Back to [Archive] Other discussions

Request for non-open access articles
My institution does not have access to this article. Can someone download it and post it on here or email it to me?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijop.12098/abstract
That's a fantastic idea of topic here.

For those interested, I have asked several people around the access to this one :

The genetic architecture of pediatric cognitive abilities in the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort

No one was able to get that. After a while, I found out the mail of the first author (it wasn't easy). I sent you what I have received by mail (it's the paper + the supplementary and data). Tell me if it doesn't work.
I used to have this paper, but it seems that I don't anymore, so I'd appreciate it if anyone could find it and upload it:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1982.tb00659.x/abstract
I used to have this paper, but it seems that I don't anymore, so I'd appreciate it if anyone could find it and upload it:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1982.tb00659.x/abstract


See below
Thanks.

The people here might be interested by why I care about having this paper on hand: I referenced it in the comments to Steven Pinker's article here. (I'd like to be able to link to my comment directly, but the function for doing that doesn't seem to work.) Pinker is an example of a psychologist who I suspect is personally sympathetic to the hereditarian perspective, but who knows that it's generally a bad idea to come out in favor of it in public.
Admin
Pinker is very likely a racial hereditarian, having also almost come out of the closet in his discussion of the hereditarian hypothesis for Ashkenazi g.

[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]
Pinker also (http://edge.org/q2006/q06_3.html) wrote "Groups of people may differ genetically in their average talents and temperments." After James Watson became "inherently gloomy," Pinker wrote approvingly of how "nave musings about innate racial differences" have "ended the careers of several politicians and media figures."
Here you go.


Thanks!

Eminently quotable:

As John Stuart Mill noted in "On Liberty" in 1859, calls for civility are often a tool to enforce conformity. A fierce and angry defense of the values of the dominant class might be hailed as righteous rage, but even a milder, dissenting opinion is easily labeled uncivil. In my 13 years defending student and faculty speech, I have learned that campus administrators are most likely to deem as "uncivil" speech that criticizes them or the university's sacred cows. Meanwhile, students who agree with the administration are likely to be complimented for speaking truth to power.
Admin
See also http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-lukianoff/freedom-of-speech-or-free_b_5791878.html
He also published two books on the topic. Perhaps we should read them. He's on Twitter too. http://www.twitter.com/glukianoff
I am not that interested in philosphy tbh. Ordered and am going to read this:



In case image does not show: http://www.ieet.org/images/uploads/Pinkers_Guide_to_Classic_Style.253.png
Could someone post the peer comments and Wahlsten's response to them for this Behavioral and Brain Sciences target article?
Admin
Sorry Dalliard, my university does not have access back to 1990, only to 1997.
Admin
Out of curiosity, why do you want to read his stuff? He's clearly an anti-eugenics warrior. http://www.psych.ualberta.ca/~wahlsten/eugenics.html

His website lists among interest areas: "4. The biological unreality of "g" (general intelligence)".

His biography shows that he first acquired a PHD in physics (so he's not unintelligent), and then moved over into behavior genetics and his sole interest seems to be arguing for interaction effects for intelligence. That effort seems inspired by his research in mouse behavior genetics which apparently shows interaction effects. http://www.psych.ualberta.ca/~wahlsten/bio.html
In general, I've found that it clarifies my own thinking to read stuff that's contrary to my priors, provided that it's written in good faith and competently. But in this case I'm more interested in the critical peer comments.
Admin
I read the paper. So his main point is that ANOVA tests of interaction effects are underpowered, so their lack of significance does not imply lack of existence. I imagine this issue has been clearly solved by now given that present day twin studies have N's in the thousands which should yield sufficient power to detect even small interaction effects with high chance.
Can I have http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20712152?

I'm planning to write a brief response to it for OpenPsych.
Can I have http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20712152?

I'm planning to write a brief response to it for OpenPsych.


Attached.