PZ Myers. 2005 Jul 08. The conservative counterattack...ho hum.. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/the_conservative_counterattack_ho_hum/>. Accessed 2008 Nov 20.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Friday, July 08, 2005
The conservative counterattack...ho hum.
Brian Leiter tells me that Todd Zywicki at the Volokh Conspiracy has made a kind of counterattack in response to the The New Republic's embarrassing interview of conservative pundits on evolution and intelligent design. He also misses the mark badly.
Will he also do a survey next week of liberal intellectuals on evolutionary psychology and whether they believe that are biological differences between the sexes? And whether those insights should be taught in school too?
Whoa, hold it. Notice the strange shift: the TNR article was about conservative pundits and thinkers; does Zywicki think that means "intellectuals"? Jonah Goldberg, an intellectual? The conservatives may be in bigger trouble than I thought.
He also makes another apples and oranges comparison. The TNR article asked general questions about a broad topic, evolution, on which there is virtually universal agreement among biologists, and found that many of the prominent voices in the conservative community are so far off the reality reservation that they disagree. This does not equate to asking liberals about subjects on which scientists legitimately and vigorously disagree—this is something on which we can reasonably expect to find disagreement among pundits, disagreement which is not indicative of a disconnect with the scientific community.
And what a silly question! "Are there biological differences between the sexes?" I do agree that if any liberal pundit says no, he or she is as much an idiot as those conservatives who claim evolution didn't occur. As for evolutionary psychology, I'm a biologist, and I'm in the camp that says it's a load of poorly done hokum, so I'll forgive Paul Krugman if he should think EP is junk; I'll be less pleased if he says he agrees with it, but since EP does have many proponents in academe and is taught at places like Harvard, I'll just have to roll my eyes and be understanding.
Zywicki lists the questions he'd ask. I'm not an official liberal pundit, but I do play one on my weblog, so I'll take a shot at them.
1. Are differences between men's and women's aptitudes solely a result of society and culture, or is there an evolutionary basis for some of those distinctions?
There is so much wrong with that question.
First, it assumes that there is a difference between men's and women's aptitudes. I know many women who are brilliant scientists, much smarter than I; it would be the act of a presumptuous pipsqueak for me to declare that my gonads bestow a greater aptitude for science on me.
But if I grant him that assumption, and agree that there is a statistical difference in the distribution of the sexes in various occupations which is in some way driven by gender, I would say that it is 100% the product of society and culture, and that it is 100% the product of biological evolution.
He's making the old, tired nature/nurture distinction, and it drives me nuts. It's a false dichotomy that is perpetuated by an antiquated misconception about how development and biology works. Genes don't work alone, they always interact with their environment, and the outcome of developmental processes is always contingent upon both genetic and non-genetic factors. There is nothing for which this is more true than the development of the mind: the brain is a structure which is incredibly plastic and responsive to input, since that is its job, to respond in sophisticated ways to complex situations.
Look, we're in the middle of a culture shift right now, and I see it nearly every day. Thirty years ago when I was in college most of my instructors and peers were male, and the stereotypical scientist would have been a guy with glasses and a white lab coat. It would have been easy to look around my classrooms and judge science as a male-dominated activity and make some half-assed guess that it had something to do with testosterone and bigger brains. Nowadays, I sometimes get class sections that are all women, and I feel a bit like a male dinosaur standing at the front of the room.
In biology at least, the trend is for the field to be populated by increasing numbers of women. In the next generation, the appropriate stereotype will be a woman in glasses and a white lab coat. Will the innatists start making half-assed guesses that it has something to do with estrogen and a nurturing instinct, or will they instead simply use the current situation of male privilege to prevent them from breaking into the upper ranks of the scientific hierarchy?
2. Do you think that schools should expose children to the scientific hypothesis that evolution has produced innate differences between men and women in interest and aptitudes, or should they teach that all differences are socially-constructed?
Neither. For one, "scientific hypothesis" is a generous promotion for the claim; I believe grade school kids ought to be instructed in the solid basics, not the hotly debated stuff on the edge. For another, this whole business of dividing the concept of gender differences into two wildly different and incompatible extremes, as I mentioned above, is lunacy.
3. Do you believe that Harvard's faculty was correct in censuring President Larry Summers for offering the hypothesis that differential performance by men and women in math and science achievement at elite universities may be in part the result of differential distribution of natural abilities in math and science between men and women at several standard deviations above the mean?
Emphatically yes.
What kind of idiot stands in front of a group of smart, accomplished, successful women scientists and tells them that he thinks women aren't as capable as men at doing science? He's in a room full of counterexamples, and he doesn't even notice? I say, fire him for being incompetent at his job and applying bad theory to administrative practice.
4. Do you believe that the theory of evolution applies to the evolution of mental traits as well as physiological traits?
The last question I refer to elsewhere as the question of "Neck-down Darwinism"--the idea that evolution applies only to the evolution of physical, but not mental, traits.
Oh. My. Gog. I've never paid much attention to Zywicki before, and now I see why: the guy is a flaming moron. "Neck-down Darwinism"? Not only does he use that term the evolutionarily clueless favor, "Darwinism", but he's invented this whole nonsensical straw man. I think EP is a pile of codswallop, but that definitely does not mean I think our heads poofed into existence magically.
Our brains are the product of evolution. I believe there has been selection for greater capacity, greater flexibility, and almost certainly other specific attributes in our species. I also believe that men and women belong to that same species, and both bear those same genes that have been the product of our evolution. There are different patterns of gene activity in men and women that are the consequences of different epigenetic influences; these definitely induce differences in development of the body, and may bias the development of the brain in various subtle ways, but any intrinsic biological differences in the operation of the adult brain are overwhelmed by social and cultural factors. My brain would be a very different thing if I'd grown up a child of neglect rather than as a member of a strong and supportive family, and those differences are more significant than if I'd been born a girl instead of a boy. I also think if I'd been born a girl, that it would be the subsequent expectations and pressures of family and society that would have a greater effect on my career choices than some slight difference in the size of my suprachiasmatic nucleus.
Will the left's religious faith in political correctness prove as powerful for liberals as traditional religious faith is for conservatives?
Man, he can't stop making up caricatures and straw men, can he? Opponents of evolutionary psychology do not dislike the field because of some political bias, but because we think it is poor science.
Posted by PZ Myers on 07/08 at 08:18 AM
Politics • Science • 2 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
Politics • Science • 2 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
-
Leiter writes, after stating that he has little tolerance for ID:
[The writers that]conducted this survey) plainly have their own "religious" beliefs when it comes to scientific questions. If we understand "religious" in this context along the lines of "unquestioned truths taken on authority" that render "taboo" certain scientific topics of inquiry or which is impervious to rejection by evidence, then it is plain that in some areas the left has elevated "religious" belief over scientific inquiry by turning certain scientific questions into unquestionable articles of faith, rather than open questions subject for scientific inquiry.
Leiter makes the false (but conervative dognmatic) claim that the "left" has elevated the legitimate claims of scientifc inquiry into articles of "religiuos faith". He then claims that these "articles" are not open to scientific inquiry.
This is an oft repeated but completely disingenuous argument. Leiter condemns ID, but extends the ID argument. Established science, under Lieter's view, can always be undermined trough the claims of psuedoscience or any politically motivated and properly packaged cause
I wish I had more time to write, but it is a stock trading day and things are moving#: Posted by on 07/08 at 08:50 AM - NOT Leiter -- Leiter brought the article to my attention, but it's Todd Zywicki who is making those mistakes.
-
PZ - I'm a long time lurker, and agree that this is a silly rejoinder on the part of Zywicki. My fear is that the crowing over the conservative pundit is at least poorly timed. I think that the thesis of these attacks is that conservatives, more so than liberals are forced into silly conclusions by ideology and ignorance. However the only data I have seen is that some conservatives make silly conclusions based on ideology and ignorance. There is no data on a similar set of liberal pundits. My confidence is high that they would fair better; it is low that there would be anything resembling a complete lack of ideology and ignorance. My inner scientist says: finnish the data collection.
My inner scientist also says keep up the educational fight. I interact regularly with some liberal engineers who believe in evolution but whose dogmatic faith is appealed to by ID. "But how could you prove that some action of a designer didn't happen somewhere/sometime?" they might ask. My most successful rebuttals have appealed to power. I think that claiming the ID proves God must move around by way of a flagellum is funny. They don't. But when I offer any of the hundreds of powerful explainatory mechanisms of evolution (I've recently read Dawkins' "The Ancestors Tail" and Carroll's "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" , plenty of raw material but I still come here for more) they are reminded of the reasons to embrace the more empirical viewpoint.#: Posted by on 07/08 at 09:27 AM - Apparently, in some ideologues' dream worlds, there is no scientific research, only ideology and bias. There's no need to be surprised about that, considering that conservatives have been at the forefront of ignoring science for 2300 years.
-
"Are there biological differences between the sexes?"
Pull down your pants, Todd, so we can get a good look at your mangina. -
"Will the innatists start making half-assed guesses that it has something to do with estrogen and a nurturing instinct, or will they instead simply use the current situation of male privilege to prevent them from breaking into the upper ranks of the scientific hierarchy?"
Answer: neither. They'll just say that bioscience is an unimportant activity. And salaries will go down--it always happens when a field feminizes.#: Posted by on 07/08 at 09:56 AM -
My apologies to Leiter. I stand corrected.
#: Posted by on 07/08 at 09:59 AM
- Man, that guy's so dumb I'll bet he thinks he has ovaries.
- What's funny to me is all these men assume that if we determine intelligence is a sex-related genetic trait, that men will be the ones that are found more intelligent. I guess the best way to get them to calm down is to point out that if one sex is "naturally" smarter than the other, there's a 50% chance that it's women. Do they want their pathetic arguments about their right to dominate to be determined by a coin flip? I don't think so.
- I think instead they'll just try to redefine "intelligent" to mean "thinks like a man". No coin flip required.
-
Just curious but what do you think of the differences between men and women's "spatial memory" and other mental differences? Some elaborate social mechanism borne out of the 1950's or a significant scientific finding that men and women approach the same issue from different points of view?
In reality it is likely unethical to thoroughly test this and many other hypotheses/theories, since it would require setting up a society that forcibly made both sexes as perfectly the same as possible from a social stand point.#: Posted by on 07/08 at 11:24 AM - I have no problem with accepting that measurement may reveal statistical differences in specific cognitive abilities...just don't try to tell me that they are "genetic". They are built upon a biological substrate that is both genetic and environmental, and it's silly to say something as abstract and highly derived as "spatial memory" is simply innate.
-
4. Do you believe that the theory of evolution applies to the evolution of mental traits as well as physiological traits?
The last question I refer to elsewhere as the question of "Neck-down Darwinism"--the idea that evolution applies only to the evolution of physical, but not mental, traits.
It always amazes me that the people who stand the most to lose from a "scientific" understanding of intelligence are always the ones who insist we accept one.#: Posted by jayinbmore on 07/08 at 11:59 AM -
Zywicki has responded to your post.
Update:
Oddly, Pharyngula says that I critique a straw man--while turning my argument into a straw man. Obviously there is an interaction between nature and nurture, which I thought was quite clear in my post and in my article linked in my post. And if the left is willing to acknowledge this fact, then that is great. Then we are left with an empirical question of understanding how nature and nurture interact. On the other hand, my impression is that there are many on the left who continue to deny any role for nature and instead adhere to a model of social construction of many of these traits and attributes.
Pharyngula also says:
This does not equate to asking liberals about subjects on which scientists legitimately and vigorously disagree—this is something on which we can reasonably expect to find disagreement among pundits, disagreement which is not indicative of a disconnect with the scientific community.
***
As for evolutionary psychology, I'm a biologist, and I'm in the camp that says it's a load of poorly done hokum, so I'll forgive Paul Krugman if he should think EP is junk; I'll be less pleased if he says he agrees with it, but since EP does have many proponents in academe and is taught at places like Harvard, I'll just have to roll my eyes and be understanding.
Now this is quite a sweeping indictment of the field of evolutionary psychology--the entire field is "a load of poorly done hokum." I am not aware of of any substantial disagreement among knowledgeable scientists on the following concepts in evolutionary psychology (just to name a few): Hamilton's theory of kin-group selection, Trivers's theory of reciprocal altruism, the innate ability to acquire culture, the unusual degree of plasticity of human minds relative to other species, the parent-child bond, certain types of aversion and disgust, the incest taboo, an innate ability to detect intentionality, that our brains neural circuits were designed by natural selection to solve problems that our ancestors faced during our species' evolutionary history, the specialization of different neural circuits for solving different adaptive problems--just to mention a few.
It is my understanding that there is little disagreement, much less "vigorous" disagreement, among knowledgeable scientists on these particular points. Perhaps Pharyngula is aware of raging debates over Hamilton's kin-selection theory, fo instance, of which I am unaware. If so, it would be useful for me at least to see some actual critiques of the specifics of some of these core concepts in evolutionary psychology, rather than a blanket dismissal of a straw-man version of evolutionary psychology with little more than a dismissive hand-wave and tired appeal to a purported authority.
There are also certainly plenty of other issues in evolutionary psychology around the periphery on which there certainly is disagreement (which is why, where relevant, I conditioned my claims accordingly). But it is just as erroneous to assume that all questions are unsettled as it is to deny the presence of unsettled questions. To suggest that the entire field is "hokum" or that it is all up in the air or subject to disagreement is simply inaccurate.#: Posted by on 07/08 at 12:53 PM -
He's squinking madly, isn't he?
I am not aware of of any substantial disagreement among knowledgeable scientists on the following concepts in evolutionary psychology (just to name a few): Hamilton's theory of kin-group selection, Trivers's theory of reciprocal altruism, the innate ability to acquire culture, the unusual degree of plasticity of human minds relative to other species, the parent-child bond, certain types of aversion and disgust, the incest taboo, an innate ability to detect intentionality, that our brains neural circuits were designed by natural selection to solve problems that our ancestors faced during our species' evolutionary history, the specialization of different neural circuits for solving different adaptive problems--just to mention a few.
That semi-random list of principles is not the same as EP. It's like saying that because Michael Behe understands and agrees that natural selection has occurred, Intelligent Design is therefore the same as accepted neo-Darwinian theory. Picking a few points of concordance while ignoring the points of divergence between two ideas to imply a unity of support that is not there is, well, dishonest.
Nah, I'm plainspoken. He's lying. There is substantial disagreement in the biological community on evolutionary psychology, and to imply that this question has been settled in his favor is either gross ignorance on his part or simple fraud. Of course there is currently an ongoing battle over EP; check out the last link in my article.
I'm actually being kind by conceding that there is a legitimate debate on the subject. I know very few scientists who don't think Pinker is full of shit. -
Good take-down, PZ.
I just have to remark on the women have lesser "spatial abilities" or "mechanical abilities" or "math skills" thing. Even if you place it in the context of 1950s gender roles, it still doesn't wash, as anyone who has ever had to repair and maintain a sewing machine, design a kid's costume from scratch, or knit a complicated garment using five different yarns, one stitch at a time, would know.
Gender and sexual differences certainly exist, but to my perspective they are far less compelling than the differences between individuals, including between individuals of the same sex. I mean, hell, the category of "male" includes both Lance Armstrong and Michael Moore, jockeys and football players and basketball players, musicians and firemen, professors and coal miners, pundits and eggheads, drag queens and pro wrestlers, Woody Allen and Jesse Ventura. If you can tell me what special qualities these people have that make them distinct as a group from an equally varied group of women, aside from a Y chromosome and a penis, I'll give you a cookie. -
The last question I refer to elsewhere as the question of "Neck-down Darwinism"--the idea that evolution applies only to the evolution of physical, but not mental, traits.
"Neck-down Darwinism" doesn't go far enough: though I agree with Zywicki that evolution can't explain human mental faculties, I also refuse to accept that natural selection is capable of shaping any physical component of the cranium, pectoral extremities, or upper thorax. I am an adamant Xiphoid-down Darwinist.
Moreover, as Zywicki suggests, I emphatically reject the existence of any biological differences whatsoever between the sexes. I am also currently working on formulating a theory of reproduction. It is very hard.#: Posted by on 07/08 at 02:10 PM -
On the difference between Evolutionary Psychology and evolutionary psychology, this is useful:
http://mixingmemory.blogspot.com/2005/06/evolutionary-psychology-vs.html -
Having had previous encounters with Volokh's Todd "I don't know shit about it, but I'm going to comment on it like I was an expert anway" Zywicki, and I've learned from those encounters (which included long, and incredibly frustrating email conversations in which he would fall deeper and deeper into a well of ignorance while, at the same time, becoming more and more convinced that he was right). Based on my experience, I can give you two pieces of advice:
1. Ignore him.
2. Ignore him some more.
When scholars are so blatantly unscholarly as Zywicki regularly is, especially where issues of science are concerned, on the Volokh blog, it's best to just pretend they don't exist. - Err... at least as far as Trivers and reciprocal altruism goes in that litany, I'd say there's plenty of debate on extending the concept to human altruism. Blood-sharing in bats is great, but that sort of behavior bears almost no resemblance to the sappy sentiment most people think of when we say "altruism", and it's extraordinarily unlikely that they have a similar mechanism of origin.
-
Rana (as in frog?), the spatial reasoning ability differences between males and females are the only real cognitive difference that stands up across different parts of the curve (in the middle and at the ends), and over several related tasks. It's small, of course, but it's difficult to dismiss. What it means, exactly, and why it exists is unknown. It also shows up fairly early in development (you can't do a mental rotation task with an infant, so it's not clear exactly how early). Differences in math abilities, however, don't show up until about high school, and only exist in parts of the curve, in some test-taking contexts, and for secondary math skills. There is some evidence that differences in spatial reasoning ability account for a significant portion of the variance in secondary math skills (if I recall, it's around 15-20%, but it could be less), but the exact relationship between these two types of skills is unknown, and thus the innateness of gender differences in mathematical ability has only limited and indirect support.
There is also a great deal of evidence for social and individual psychological factors in gender differences in mathematical ability, including the context effects (different test-taking situations) and the fact that things like stereotype threat account for some (small) portions of the variance. If conservatives and liberals were both being honest, they would note that we just don't know to what extent differences in mathematical ability are due to innate factors, and how those factors (if they exist) interact with the environmental factors that also influence these differences. They'd note that the only difference we can be relatively sure of is in spatial reasoning, and that it's a very small difference that may or may not be related to math differences.
But as is often the case, people lose the science when it gets thrown in the stew with politics. Of course, Zywicki has never found the science, so he can't lose it. -
Reading the full Zywicki post and his follow ups I "get" what he's trying to say, but I just don't think it's worth saying. There's a big difference between mushy areas of current science that bump into socio-politics and long dead, ideologically driven pseudo-science. The whole post just sounds like "sure our guys are totally wrong, but some of your guys are sort of confused".
#: Posted by on 07/08 at 06:17 PM
-
There seems to be an epidemic on this blog of loudly claiming victory in any debate in which the Pharyngulist has clearly lost. DarkSyde did this after claiming Iran and Iraq are model democracies, and P. Z. does it here after Ziwicki has clearly handed him his ass on a platter. I admire Myers' photographic memory and minute knowledge of flatworms, the larynx, and hormones but he doesn't seem to possess the kind of analytical reasoning skills that would enable him to make sensible conjecture at the boundaries of knowledge.
Ziwicki makes a apt analogy between the conservative conflict over creationism and the left's anguished rejection of EP and any other assertion of significant differences between men and women above the neck. In order to make meaningful statements about this subject on the basis of science, one would have to be armed with correlational knowledge from the broad fields of sociology, anthropology, and gender studies, knowledge that Myers clearly lacks (as he's demonstrated several times on this very blog.)
It's a shame that conservatives are so soft on creationism and the efforts to re-introduce it into science curricula under the guise of ID or "teaching the conflict". It's equally shameful that people like Myers approach the topic of sexual differences from the standpoint of a straight-jacketed ideology that insists on the politically correct answer independent of the facts.
It's also shameful to see Myers slandering Larry Summers over and over. Those of you who appreciate Myers' battling the ID menace should not encourage him in his gender folly. One reason conservatives are inclined to give the ID'ers a pass is the belief that for all their folly they're not as destructive to the culture as the doctrinaire feminists.#: Posted by Richard B. on 07/08 at 06:21 PM -
Richard B, you don't seem to have actually read anything that PZ had to say. Whatever the "left" may or may not think about gender differences, and whether or not those folks are constrained by PC allegiances, and however you and Ziwicki may characterize any of that, nothing that PZ had to say is remotely aligned with any of that.
Instead of coming back at Ziwicki from any sort of "leftist" perspective (or from your caricature of same), PZ flanked your boss-man and totally demolished his antiquated and rigid nature-nurture stereotype of how any such differences may develop.
Was this point too subtle for you: even if there are some genetic or developmentally driven differences of this kind, the differences WITHIN members of a gender on any such axis overwhelm any differences BETWEEN genders.
Good grief!#: Posted by on 07/08 at 06:44 PM -
This isn't a meaningful statement, even though it looks like one: "even if there are some genetic or developmentally driven differences of this kind, the differences WITHIN members of a gender on any such axis overwhelm any differences BETWEEN genders." It's the statement of one who's afraid the fully and completely analyze the nature of sex differences because he's afraid of what he might find.
Differences in height and upper body strength are greater among women than between women and men, apparently. What a shock.
And then there's the Summers point, that certain mental apttitudes are distributed differently among men and women, which is based on the interaction of the genes on the X and Y chromosomes, basic biology, but the mere mention of which causes the Rainman Myers to fly into a rage.
Yes, do go on.#: Posted by Richard B. on 07/08 at 06:54 PM -
PZ we gave you some love over at our place, click through for a prize!
#: Posted by Pinko Punko on 07/08 at 07:14 PM
-
"that certain mental apttitudes are distributed differently among men and women, which is based on the interaction of the genes on the X and Y chromosomes,"
"that certain mental apttitudes are distributed differently among men and women, which is based on the interaction of the genes on the X and Y chromosomes,"
What evidence do you have to back this claim? For example, are any genes related to brain development expressed on the Y chromosome? (Men and women both have at least one X chromosome...as you presumably know instinctively being a man and therefore naturally science-oriented and all;) Have testosterone, estrogen, or any other sex hormones been shown to effect neurons differentially (ie does estrogen stimulate the neurons in the Broca's or Wernicke's areas, leading to improved verbal skills)? Is regulation of neural genes on the X chromosome affected by sex hormones or perhaps by genes on the Y chromosome? In short, which genes and what interactions are you talking about and how do they add up to average differences in behavior between men and women?#: Posted by on 07/08 at 07:22 PM -
Chris, yes it is as in frog.
Without seeing the studies in question, I can't respond to how reasonable their assumptions or testing protocols might be.
All I can offer is anecdotal; the fact that I know several men who have trouble with spatial orientation (as in the form of assembling IKEA furniture, say) and several women to whom thinking in three dimensions while looking at two-dimensional plans, however, suggests to me that if there are indeed hardwired differences, they are so small and so easily shaped by training and experience as to not be significant enough to matter. It's a bit like claiming that women have better color sense because they have a larger vocabulary of color-description words. It's so much that women are or are not more sensitive to color variation, but that the ways we use to determine color sensitivity it are themselves socially constructed.
What I was getting in the second half of my comment at is less that differences may exist and more at the anecdotal evidence that variations within sexual groups are as of equal or greater significance than those between them. A minor tendency in one direction, especially a tendency that is identified within a cultural context (and thus probably influenced by unspoken cultural assumptions), doesn't necessarily mean all that much when looking at the ramifications for day to day functioning and/or success. -
Chris: The problem with any study seeking to demonstrate that men and women have different innate mental abilities is that it is virtually impossible to eliminate environmental influence as a factor. Studies looking at how people interact with babies suggest that people begin treating boys and girls differently at birth--and the differences in how boys and girls are treated only increases with age. Given all the confounding factors, it is nearly impossible to get a reliable result. It may be that men and women have, on average, different spatial abilities, but the evidence currently available is far from conclusive.
#: Posted by on 07/08 at 08:23 PM
-
I'd agree with Chris that there is a well-established statistical difference in this property called "spatial memory". The problem, though, is that cause has not been established, and as Dianne says, it's pretty much impossible to test for an intrinsic difference, and as Rana says, the variation means you can't reasonably judge a person's ability from their sex. I imagine different hormonal environments for male and female embryos do impose some differences on the brain, but I don't see any data that suggests the differences are significant, and certainly aren't sufficient for someone to assess career potential on the basis of sex.
One other thing I'd add is that we don't even understand what the biological substrate for this parameter "spatial memory" might be, and as is usual when examining emergent properties like higher level cognitive functions or gene activities, it may very well be that what we've labeled "spatial memory" because that is what the convenient test measures might actually be something entirely different. - Pinko Punko, I don't think I want to admit what those larvae reminded me of.
-
I think you proved Volokh's point for him...
1. An ad hominem attack on conservatives like Jonah Goldberg
2. A kneejerk attack on evolutionary psychology with no reasons given for the rejection or explanation of whether you reject the whole concept or merely the current thinking in the field.
3. Refusal to address the question of whether "differences between men's and women's aptitudes" are caused by nature and nurture by rejecting the dichotomy. Note that this is, in itself, a statement about your opinion of nature vs. nurture in this context - after all, I am sure that you would not claim that it is impossible to talk about whether nature or nurture cause sickle cell anemia or lack of arm pit hair. We all understand that it is possible for medical treatment (in other words nurture) to ameliorate (and perhaps soon eliminate) sickle cell anemia and that a woman could be born without armpit hair rather than choosing whether or not to shave it and that the choice of whether or not to shave under the arms could be influenced by genes, but by and large the first is nature and the second is nurture. The reflexive unwillingness to draw similar conclusions about sex differences indicates that you have exactly the kind of taboos that Volokh was talking about.
4. The resort to anecdote to argue that there may not be a difference between men's and women's aptitudes.
5. The use of a strawman - implying that Volokh has somehow claimed that there are no brilliant female scientists.
6. Your refusal to address the question about whether "schools should expose children to the scientific hypothesis that evolution has produced innate differences between men and women in interest and aptitudes, or should they teach that all differences are socially-constructed". As we all know, these issues have to be addressed in schools because children demand answers and the schools do address them. Avoiding the question indicates that you are afraid of the answer.
7. Resort to anecdote to argue that Summers was wrong - the presence of any number of brilliant female scientists has no bearing on the question he was addressing - whether innate sex differences are part of the reason why there are fewer female scientist than male scientists. It's easy to see how silly your argument is if we turn it around... would you use the same argument to claim that we don't need to do anything to make the sciences more welcoming to women by, for example, better accommodating family life, because the presence of smart, accomplished, successful women in Summers' audience proves he is wrong?
Maybe you should go back and rewrite this post... this time providing real arguments instead of poorly reasoned hysteria.#: Posted by on 07/08 at 09:20 PM -
PZ Myers wrote: "I have no problem with accepting that measurement may reveal statistical differences in specific cognitive abilities...just don't try to tell me that they are "genetic". They are built upon a biological substrate that is both genetic and environmental, and it's silly to say something as abstract and highly derived as "spatial memory" is simply innate."
A question about terminology: Is there anything you would call "genetic"? It seems to me that if environmental influences disqualifies something from being "genetic", then close to nothing is really "genetic".#: Posted by on 07/08 at 09:21 PM -
"There is some evidence that differences in spatial reasoning ability account for a significant portion of the variance in secondary math skills..."
And I think the same result is made on music skills and math. Perhaps a wider skill set help even in areas where they are not directly applicable?
But I would not think it a requirement because there are good mathematicians who doesn't do well on either skill. (Sorry, no reference handy.)
"...not as destructive to the culture as the doctrinaire feminists."
Feminism is a diverse collection of social theories, political movements, and moral philosophies. (Wikipedia.)
Exactly what are their doctrine?#: Posted by on 07/08 at 09:22 PM -
"Your refusal to address the question about whether "schools should expose children to the scientific hypothesis that evolution has produced innate differences between men and women in interest and aptitudes, or should they teach that all differences are socially-constructed"."
I think PZ adressed that - we can't put the answer in either of those two categories.
Maybe you should go back and reread this post...#: Posted by on 07/08 at 09:33 PM -
Erik 12345:
Is there anything you would call "genetic"? It seems to me that if environmental influences disqualifies something from being "genetic", then close to nothing is really "genetic".
Actually, there is nothing I would call "genetic". As PZ stated, everything is 100% genetic AND 100% environmental. It is the interplay of the two during development (so everything is also 100% developmental), even for traits for which we know a lot about the actualy changes in the DNA sequence, e.g., sickle cell anemia. -
"Your refusal to address the question about whether "schools should expose children to the scientific hypothesis that evolution has produced innate differences between men and women in interest and aptitudes, or should they teach that all differences are socially-constructed"."
I think PZ adressed that - we can't put the answer in either of those two categories.
Torbjorn, get real. He avoids the question.
We all know that schools are addressing these questions but he just says that we shouldn't teach the issue because it isn't yet settled.#: Posted by on 07/08 at 09:52 PM -
Coturnix:
Actually, there is nothing I would call "genetic". As PZ stated, everything is 100% genetic AND 100% environmental. It is the interplay of the two during development (so everything is also 100% developmental), even for traits for which we know a lot about the actualy changes in the DNA sequence, e.g., sickle cell anemia.
How can something which is both 100% genetic AND 100% environmental, not be genetic? This seems to violate the logical principle that the conjunction P & Q entails P.#: Posted by on 07/08 at 10:09 PM -
I'm not to impressed with EP. It suggests that men are driven to mate with young nubile women? Have you seen what the average hunter gather looks like by the time she is 25-30? Usually she doesn't look so young. Personally I hope my ancestors were the ones smart enough to mate with these slightly older but still quite fertile women, while male EP idiots were busy clubbing each other to death in a fight over a seventeen year old.
#: Posted by on 07/08 at 10:12 PM
-
Yes, but your are asking for something that is "purely" genetic and nothing else, don't you? Correct me if I am wrong.
Such a trait does not exist. Nature does not work that way. EVERY trait is a result of the interplay between many genes, developmental trajectories (susceptible to noise) and environmental cues. -
cont'd
Which also means that "nature vs. nurture" argument is a fallacy, not an opinion. That was laid to rest 50 years ago in the debate between Konrad Lorenz and Daniel Lehrmann. Everything since then is just fine-tuning. Mentioning additivity of nature and nurture rightfully provokes signs of anquish and/or boredom, similar to the claim that evolution is "just a theory" - debunked soooo long ago. -
Yes, but your are asking for something that is "purely" genetic and nothing else, don't you? Correct me if I am wrong.
Strawman alert... no one has asked for any such thing.
Mentioning additivity of nature and nurture rightfully provokes signs of anquish and/or boredom,
Strawman alert... no one has mentioned any such thing.
Coturnix, if you really have cogent responses to our arguments why do you feel the need to put up these silly and poorly done strawmen? Try knocking down our real arguments.
PS. Some traits are clearly purely environmental. For example, if an invading army kills a pregnant woman it is hard to see how any genetic change in the fetus could prevent it from exhibiting the trait "Dead as a doornail".
In contrast, it is always possible to imagine a medical intervention that can change any genetically set trait so I suppose no traits are 100% genetic, but don't you think that arguing that sickle cell anemia is environmental because a bone marrow transplant could prevent it is pushing things a bit?#: Posted by on 07/08 at 10:32 PM -
1. An ad hominem attack on conservatives like Jonah Goldberg
Goldberg deserves a fate much worse than an ad hominem from a blogger. How about losing his job and soapbox and relieving us from his inane rantings? Anyway, it was not PZ's job in this post to provide a detailed analysis of each concervative pundit's track record. He actually stated openly that he is evaluating them exclusively according to their responses to the TNR questions. If you want to know what's wrong about Goldberg, thousands of bloggers have dissected him over the months and years and a quick search can give you an insight.
2. A kneejerk attack on evolutionary psychology with no reasons given for the rejection or explanation of whether you reject the whole concept or merely the current thinking in the field.
PZ has written about Evolutionary Psychology (capitalized) before and need not go into details within this post. I bet he has no problem with evolutionary psychology (lowercase), though. No biologist I know has a problem with that. See the link I provided on p.1 of comments for definitions.
3. Refusal to address the question of whether "differences between men's and women's aptitudes" are caused by nature and nurture by rejecting the dichotomy. Note that this is, in itself, a statement about your opinion of nature vs. nurture in this context - after all, I am sure that you would not claim that it is impossible to talk about whether nature or nurture cause sickle cell anemia or lack of arm pit hair. We all understand that it is possible for medical treatment (in other words nurture) to ameliorate (and perhaps soon eliminate) sickle cell anemia and that a woman could be born without armpit hair rather than choosing whether or not to shave it and that the choice of whether or not to shave under the arms could be influenced by genes, but by and large the first is nature and the second is nurture. The reflexive unwillingness to draw similar conclusions about sex differences indicates that you have exactly the kind of taboos that Volokh was talking about.
Dichotomy has been rejected a half a century ago. It is not a matter of opinion. Insisting on a neat division between nature and nurture betrays one's naivete about biology (at best) or ideologically-based need for such a dichotomy (as in Gene Expression blog folks).
4. The resort to anecdote to argue that there may not be a difference between men's and women's aptitudes.
Where's the anecdote? I love anecdotes yet I don't see any. He is not arguing that there are no differences, just that the current research is incapable of stating anything on the matter with anything close to certainty. On the other hand your certainty on the matter is based on what?
5. The use of a strawman - implying that Volokh has somehow claimed that there are no brilliant female scientists.
Besides the point. Completely. You completely misunderstood the whole argument.
6. Your refusal to address the question about whether "schools should expose children to the scientific hypothesis that evolution has produced innate differences between men and women in interest and aptitudes, or should they teach that all differences are socially-constructed". As we all know, these issues have to be addressed in schools because children demand answers and the schools do address them. Avoiding the question indicates that you are afraid of the answer.
You are providing a false dichotomy and PZ, of course, rejects it. The state of science on this matter is still in flux and it is not appropriate to include it at levels lower than college senior classes. On the other hand, evolution is a settled deal and a basis for all biology and HAS to be taught if we are going to teach biology in high schools at all.
7. Resort to anecdote to argue that Summers was wrong - the presence of any number of brilliant female scientists has no bearing on the question he was addressing - whether innate sex differences are part of the reason why there are fewer female scientist than male scientists. It's easy to see how silly your argument is if we turn it around... would you use the same argument to claim that we don't need to do anything to make the sciences more welcoming to women by, for example, better accommodating family life, because the presence of smart, accomplished, successful women in Summers' audience proves he is wrong?
The Summers saga has been trashed over and over again back when it happened, including on this blog. Do a search for details and you will see that this is not an anecdote. This post was not a proper place for including another 3000 words on something that has already been settled on this blog and elsewhere long time ago.
Maybe you should go back and rewrite this post... this time providing real arguments instead of poorly reasoned hysteria.
Your comment is an excellent example of poorly reasoned hysteria.
BTW, dead as a doornail is NOT a trait. You just invented it. -
Coturnix:
Yes, but your are asking for something that is "purely" genetic and nothing else, don't you? Correct me if I am wrong.
No, I am asking a question about terminology.#: Posted by on 07/08 at 10:40 PM -
"Genetic" means written in the DNA sequence.
"Environmetal" means NOT written in the DNA sequence.
If you look at ANY trait, you will see that the question is posed wrongly. No trait is determined entirely by the DNA seuqnce, nor by eth envitonment. Traits develop. During development many facotrs, including seuqences of many genes, patterns of expresssion of many genes, developmental noise, direct effects of environment, environmental cues (for which responses have evolved), etc. all work together. The various facotrs always ALL play a role and it is impossible to assign them %-points, e.g., 30% genetic, 70% environmental. This is just very BAD biology. - Sorry for bad spelling. I have a fever and need to go to bed right now.
-
Here's a book to read before you continue this conversation, so you do not dig youself deeper:
http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2005/06/books-biased-embryos-and-evolution-by.html -
PZ:
<blockquote> 3. Do you believe that Harvard's faculty was correct in censuring President Larry Summers for offering the hypothesis that differential performance by men and women in math and science achievement at elite universities may be in part the result of differential distribution of natural abilities in math and science between men and women at several standard deviations above the mean?
Emphatically yes.
What kind of idiot stands in front of a group of smart, accomplished, successful women scientists and tells them that he thinks women aren't as capable as men at doing science? He's in a room full of counterexamples, and he doesn't even notice? I say, fire him for being incompetent at his job and applying bad theory to administrative practice.
</blockquote>
He very well might have stepped in it as spoken, however I think the issue itself does need further analysis. Men and women ARE different. Saying that these differences cannot include the mental arena is ridiculous. Period.
For my money, kids of either sex should be encouraged in their dreams, aspirations, talents, etc. as they discover them. The feminists who think that mathematics (for example) should be represented by a 50/50 sex mix are perhaps seriously mistaken. However any instructor suggesting to a math interested female student that she should not study the field is not doing the field, the student, or themselves any good whatsoever.#: Posted by John M. Price on 07/08 at 11:11 PM -
Japanese QuailThe various facotrs always ALL play a role and it is impossible to assign them %-points, e.g., 30% genetic, 70% environmental. This is just very BAD biology.
So, in essence, you are saying that the entire field of behavioral genetics is in error or a fraud or not biology?#: Posted by John M. Price on 07/08 at 11:15 PM -
Coturnix:
If you look at ANY trait, you will see that the question is posed wrongly. No trait is determined entirely by the DNA seuqnce, nor by eth envitonment. Traits develop. During development many facotrs, including seuqences of many genes, patterns of expresssion of many genes, developmental noise, direct effects of environment, environmental cues (for which responses have evolved), etc. all work together. The various facotrs always ALL play a role and it is impossible to assign them %-points, e.g., 30% genetic, 70% environmental. This is just very BAD biology.
Straw man again... no one claims you can say that a particular trait is "30% genetic, 70% environmental". What we do claim is that it is possible to say that X% of the variance of this trait in a particular population is caused by genetics and X% by environment.
Do you reject the whole concept of twin studies? After all, the whole point of twin studies is to compare traits in identical vs. fraternal twins to attempt to draw conclusions about to what extent a particular trait is genetic vs. environmental.
If you don't think this is a meaningful question then twin studies seem to operate on a totally flawed premise... but in that case, if you claim that all traits are 100% environmental and 100% genetic, how do you explain the fact that some traits seem to be more more strongly correlated between identical twins than fraternal twins whereas others show much more similar correlations between identical and fraternal twins?
In my world model the first trait is strongly genetic whereas the second is strongly environmental. But you reject that whole concept. So what's your explanation?#: Posted by on 07/08 at 11:23 PM -
Coturnix says "BTW, dead as a doornail is NOT a trait. You just invented it."
Umm... hate to break it to you, but there have been people who were dead as a doornail since people existed... or I suppose you could argue since doornails existed.
It's clearly a trait and I didn't invent it.#: Posted by on 07/08 at 11:32 PM -
Men and women ARE different. Saying that these differences cannot include the mental arena is ridiculous.
Nobody here is saying that. That is a straw man. I study sex differences in the brain and behavior, as well as inidividual phenotipic differences along the feminine/masculone axis within each sex. Why would I do that if I did not believe that difeferences exist?
So, in essence, you are saying that the entire field of behavioral genetics is in error or a fraud or not biology?
Mush of it is really bad. There have been good studies recently, though, mainly because they became more sophisticated about stuff like epigenetics etc.
Straw man again... no one claims you can say that a particular trait is "30% genetic, 70% environmental".
Excuse me? No one?
Do you reject the whole concept of twin studies?
Twin studies are notoriously bad and inconclusive.
If you don't think this is a meaningful question then twin studies seem to operate on a totally flawed premise...
They do.
It's clearly a trait and I didn't invent it.
It is NOT a trait. This is ridiculous.... -
Here is one example from the original TNR interview:
Whether intelligent design or a similar critique should be taught in public schools: "I think people should be taught ... that there are various theories about how man was created."
Do you see what I see? The question was about the overarching theory that explains the diversity of life on Earth and the curious adaptations of millions of species. Yet the answer was reframed as if the question was about the human origins. Later in the interview they even changed the questions to specifically ask about human evolution.
When I teach evolution, I do not use humans or even mention the word "evolution" until the very end. By the time I get to the end, the elegant logic of the mechanism is so obvious that the students cannot help it but agree. I have heard the response "Ah, THAT is what evolution is. I thought it was the sequence of ever-more upright apes turning into humans".
So, can someone explain to me why this sick infatuation with humans? Ever since I was a little child I found human biology and human evolution boring. Humans are also the WORST laboratory animals ever: it is a general-type mammal with no cool adaptations to strange environments (sure, it is intelligent, but it is not certain that it is an adaptation ot a particulat environment, or an adaptation at all - could be exaptation....), it has a very long generation time, it eats a lot, it cannot be selectively bred, it cannot be kept in uniform environments for long periods of time, it cannot be surgically, pharmacologically or genetically manipulated, it has not living close relatives for comparative studies (i.e., within the genus). Why on Earth would anyone want to use humans as a laboratory model? There are so many exciting species on this planet that can teach us something about biology, so why choose the very worst species for the task?
Serious biologists study sex differences as well as many other behavioral traits. However, the (capitalized) Evolutionary Psychology, as exemplified by the work of Cosmides, Tooby, Barash, Buss, Pinker, Desmond Morris, Thornburg, etc. has many deep flaws. Rejecting their science does not in any way mean rejection of the fact that sex differences exist, including in mental traits.
However, their methodology will not lead us to any answers. Their understanding of evolution is uneducated. First, it is genocentric, i.e., they still live in the prehistoric times when the nature/nurture dichotomy was accepted. Second, they only look at a single selective environment, that of the African savannah 150,000 years ago and assume that all human traits are adaptations to that one particular environment. They ignore the evolution that happened since then - only a small subset of the humen population has managed during the past 100 years or so to somewhat isolate itself from the forces of natural selection (and not at all from sexual selection). Even worse, they ignore billions of years of evolution that happened before our ancestors roamed the savannah, as if many of our traits, including behavioral, do not have precursors in reptilies, fish and invertebrates. EP (capitalized) is just bad science, while ep (lowercase) is a legitimate study of evolution of behavioral and mental traits.
So, why such focus on humans? And, within the whole ranges of human behavior, why such focus on sex differences? It is a red flag that ideology is behind such insistence. Femiphobia anyone? Racism perhaps? Why does the Right wing keep harping on this so much? Deep emotional and existential questions? Is it the emotional same reason that creationists need to be creationists?
Which brings me back to what Zywicky did. Ashamed at the poor performance of conservative pundits, most of whom waffled on basic questions about reality, he switches to a completely unrelated topic. The creationism question was essentially meant to see who lives in the real world and who lives in the la-la land (and who refuses to answer for ideological/political reasons). The sex-differences question is a question that does not test for reality. It is a question about a hotly debated current research - something that does not belong in high school textbooks. Once there is enough research and there is a consensus about the results, and then wait 5-10 years for textbooks to catch up to it, then perhaps....
The liberal pundits, as I said in the previous thread, were expected to stand firmly for reality. Alun provided several examples that this is true. Nobody expects pundits to be able to explain the fine points of evolution, but one can expect them to know that evolution has been the consensus for the past 150 years. Conservatives failed even on this basic question. Asking pundits on either side to weigh in on a complex and fluid field of research as is evolutionary psychology is dishonest.
Another note: Models by Hamilton, Trivers and other stuff mentioned by Zywicky are not contested. What is contested is their application. Ask David Sloan Wilson if this is un-controversial. -
<blockquote>It's a bit like claiming that women have better color sense because they have a larger vocabulary of color-description words.</blockquote>Poor choice of example, Rana. Women can have better colour sense than men because of colour receptor genes being on the X chromosome (so men are more likely to have only a defective copy). What's more, there are 2 common versions of the red receptor with slightly different frequency responses and a woman can have both, leading potentially to more subtle discrimination between colours.
However, I'm not disagreeing with the principle of your remarks.#: Posted by on 07/09 at 03:43 AM -
Interesting that people who talk about women being worse at mathematics than men never seem to mention the Swedish study that shows that among home students (i.e. students that study alone), girls learn mathematics better than boys. Now, the study's authors thinks it's inconclusive (or rather irrelevant), but it does put the whole concept of men being inheritly better at mathematics to a rest.
#: Posted by on 07/09 at 05:08 AM
-
Just out of curiosity, how is the question of whether or not women are better or worse than men at mathematics relevant to the question of whether certain liberals, including PZ Myers, have kneejerk religious objections to evolutionary psychology?
I think the answer to that question may throw some light on the emotional reactions here...#: Posted by on 07/09 at 06:00 AM -
I don't know which is scarier--intelligent design theory or the modern-day Lysenkoism of people such as Myers, Leiter, and the lynch mob that mindlessly follows him on this board.
I have been a professor of evolutionary biology for 17 years, the last 4 as Chair of my department. Unlike Myers, who seems to know almost nothing at all about evolutionary psychology, I have studied this issue closely. The truth is that is that Zwyicki's description of the state of the science is largely correct, and Myers's incoherent sputtering to the contrary betray a deep desperation to avoid that fact.
It is clear why 20 years after receiving his PhD, Mr. Myers is still nothing more than an untenured Assistant Professor at an obscure and mediocre university in the middle of nowhere Minnesota. His bitterness is palpable.
My personal concern as one who had dedicatd her life to this enterprise, is that that when politically-motivated researchers such as Professors Leiter, Myers, and other Lysenkoists focus on a withch-hunt against those that deviate from the approved political orthodoxy, this not only discredits the scientific enterprise in general, but efforts to beat back the rise of intelligent design theory and other pseudo-scientific theories.#: Posted by on 07/09 at 08:01 AM -
Do you reject the whole concept of twin studies? After all, the whole point of twin studies is to compare traits in identical vs. fraternal twins to attempt to draw conclusions about to what extent a particular trait is genetic vs. environmental.
We would expect similarly constituted bodies/organisms to be more closely correlated in their behavior than less similarly constituted bodies. So, when identical twins correlate more closely in IQ tests scores than fraternal twins, we assign this to the greater similarity, and ultimately it boils down to genes, so it seems. But suppose it turns out that under the stress of an IQ test, the blood flow to the brains of identical twins are more closely correlated than that of fraternal twins, should we assign the correlation of scores to this fact? Or some other fact? What twin studies give is indicative, not proof. Ultimately, you have to show that people with genetic trait A and varying genetic trait B are more correlated on IQ than people with varying genetic trait A and some particular genetic trait B; and then you can say perhaps that A is a cause.
Twins don't prove all that much.
(That is, ideally, to establish a cause, you want to vary one parameter at a time.)
This is also applicable to any difference in abilities in physics of men and women. Why are we assuming that causative factors are more highly correlated within the same gender than say, between siblings? -
<blcokquote>I have been a professor of evolutionary biology for 17 years, the last 4 as Chair of my department. Unlike Myers, who seems to know almost nothing at all about evolutionary psychology, I have studied this issue closely. The truth is that is that Zwyicki's description of the state of the science is largely correct, and Myers's incoherent sputtering to the contrary betray a deep desperation to avoid that fact.</blockquote>
Ohhh.... an argument from authority, and hiding behind a pseudonym. Very impressive.
I don't know anything about evolutionary psychology, but if you feel PZ is wrong, explain why, don't just state that you know more about the subject and that PZ is wrong.
Insulting people by calling them Lysenkoists doesn't help your argument, and shows a clear lack of understanding of history.#: Posted by on 07/09 at 08:25 AM -
Two things, science gal:
1. If you check PZ's about page, you'll see that he's an associate professor; if I remember correctly he has tenure, but don't quote me on it. If you want to bash someone, at least do it right.
2. Some people within the neo-Darwinian framework are sociobiologists or evolutionary psychologists. I'll defer to coturnix's distinction between e.p. and E.P. Some people think that E.P. (here I'm ignoring the distinction) is bunk; say what you want about Stephen Jay Gould, but he was a serious, mainstream biologist. Note how E. O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins are both liberals and see no contradiction between their political beliefs and their sociobiological research.
On the other hand, coturnix makes some utterly wrong arguments himself, often conflating the question of whether a biological view is true with the question of which ideologues tend to like it. Maybe genocentrism aids anti-abortion; the article provides impeccable arguments why it should but no shred of proof to support them, just like E.P. But that has no bearing on whether the gene-centric view of biology is correct. But this doesn't mean that E.P. is a serious field or even that the opposition to it is ideological. - If e(E)volutionary p(P)sychology is not one's field of specialization, then one's knowledge or lack of knowledge of it is irrelevant to one's academic career. Any bitterness would be only if some e(E)volutionary p(P)sychologist took away the opportunity that one wanted. The illogic is not worthy of a chair of a science department.
-
Hmmm. She can mangle my credentials all she wants, but UMM is not a mediocre university -- it's actually a very well-regarded liberal arts university. Small and relatively obscure are fair cops -- we are located in a remote part of the state -- but we are an academically demanding place. It's also very strange that she would claim I'm palpably bitter about being here, since I love this place and was very, very happy to land the job.
I also think she is confused. Is there no "substantial disagreement among knowledgeable scientists" on EP, as Zywicki claims and which she claims is correct, or does EP "deviate from the approved political orthodoxy" as she avers? It can't be both the dominant dogma and a persecuted minority, you know.
The reality that Zywicki and Science Gal are denying is that there are two distinct camps within biology on the EP issue. There is the EP gang, represented by people like Pinker and Cosmides and Tooby, and there are the wise and intelligent pluralists and moderate selectionists, represented by the late Gould and Lewontin and Rose and Coyne and Orr...and then, of course, there are many who try to take a middle ground. Trying to claim that the issue is settled in their favor, as Zywicki does, is ridiculous. And trying to claim that a small-time professor at a small university is a Lysenkoist working to lynch a big-time Harvard professor like Pinker is idiotic. -
And trying to claim that a small-time professor at a small university is a Lysenkoist working to lynch a big-time Harvard professor like Pinker is idiotic.
No, no it's your horde of brainwashed followers that is doing it. Take me for example, I am using my powerful position as a student of Computer Science at the University of Copenhagen to ensure that the entire US scientific community rejects EP. Next step will be to ensure that anyone who continues believing in EP will be sent toSibiriaAlaska.#: Posted by on 07/09 at 09:18 AM -
When you consider that your witch hunting consists of sitting back with a (decaf) coffee in a small town in Minnesota and writing in your personal blog, it's a huge surprise that nobody's burning. Those are some pretty damn effective means of overpowering your opponents in an agressive, Lysenkoist fashion!
I'm pleased to be a part of the PZ Lynch Mob (great band name). I'm also part of the mindless, can't think for myself brigade at such sites as KvR Audio ("Tell me what music plugins to install next!") and Suicide Girls ("Whose pierced nipples should I look at?"). Thanks for doing all my thinking for me. Because, you know, two people can't think the same thing unless one of them is mindless. That's what the blogs have taught me. -
If this is Brian Leiter's idea of a persuasive argument, then Leiter is even more of a hack than I thought, or he is going to need to get a new butt-boy to do his bidding for him because you, my friend, simply are not up to the job. Not only are you obviously ignorant of evolutionary psychology, but you are even illiterate in basic statistics. Dude--you can't have a "room full of counterexamples" as a response to a claim about a statistical distribution. Statisticians refer to "those in the room" as "observations" or "data points" in the distribution, not "counter-examples." Michelle Wie is not a "counterexample" to the statistical observation that men, as a statistical generalization, can hit a golf ball further than women. With this sort of basic ignorance, no wonder your professional life is where it is (and your bitterness comes through is pretty clear in many of your posts, by the way).
Now, if this is Leiter's idea of a persuasive "takedown" of evolutionary psychology, then I too look forward to his article on the topic, which promises to be a howler. Surely he'll be citing some of the incisive analysis here--"Pinker is full of shit," "So-and-so is a moron"--wow, this is first-rate philosophical gold. No wonder Mr. Leiter is so dazzled by your brilliance and rhetorical skills. (Typically, Mr. Leiter is too much of a coward to allow Comments on his blog--nothing more courageous than a hit and run job, no?).
What I'm wondering is did Leiter have to give you something more than a mere link to get you to display your ignorance in such a public manner, or were you willing to do it for a pathetic little link? And what about the hacks all over your board here following you like the Pied Piper--are they really just embarrassing themselves for free?
Since Leiter is afraid of Comments, I'll leave this one here--Mr. Leiter might do better to stick to his ruminations on his imaginay philosophical world of Nietzsche and his other irrelevant philosophical cogitations and leave the real world to the grown-ups. At least in his imaginary philosophical world the rest of us can ignore him and his hack rationalizations. Here, however, his hack rationalizations for attacks on academic freedom can have real-world consequences.
Maybe next time it would be more productive to engage in an intellectual debate with those with whom you disagree, rather than tenedentious name-calling.#: Posted by on 07/09 at 09:45 AM -
Maybe next time it would be more productive to engage in an intellectual debate with those with whom you disagree, rather than tenedentious name-calling.
It's interesting that you say this, considering that I've read and participated in numerous debates on race, gender, and EP on Pharyngula; in fact the race/gender issue is discussed here more than any other issue except evolution vs. creationism. -
Why is it always the bitter, insulting and dismissive posters who take PZ Myers to task for being bitter, insulting and dismissive?
I'm also enjoying the oh-so-typical "mindless sycophant" accusation appearing right after I mentioned that I thought it was a very, very stupid thing to say. That makes me particularly happy. If I ever go to a place where people discuss a subject they're interested in and tell them that none of them can think for themselves, please hurl some much-deserved abuse at me. Or is it true that disagreeing when you agree is the proper definition of thinking for yourself? Tell me what I think! -
You don't seem to understand the point. When you are hiring individuals, you don't get to resort to poorly used statistics to exclude people on the basis of irrelevant issues like gender. The "room full of counterexamples" isn't to say that the statistics are necessarily wrong, but that the interpretation, that women aren't as good at science, is obviously false. I know nothing about this Wie person, but would you go up to her and tell her she can't be as good a golfer as a man? Would you wait until she had put the club down to say it?
Speaking of clueless failures who don't get the point, it's damned hypocritical to whine about "tendentious name-calling" while using the insults "hack", "butt-boy", and "coward", and expressing bizarre contempt for my professional position. -
It is true, after the larvae went up in all their glory I though maybe that some larger creatures had been divorced from their glory by some scalpel wielding scientist. Have slice, will dice as we say in the business.
#: Posted by Pinko Punko on 07/09 at 10:20 AM
-
Ok here's another question. Are differences between geniuses and the average laypeople true mental and possibly physical differences, or is it some kind of social problem?
There are differences. They do matter in the long run. Women bring unique ideas and thinking to a subject that would be sorely missed if they were excluded from a field of study. Men also bring unique ideas and a way of thinking to subjects of study. These differences are a good thing. Just like if we ever figure out a way(or already have) of interacting with animals and learning from their motivations. Anyone that sees something bad about innate biological differences has a horrible political motive that I wouldn't want near the Sciences with a ten-foot pole.#: Posted by on 07/09 at 10:29 AM -
There are differences. They do matter in the long run. Women bring unique ideas and thinking to a subject that would be sorely missed if they were excluded from a field of study. Men also bring unique ideas and a way of thinking to subjects of study.
See, I don't believe it's a gender thing - I think it's an individual thing. Some individuals bring unique ideas and ways of thinking to a subject, and all of these should be included - as long as they operate within the same basic parametres - a ID Creationist shouldn't be included in studies of evolution, as they don't operate within the bounds of science.#: Posted by on 07/09 at 10:55 AM -
(Typically, Mr. Leiter is too much of a coward to allow Comments on his blog--nothing more courageous than a hit and run job, no?).
Said by a true brave person hiding between a three letter handle and a yahoo email adress. Brian Leiter publishes his views openly, and everyone is free to post their opinion of those views if they want to. PZ Myers also published his views openly, and even allows people to comment on them on his own site (within bounds). This doesn't mean that Leiter is a coward for not doing so.#: Posted by on 07/09 at 10:59 AM -
Oh, and my last comment shouldn't be taken for me saying that everyone who posts anonymously are cowards - there can be plenty of good reasons for doing so. However, anyone who blogs under their own name, and even makes it clear where they work, are obviously not cowards in the sense that the three-letter acronym tried to imply.
#: Posted by on 07/09 at 11:01 AM
-
Insulting people by calling them Lysenkoists doesn't help your argument, and shows a clear lack of understanding of history.
While I certainly agree that "insulting people" is inappropriate (perhaps a useful general lesson for everyone to take to heart--although "flaming moron" seems like more of an insult than calling someone a "Lysenkoist"), if it is true that certain questions are closed off by the restrictions of feminism or "political correctness," or as Richard B. puts it in his post, a "straight-jacketed ideology that insists on the politically correct answer independent of the facts," why isn't Science Gal exactly correct to use the term "Lysenkoism" to describe this?
Here's a few definitions for the term "Lysenkoist" that I found on-line:
"Under Lysenko's guidance, science was guided not by the most likely theories, backed by appropriately controlled experiments, but by the desired ideology. Science was practiced in the service of the State, or more precisely, in the service of ideology." (from http://skepdic.com/lysenko.html).
Glossary--Lysenkoism: "Lysenkoism has come to represent the devestating consequences of marrying science to ideology." (from http://www.galafilm.com/afterdarwin/english/glossary/lysenkoism.html).
"The term [Lysenkoism] survives as a metaphor for other beliefs challenged by empirical evidence but preferred for ideological reasons." (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism).
Interestingly, two of these three definitions also discuss creationism as potentially being modern-day examples of Lysenkoism. Assuming these definitions are correct (and they seem to comport with the standard understanding of the term), why wouldn't the term "Lysenkoism" apply with equal force to scientific research constrained by a feminist or politically-correct ideology, as suggested by Richard B., as it would to creationist research?
In fact, rather than demonstrating a "clear lack of understanding of history" isn't the term even more appropriately applied to an ideologically-motivated left-wing science than it is to creationism? Like modern Lysenkoism, Lysenko himself misused science to justify Marxism. Similarly, the Lysenkoist assault described by Science Gal also emanates from the left, not the right. Moreover, the agenda of modern leftist science, like Lysenkoism, is to use the authority of the universities to block the study of particular ideas, unlike the study of creationism or Intelligent Design, which although wrongheaded (and Lysenkoist in its own right), seemingly do not contemplate the exclusion of teaching standard scientific understanding as well. Sure, there are no gulags for deviationist scientists (as under Lysenko), but as events at Harvard have shown, there are show trials, abject apologies for deviationism, and public shaming rituals reminiscent of Lysenko's assaults on scientific inquiry.
So why isn't "Lysenkoism" the correct term to apply to both creationist "science" as well as the problem of politically-correct science raised by Richard B. and Science Gal?#: Posted by on 07/09 at 11:21 AM -
Elizabeth R.:
So why isn't "Lysenkoism" the correct term to apply to both creationist "science" as well as the problem of politically-correct science raised by Richard B. and Science Gal?
Because you shouldn't trivialize very serious matters by lumping them together with much less serious matters.#: Posted by on 07/09 at 11:31 AM -
Erik:
Is Carl Sagan incorrect to refer to American creationists as "Lysenkoists" as well? (see Wikepedia entry previously posted).#: Posted by on 07/09 at 11:35 AM -
PZ Myers:
You don't seem to understand the point. When you are hiring individuals,