lot of the counter examples I could think of but I also feel like China and Japan had to be fully operational at these points in time and I wish I could pull up GDP numbers for 1500 but, gosh darn it, they weren't very good at record keeping at this point in time.
I think that if these authors had placed their time frame in pre-Holy Roman Empire or pre-Zoroastrian times they would have met with less kick back from their academic community. Personally, I feel like we as humans by 1500 CE had already transcended the epoch period where our intelligence removed us from the uncaring hand of nature. Granted, that was a long struggle, but I think it's foolish to say that "At not time in humanity's history has our genetic diversity played a role in our survival." We are of the animal kingdom, the mistake this paper made was trying to bring that too close to the present. We had already had inventor-geniuses. History had already shown that technology like the Romans roads could be critical in enforcing dominance on other cultures.
The paper attacks everything from its sources of population data to its methods for measuring genetic diversity, but the economists are standing by their methods.
Welcome to academia. I mean, when it comes to publishing papers on historic events you can't exactly take their experiment and run it 50 times in your own lab to independently verify your results, can you? So I would imagine that economists, social sciences, historical studies and the like are filled with disagreeing camps that can't rectify their differences.
The quality of Ashraf and Galor's research notwithstanding, the debate illustrates just how tricky it's become to assert anything which says something about human development was in any way inevitable.
Or perhaps if you publish something about the past and you make flimsy assumptions, you can almost guarantee your "colleagues" will roast you alive.
Geographer and author Jared Diamond, for example, who wrote Guns, Germs, and Steel, has been branded an environmental determinist who cuts culture and colonialism too much slack with regard to the rise and fall of civilizations—criticism that has been renewed recently with the publication of his new book, The World Until Yesterday.
So you're saying an author is being attacked for his theories not being 10
Breeding and genetic variation + environment (Score:3)
There is no escaping that we, as humans vary widely in terms of potential of all sorts whether it be for learning, violence or what have you. We know we can breed dogs and other animals to have specific behavioral characteristics and abilities. Is it so far fetched that humans, also being animals, would demonstrate the same variances and potentials based on breeding? But breeding is just the basis. Since we as humans have an amazing ability to teach and learn, additional variabces exist based on how much a community of humans values certain behaviors whether it is physical strength and violence (sports?) or more passive advancements (academics, getting good jobs?) or even merely physical appearance (models, entertainment?).
It is both. It has always been both and until humans evolve into more purely intellectual creatures, it will always be both. And we *ARE* the living planet of the apes. The gorillas are more suited to certain roles while the chimps are more suited to others. And the damned orangutans are ruling everything.
Therefore (Score:2)
Eric Raymond (Score:4, Interesting)
Open source advocate Eric Raymond [wikipedia.org], author of The Cathedral and the Bazaar [amazon.com] and The Art of Unix Programming [amazon.com] has entered the Nature-Nurture debate, stating here: [ibiblio.org]
Re:Eric Raymond (Score:4, Informative)
American blacks average a standard
deviation lower in IQ than American whites at about 85.
AKA the IQ of an average Scotsman in the 40s, when evaluated on a modern scale.
Taking ESR seriously about anything scientific is a losing proposition. His antics on climate science are widely known (sees some piece of code that adjusts a timeseries for temperature increases, and immediately concludes that global warming is a hoax), but it's not common knowledge that he's also an HIV denialist. [ibiblio.org]
Think of human races / ethnicities as dog breeds (Score:2)
Dog breeds are certainly more tightly genetically controlled than humans. But they're still all dogs. They can all interbreed. And they share certain typical characteristics within breeds.
A German Shepherd has a certain set of typical attributes. A Siberian Husky has another set of typical attributes. A Shepherd-Husky cross has yet another set of attributes. Dogs are grouped into logical classes on the basis of those attributes.
Humans are pretty diverse even within races and ethnicities, in terms of their
One often ignored characteristic (Score:2)
One characteristic I often see ignored in the discussion of successful versus unsuccessful groups is this: High intra-group empathy. Empathy and esteem the group members have for each other.
Intra-group empathy means less internal violence, more cooperation, less corruption and criminality, less preying of one group member on another. Leaders see this and make use of it. "Our group is the best! Each of you is fabulous because you're a member of this group!"
And then another important, somewhat coincident ch
Re: (Score:2)
If what he said WAS objectively true, would your response be any different?
Common sense (Score:2)
The answer is right there, it' just a bunch of scientist fighting with muddled words about who did what when. It's both, how can it not be? You are the sum of your creation and experiences, nothing more, nothing less. Sure people are born a certain way, with certain perks and downsides, at a certain time, and to certain people, but what that person does past that is their choice and their responsibility. There's going to be a million choices and factors to take into account, but ultimately it's that indi
Make your own economic theories! (Score:3)
You too can use the rigorous methods of this paper to prove your own theories explaining why European culture is the best!
Ingredients:
(A) a measure of economic/social/cultural development that puts Europe on top, 1500-2013CE (plenty to choose from; Europe was really good at conquering/enslaving/looting over this period)
(B) a second characteristic correlated with "Europeanism" (in the paper's case, genetic diversity based on migratory distance from Africa --- pick another to support your own pet theory).
Method:
Plot (A) vs. (B). Note the graph peaks around the maximally-European value of (B).
Conclude that having just the right value for (B) was a cause for Europe's maximal (A).
Yay! Now you too can "prove" why nice-sounding attributes (like "optimal genetic diversity for cultural cooperation") put Europe (deservingly!) on top, instead of bothering with the distasteful details of actual history (genocide, colonialism, neo-colonism, ...).
A 'Law' of Social Science (Score:2)
This is an example of social scientists challenging a 'law' of the social sciences, namely that there is no genetic reason why almost any reasonably large population of people should perform significantly better or worse than any other and any discrepency should be attributed to other socio-environmental factors.
Compare, for a moment, to the 'laws' of the physical sciences. These aren't necessarily completely accurate descriptions of the universe, but they are persistently true despite numerous challenges a
The soul of science? Gimme a break! (Score:2)
I skimmed over the original paper. It presents an interesting hypothesis, but the evidence is correlational, the analysis is complicated and indirect, and the relationship they found is not simple (not that bell-shaped curves can't occur, but they offer a lot more freedom in fitting data than monotonic relationships). If anybody actually is basing policy recommendations on it, I'd question their motives. But the attack on it seems a bit over the top, and I get the impression that the authors of the attack d
In conclusion, move! (Score:2)
Move further away from Africa and you'll be richer. So obviously that moon-based civilization will be unbelievably rich!
This explains ... (Score:2)
I tough this was already setteled... (Score:2)
If memory serves, "Guns , germs and steel" discusses at length the reasons for the large differences in technological advancement between countries/races. Surely Diamond is not perfect but what I read there made quite a bit of sense. Had nothing to do with genetics and much more with geography and a few key technologies. The part dedicated to the extermination of the Maya and Aztec civilizations was very insightful...
this is not science (Score:2)
Re:Sounds like Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
An article signed by 18 academics in Current Anthropology accuses the researchers of 'bad science'—'something false and undesirable' based on 'weak data and methods' that 'can become a justification for reactionary policy.' The paper attacks everything from its sources of population data to its methods for measuring genetic diversity,
If you missed that part of the summary, you might try leaving the fertile crescent and seeing if it makes sense afterward.
Re: (Score:2)
Alright, I'll bite. They aren't attacking science or the scientific method here, they're attacking the specific methods used here and the conclusions.
It's always bad science when runs counter to their preferred political narrative. Suggest that there are biological differences in intelligence, skill, or behavior between the sexes or races, and the villagers race out with their pitchforks. "Your science is impotent. You can't *prove* your claims." Suggest that we're all racist, sexist, homophobes based on some half assed psychology experiment, and it's "that's the way, uh huh uh huh, we like it, uh hu uh huh".
Re: (Score:2)
Suggest that there are biological differences in intelligence, skill, or behavior between the sexes or races, and the villagers race out with their pitchforks.
There is one notable exception: homosexuality. Find a gene that proves homosexulaity can be determined before birth, and you will be celebrated!
Everything else must be free will and environment, except sexuality, according to many. Why is that?
Re: (Score:2)
A genetic component does not make it moral. Brain damage that leads to you becoming an ax murderer doesn't give you the moral high ground. You're defective. Any concept of morality must depend on the values of others. Even among homosexuals, there is such a thing as intolerable behavior.
Re:Sounds like Republicans (Score:5, Interesting)
...based on the dynamics of the AGW arguments here, attacking methods and data and conclusions is tantamount to attacking the Scientific Method.
I disagree, I started following climate science in the early 80's, became convinced it was a serious problem in the mid 90's, and started posting on AGW somewhere around 2000, The (often raucous) AGW debate on this site has overall been a good example of how science works over time to defeat self-interested propaganda (eg: I can't remember the last time I heard the "volcanoes" canard on slashdot). I think at the very least most people who have followed the slashdot debate are better informed because of it, I know I am.
Re:Sounds like Republicans (Score:4, Funny)
I can't remember the last time I heard the "volcanoes" canard on slashdot
Is that something to do with ducks floating in volcanoes, so they're witches and therefore liberal pro-AGW fanatics?
Re: (Score:2)
What does Gladiator have in common with The Lone Ranger?
And he talks about drivel.
Fail. Think equine.
Re:This isn't a war within science (Score:5, Informative)
this is a war between scientists and a bunch of postmodernists parading around in lab coats shouting down results they don't like (cultural anthropologists.)
Umm, no. I take it you didn't even read the summary of either paper.
The economists claim that “the high degree of diversity among African populations and the low degree of diversity among Native American populations have been a detrimental force in the development of these regions.” In other words, that only populations with the "right" amount of genetic diversity (i.e. matching Europe) are likely to be successful. The rest of the scientific community points out that they have defined their terms in a way that gives the results that they want, and ignore existing standard means of measuring genetic diversity.
Re: This isn't a war within science (Score:2)
Re:This isn't a war within science (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm, what field of "science" most deserves those quotation marks? Macroeconomics, or cultural anthropology?
This is seriously a tough one.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, cultural anthropology is at least in part an empirical study, whereas economics is pure abstract idealism.
Re: (Score:2)
whereas economics is pure abstract idealism.
Did you realize when you wrote this that it's false? Do you understand that economics actually does empirical studies? The level of ignorance in your post is somewhat alarming.......
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It's an exaggeration, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that, without any empirical basis whatsoever, studies of real things don't have much value.
When you say this kind of thing, all it shows is that you haven't read many economics studies. They very much DO have an empirical basis. I would give you some examples, but clearly it won't do any good because you've never read any economics in your life.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that, without any empirical basis whatsoever, studies of real things don't have much value.
Real things inherently have an empirical basis. Otherwise they wouldn't be real.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, macro has worked pretty well until the last three or so decades when they forgot everything they learned about the large-scale dynamics of an economy and tried to model it instead on a completely false premise, i.e. that humans are fundamentally rational (and also that thus the market is always right). I understand the desire to be reductionist in science, I am a physicist after all, but you have to make sure that your small-scale behavior mirrors your large-scale behavior in the "macro" or "classical
Re: (Score:2)
So Keynesianism worked great, with the exception of the most recent 30 or 40 years, and anti-Keynesian (Austrian) economics is clearly a failure and you know that's so even though it has never been applied (unlike Keynesian economics was for at least 50 years).
Yea, okay, that makes perfect sense. I suggest you stick to physics.
Re: (Score:2)
So Keynesianism worked great, with the exception of the most recent 30 or 40 years, and anti-Keynesian (Austrian) economics is clearly a failure and you know that's so even though it has never been applied (unlike Keynesian economics was for at least 50 years).
Yea, okay, that makes perfect sense. I suggest you stick to physics.
Willful misreading of posts. Internet is so fun.
And I wasnt talking about Austrian economics.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, I forgot the ? after the "Austrian" - I didn't know what you were talking about with "anti-Keynesian", and Austrian school theory is all I could think of. In fact, I didn't know what you were talking about throughout your entire post. I've read it three times now and I still don't.
You can call that "willful" if you want, but seeing as you didn't even make an effort to explain yourself in your reply, I prefer to chalk it up to a physicist being inarticulate. Don't feel bad - I can't do tensor math.
Re: (Score:3)
Practitioners of a scientific discipline know that the first mistake outsiders often make is a failure to familiarize ones self with the often quite large body of peer reviewed published research in that field. The economists who authored the original article have fallen into that common blunder here.
When two disciplines come into conflict it is often a good idea to pay heed to the discipline whose field of expertise and history of research best covers the bone of contention. The central conflict here is ov
Re: (Score:2)
"racist, sexist, homophone!"
It's all just personal taste of course, but that's the first thought I had when I saw those new Window's Nokias. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
"racist, sexist, homophone!"
It's all just personal taste of course, but that's the first thought I had when I saw those new Windows Nokias. ;)
I try to avoid anything that might smack as beating up on my limp-wristed compadres (hey, they're not competing against me for women :-), but I've got to admit that's funny. And I own a Nokia. Ha!
Re: (Score:2)
I give you the Inca civilization vs the peoples of Tierra del Fuego as a counterexample.
Re: (Score:2)