I would like to submit the attached manuscript for review. The title is "Negotiating the gap. Four academics and the dilemma of human biodiversity."
I have edited the thread title to fit guidelines. -Emil
Back to [Archive] Post-review discussions
Well said about Dawkins ("Pathetic"). I personally dislike him because of his reductionism in biology (denying group selection) and his dismissal of evidence for psychic abilities. He's a living example of a dogmatic, close minded thinker. Best to avoid him. And yes, I completely agree with you about the limits of Evolutionary Psychology. It has always struck me as incoherent.
This paper should be published.
This paper should be published.
I think scholarly writing should not use swearing, so the "pathetic" has to go. In its stead, you could write something about what appears to be Dawkins' lack of intellectual courage.
Perhaps Darkins thinks that it is better that he does not publicly speak about his beliefs on that matter since it would hurt the huge atheist/rationalist movement he has spent the last two decades building.
See also: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
Dawkins does accept racial classification in his book The Ancestor's Tale and also cites AF Edward's Lewontin's fallacy paper.
---
There is a parallel with Dawkins and eugenics. He has made several suggestions but not come out as a eugenicist as far as I know.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/11/27/richard-dawkins-a-eugenicist/
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/313323444299251713
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/313200832042635264
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/313253714074939392
http://isteve.blogspot.dk/2013/04/richard-dawkins-on-eugenics.html
http://www.heraldscotland.com/from-the-afterword-1.836155
Dawkins is clearly a fan of what is sometimes called "liberal eugenics". Well, among informed people, who isn't?
Dawkins also talked about it in his book The Greatest Show on Earth.
It is quoted here: http://libertyhq.freeforums.org/fear-mongering-eugenics-and-the-path-to-transhumanism-t2045.html
But otherwise just download the book.
--
As for EP, one of their primary models in testing for the presence of an adaptation is to do cross-cultural studies (e.g. on mate preferences).
Buss, David M. "Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures." Behavioral and brain sciences 12.01 (1989): 1-14.
However, given HBD such adaptations may not be present in all populations and hence testing them in this way does not work. And even if they were present in all populations, they might not be equally strong (e.g. preference for masculine/feminine partner) or parental investment.
This part of EP always struck me as clearly wrong-headed, but not many others seemed to have noticed it. Peter has, of course.
Perhaps Darkins thinks that it is better that he does not publicly speak about his beliefs on that matter since it would hurt the huge atheist/rationalist movement he has spent the last two decades building.
See also: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
Dawkins does accept racial classification in his book The Ancestor's Tale and also cites AF Edward's Lewontin's fallacy paper.
We can all happily agree that human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. That is one reason why I object to ticking boxes in forms and why I object to positive discrimination in job selection. But that doesn't mean that race is of'virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance'. This is Edwards's point, and he reasons as follows. However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance.
---
There is a parallel with Dawkins and eugenics. He has made several suggestions but not come out as a eugenicist as far as I know.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/11/27/richard-dawkins-a-eugenicist/
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/313323444299251713
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/313200832042635264
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/313253714074939392
http://isteve.blogspot.dk/2013/04/richard-dawkins-on-eugenics.html
http://www.heraldscotland.com/from-the-afterword-1.836155
Dawkins is clearly a fan of what is sometimes called "liberal eugenics". Well, among informed people, who isn't?
Dawkins also talked about it in his book The Greatest Show on Earth.
It is quoted here: http://libertyhq.freeforums.org/fear-mongering-eugenics-and-the-path-to-transhumanism-t2045.html
But otherwise just download the book.
--
As for EP, one of their primary models in testing for the presence of an adaptation is to do cross-cultural studies (e.g. on mate preferences).
Buss, David M. "Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures." Behavioral and brain sciences 12.01 (1989): 1-14.
However, given HBD such adaptations may not be present in all populations and hence testing them in this way does not work. And even if they were present in all populations, they might not be equally strong (e.g. preference for masculine/feminine partner) or parental investment.
This part of EP always struck me as clearly wrong-headed, but not many others seemed to have noticed it. Peter has, of course.
Duxide,
I'd like to think that Richard Dawkins is simply closed-minded. Unfortunately, that's not my impression from my reading of his works. He was one of the first to grasp the significance of gene-culture co-evolution and he has touched on that subject off and on over the past four decades. But that's all he does. He "touches". Moreover, over the past decade, he seems to have become more reticent in dealing with the subject. Has he commented on "A troublesome inheritance"? His silence seems strange, especially given his interest in evolution and genetics.
Emil,
Yes, I should replace the word "pathetic" with a longer comment on his lack of intellectual courage. I'm certainly interested in knowing how his thinking has developed since his 2004 essay. Unfortunately, I get the impression that he has become more timid, not less so. This is possibly related to his wish to create an international movement against religious fundamentalism. My impression is that the whole issue has simply become more taboo in England over the past decade.
The issue of race as a valid biological construct is of tangential interest, at least for me. One can easily retreat to the position (as Dawkins has done) that the relevance of human races is limited to taxonomy and reconstruction of human prehistory. Even Richard Lewontin would not disagree with that position.
I'd like to think that Richard Dawkins is simply closed-minded. Unfortunately, that's not my impression from my reading of his works. He was one of the first to grasp the significance of gene-culture co-evolution and he has touched on that subject off and on over the past four decades. But that's all he does. He "touches". Moreover, over the past decade, he seems to have become more reticent in dealing with the subject. Has he commented on "A troublesome inheritance"? His silence seems strange, especially given his interest in evolution and genetics.
Emil,
Yes, I should replace the word "pathetic" with a longer comment on his lack of intellectual courage. I'm certainly interested in knowing how his thinking has developed since his 2004 essay. Unfortunately, I get the impression that he has become more timid, not less so. This is possibly related to his wish to create an international movement against religious fundamentalism. My impression is that the whole issue has simply become more taboo in England over the past decade.
The issue of race as a valid biological construct is of tangential interest, at least for me. One can easily retreat to the position (as Dawkins has done) that the relevance of human races is limited to taxonomy and reconstruction of human prehistory. Even Richard Lewontin would not disagree with that position.
OBG reviewers are invited to review this article to assure a speedy review. So far only 1 OBG reviwer (myself) has commented on this paper.
The author seems to be working on a second draft, so reviewers may be waiting for that.
The author seems to be working on a second draft, so reviewers may be waiting for that.
Oh really? Where does he say it? I think reviewers should start reviewing it!No excuses.
Sorry, I haven't had time to work on the manuscript. I'm tied up with other work. I should be able to work on the second draft next week.
It may be that the other reviewers feel that this submission is out of place, being more appropriate in a "history of science" journal.
It may be that the other reviewers feel that this submission is out of place, being more appropriate in a "history of science" journal.
Or that they don't check the forum often. :) You could email them after you have updated the draft.
Sorry, I haven't had time to work on the manuscript. I'm tied up with other work. I should be able to work on the second draft next week.
Maybe they're planning to wait until they get tenure.
I had some stylistic concerns. If you post a .doc copy, I will highlight and comment on areas which could, to my mind, use some editorial work.
Of course, you would be free to disregard any suggestions.
Chuck,
Yes, that seems to be the most common reason. "I don't have tenure yet, so I have to watch what I say and write." Then, when they get tenure, there are other reasons. "I have a funding application in the works, so I have to watch what I say and write." "I've submitted a big paper to American Anthropologist, so I have to watch what I say and write." And it goes on and on ...
I've attached a Word version of the paper. Please feel free to suggest changes to it.
Yes, that seems to be the most common reason. "I don't have tenure yet, so I have to watch what I say and write." Then, when they get tenure, there are other reasons. "I have a funding application in the works, so I have to watch what I say and write." "I've submitted a big paper to American Anthropologist, so I have to watch what I say and write." And it goes on and on ...
I've attached a Word version of the paper. Please feel free to suggest changes to it.
From the 2nd version (but perhaps identical in the first):
Can you elaborate on this? What about the theory that sexual reproduction is there because it causes a shuffling around of genes which is good for the immune system versus faster evolving attackers (parasites, viruses, bacteria)? This seems to have value to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Promotion_of_genetic_variation
Any kind of frequency based selection will have the same result, in that it will promote within population heterogeneity.
The more a gene has value, the more it will vary across a population boundary, since such boundaries usually coincide with barriers that separate different habitats, different environments, different means of subsistence and, hence, different selection pressures. Conversely, the less a gene has value, the more it will vary within a population, that is, among individuals who share similar conditions of life. The selection pressure is uniform but this uniformity will not level out the variability of such genes within the population—much as a steam iron will smooth a rumpled shirt—since this variability is less phenotypically significant, i.e., it produces fewer functional differences that natural selection can act on.
Can you elaborate on this? What about the theory that sexual reproduction is there because it causes a shuffling around of genes which is good for the immune system versus faster evolving attackers (parasites, viruses, bacteria)? This seems to have value to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Promotion_of_genetic_variation
Any kind of frequency based selection will have the same result, in that it will promote within population heterogeneity.
I have finally read it. I think it's excellent and I don't see why it does not have its place on OBG. I have only read the first version (i missed the second) but I have no particular critique or comment. Perhaps your text ended somewhat abruptly. That is, the last paragraph seems to conclude the discussion on Tooby/Cosmides, not on the general purpose of the article, but it's really nothing very important.
I obviously approve its publication.
I obviously approve its publication.
Duxide,
I'd like to think that Richard Dawkins is simply closed-minded. Unfortunately, that's not my impression from my reading of his works. He was one of the first to grasp the significance of gene-culture co-evolution and he has touched on that subject off and on over the past four decades. But that's all he does. He "touches". Moreover, over the past decade, he seems to have become more reticent in dealing with the subject. Has he commented on "A troublesome inheritance"? His silence seems strange, especially given his interest in evolution and genetics.
On Twitter Dawkins favorably commented on Pinker's talk about Cochran, Hardy & Harpending's Ashkenazi IQ theory. Pinker's position was that it is plausible but not yet proven.
Emil,
In general, natural selection reduces genetic diversity. The more a heritable trait has selective value, the less diverse it will be. This was G.G. Simpson's conclusion in his review of the literature:
"functional, integrated structures of adaptive significance -- i.e., those that are under strong centripetal selection pressure -- tend to have low, although still appreciable, variability [...] On the other hand, vestigial and nonfunctional characters -- i.e., those with low selection value -- have higher average variability".
Simpson, G.G. (1953). The Major Features of Evolution, p. 148
There are exceptions to this rule. If the selective value of a trait is higher in the heterozygous state or if its value is frequency-dependent, a balanced polymorphism may develop. But this is the exception and not the rule. In general, diversity is constrained, and not favored, by natural selection.
Whenever I explain this point, I usually get looks of bewilderment. "But everyone says that diversity is important!" Well, it is. Under certain conditions, in certain cases, and up to a certain point. But it's not a good thing in and of itself.
On this point, my dissertation supervisor is no better than other academics. He is always writing about the cultural benefits of intersexuality and bisexuality. Diversity in sexual behavior makes societies more creative, more dynamic, and more adapted. Well, O.K. But why, then, has sexual behavior been so bimodal in traditional societies? Has cultural evolution been asleep at the switch? What has stopped traditional human societies from exploiting the benefits of intersexuality and bisexuality?
Menghu,
I wanted to write a general conclusion that would explain how these academics have reacted to the latest findings on gene-culture evolution, notably John Hawks' work on acceleration of recent human evolution, Gregory Clark's work on English demography, Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending's work on Ashkenazi IQ and, of course, the recent book by Nicholas Wade. But I couldn't find anything, except that tweet by Richard Dawkins. You might think that an academic who specializes in genetics and evolution would have something to say.
I should write some kind of conclusion, something to the effect that people can change their minds and, more importantly, speak their minds. But it would sound trite without concrete examples.
B.B.,
Has Dawkins commented on Nicholas Wade's book?
In general, natural selection reduces genetic diversity. The more a heritable trait has selective value, the less diverse it will be. This was G.G. Simpson's conclusion in his review of the literature:
"functional, integrated structures of adaptive significance -- i.e., those that are under strong centripetal selection pressure -- tend to have low, although still appreciable, variability [...] On the other hand, vestigial and nonfunctional characters -- i.e., those with low selection value -- have higher average variability".
Simpson, G.G. (1953). The Major Features of Evolution, p. 148
There are exceptions to this rule. If the selective value of a trait is higher in the heterozygous state or if its value is frequency-dependent, a balanced polymorphism may develop. But this is the exception and not the rule. In general, diversity is constrained, and not favored, by natural selection.
Whenever I explain this point, I usually get looks of bewilderment. "But everyone says that diversity is important!" Well, it is. Under certain conditions, in certain cases, and up to a certain point. But it's not a good thing in and of itself.
On this point, my dissertation supervisor is no better than other academics. He is always writing about the cultural benefits of intersexuality and bisexuality. Diversity in sexual behavior makes societies more creative, more dynamic, and more adapted. Well, O.K. But why, then, has sexual behavior been so bimodal in traditional societies? Has cultural evolution been asleep at the switch? What has stopped traditional human societies from exploiting the benefits of intersexuality and bisexuality?
Menghu,
I wanted to write a general conclusion that would explain how these academics have reacted to the latest findings on gene-culture evolution, notably John Hawks' work on acceleration of recent human evolution, Gregory Clark's work on English demography, Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending's work on Ashkenazi IQ and, of course, the recent book by Nicholas Wade. But I couldn't find anything, except that tweet by Richard Dawkins. You might think that an academic who specializes in genetics and evolution would have something to say.
I should write some kind of conclusion, something to the effect that people can change their minds and, more importantly, speak their minds. But it would sound trite without concrete examples.
B.B.,
Has Dawkins commented on Nicholas Wade's book?
Duxide,
I'd like to think that Richard Dawkins is simply closed-minded. Unfortunately, that's not my impression from my reading of his works. He was one of the first to grasp the significance of gene-culture co-evolution and he has touched on that subject off and on over the past four decades. But that's all he does. He "touches". Moreover, over the past decade, he seems to have become more reticent in dealing with the subject. Has he commented on "A troublesome inheritance"? His silence seems strange, especially given his interest in evolution and genetics.
On Twitter Dawkins favorably commented on Pinker's talk about Cochran, Hardy & Harpending's Ashkenazi IQ theory. Pinker's position was that it is plausible but not yet proven.
Pinker did a full lecture (1h) on the subject. it is on Youtube:
[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GexZF5VIMU[/video]
[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkTyWYcxVIA[/video]
[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDM7yQVU4ZE[/video]
[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz5igS5n720[/video]
Peter,
I looked around for Dawkins to respond to Wade's book. I limited my search on Google to results from April to now. I didn't find anything.
I did a custom search on Twitter, searching for any post from Dawkins with "Wade" in it. Nothing relevant. Last mentioned in 2013.
https://twitter.com/search?q=Wade%20from%3ARichardDawkins&src=typd
I looked around for Dawkins to respond to Wade's book. I limited my search on Google to results from April to now. I didn't find anything.
I did a custom search on Twitter, searching for any post from Dawkins with "Wade" in it. Nothing relevant. Last mentioned in 2013.
https://twitter.com/search?q=Wade%20from%3ARichardDawkins&src=typd
FTA:
Well, biogeographic populations anyway. Population differences between the sexes seems to have been the primary obsession of evolutionary psychologists since the founding of the field. To quote Jeremy Freese:
To broaden the permissible scope of research, evolutionary psychologists felt they had to accept some limitations. A new modus vivendi was therefore proposed: academics would be free to study genetic influences on the human mind as long as these influences were not seen as differing from one human population to another.
Well, biogeographic populations anyway. Population differences between the sexes seems to have been the primary obsession of evolutionary psychologists since the founding of the field. To quote Jeremy Freese:
one could argue that evolutionary psychologists are overstepping their bounds when they claim to endorse the “psychic unity of humankind”; a more accurate characterization would be that they endorse the “psychic unity of mankind” and the “psychic unity of womankind” but not the unity of the two.
"Population differences between the sexes seems to have been the primary obsession of evolutionary psychologists since the founding of the field."
Evolutionary psychologists will say "off the record" that their priority is to understand the biological basis of behavioral differences between individuals and between the sexes. Once this basis is understood, it will be easier to tackle the more difficult subject of population différences. In reality, they have simply created a new modus vivendi. the longer they persist in supporting this modus vivendi, the harder it will be for them to break away from it. Evolutionary psychology has become a millstone and not a stepping-stone.
I've attached a new version of the manuscript (in Word). Changes have been made to pages 6 and 8. I've also added a conclusion. For now, I'm waiting for Chuck's suggestions for improvement.
Evolutionary psychologists will say "off the record" that their priority is to understand the biological basis of behavioral differences between individuals and between the sexes. Once this basis is understood, it will be easier to tackle the more difficult subject of population différences. In reality, they have simply created a new modus vivendi. the longer they persist in supporting this modus vivendi, the harder it will be for them to break away from it. Evolutionary psychology has become a millstone and not a stepping-stone.
I've attached a new version of the manuscript (in Word). Changes have been made to pages 6 and 8. I've also added a conclusion. For now, I'm waiting for Chuck's suggestions for improvement.
I think Chuck is busy with his personal life, or he was. If you want to wait for his comment, perhaps send him an email.
I re-read the part about Dawkins and it is better now.
I re-read the part about Dawkins and it is better now.
© Copyright 2024 OpenPsych - All Rights Reserved