Re:[tips] Are Genes Left-Wing?
John Kulig wrote: That is, right-wingers sometimes combine two incompatible ideas: (1) don't help the poor because everyone should be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps , and (2) the poor, unemployed, etc. are stuck there because of genetic inferiority (putting it too crudely perhaps). There are, of course, massive differences in the political landscape in the States and the UK (and indeed the rest of Western Europe). No right-wingers outside a lunatic fringe over here would argue in anything like those terms (even allowing for, as John writes, it having been put too crudely). The Welfare State (which is what we call it!) has long been a given in West European countries – the debate is about what and where and how much, etc. (From a Western European point of view, one doesn't know whether to laugh or cry when one reads all that stuff about how Obama is a socialist, and is scheming to set up a dreaded socialist state. I think it can be truly said that that kind of thinking, which seems to be getting close to the Republican mainstream, is literally delusional. Most of us over here who follow those aspects of the United States political scene can only watch and marvel. :-) ) The Bell Curve makes a case for people rising and falling through the socio-economic ladder based on genetics. As I previously indicated (or at least implied), I haven't got beyond a perusal of *The Bell Curve* in a bookstore (though I've read plenty of pro and contra articles), but I have read other stuff by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, and I think this is an oversimplification of their views. What they argue is that genetics is a big *factor* in social mobility, and in some cases overwhelmingly so, but they don't argue that other factors don't play some role, and of course more in the case of some people than others, according to their social/environmental circumstances. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org -- From: John Kulig ku...@mail.plymouth.edu Subject:Re: Are Genes Left-Wing? Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 08:28:38 -0400 (EDT) Getting caught up on email, so only briefly scanned these posts, but two things come to mind about the gene/environment/left/right wing issue. While in my personal experience left wingers seem to favor environmental explanations for individual differences, I have to point out that Marx (Karl,not Groucho) was a fan of Darwinism (I am lumping evolution with genes, big jump I know, but both imply biological determinism), and wanted to dedicate portions of Das Kapital to Darwin, who declined partly because of his unfamiliarity with the topic, and also I believe Marx' opposition to religion. My readings of the original communists/socialists was that they saw parallels between biological and cultural evolution (Though what happened in history didn't quite fit the theory. England and Germany, being more advanced in the Industrial Revolution, were supposed to be where workers united. In Russia, it was reversed, communism was used as a means to industrial growth). Second, when one follows the logic of Herrnstein Murray's Bell Curve, you can see how genetics and left-wing can be easily combined. That is, right-wingers sometimes combine two incompatible ideas: (1) don't help the poor because everyone should be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and (2) the poor, unemployed, etc. are stuck there because of genetic inferiority (putting it too crudely perhaps). The Bell Curve makes a case for people rising and falling through the socio-economic ladder based on genetics. IF people gravitate toward the bottom of society because of genetics, one can more easily make the case for charity and welfare imo, echoing the famous phrase from each according to their ability and to each according to their need. Though, some conservatives opt for family, friends, churches being the source of charity rather than big government. Interestingly, the authors are an odd couple, with Herrnstein being the liberal and Murray from the conservative Heritage Institute. == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=5762 or send a blank email to leave-5762-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Are Genes Left-Wing?
Ironically black kids learned more and came out very scholarly in the days of segregation. So did white kids. Don't confuse causation and correlation. Chris Green I am not sure what Chris means. This is the fallacy of assumed equity. White kids always had privileges at all times. However during the days of segregation when black kids went to schools that were allegedly substandard,their motivation to succeed were influenced by teachers,parents,and significant others who knew that education was necessary to combat the forces of discrimination and to raise their status in life.There was a saying at that time that a black had to be twuce as good as the white to get the job . I remembered when I was at Mizzou,a black prof from one of those Ivy league schools was invited to give a colloquium.His topic was on S S Stevens (the psychophysics dude).Members of Mizzou's Psy dept questioned heavily his expertise and tested him from all angles,as if a black could not demonstrate excellence on S S Stevens. I by no means imply that segregation was a positive climate for blacks.And maybe the fact that blacks saw the value of education then was a form of a necessary strategic acculturation. However integration (leveling the playing field) created some drawbacks for black education.Kids were not as fired-up as their counterparts in the days of segregation. I can agree with Chris that white kids were also impacted.What I fail to comprehend is hpw can a correlation be used to explain the two subject variables Black and White when obviously one factor is linear for W and the same factor shows a significant impact on blacks. Michael omnicentric Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=5749 or send a blank email to leave-5749-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: Re:[tips] Are Genes Left-Wing?
Chris Green writes: currently in Montreal... reading and enjoying _The Spirit Level: Why Equlaity is Better for Everyone_, in which Oliver James is occasionally cited, which I am sure will rankle Allen's apparently reflexive Toryism. :-) Ignoring the smiley (which just possibly may be a device by which Chris may brush off my reply as taking his comment too seriously), Chris's comment says more about him than about me. Evidently anyone who doesn't endorse a 'progressive' (or whatever word one might use to describe it) agenda on a variety of subjects is right-wing or, in the British context, a Tory. Scott Lilienfeld recently dubbed this mind-set group think. In fact I have voted Conservative in a general election only once in the whole of my fairly lengthy life – and that was in the recent election, and only because my local Tory candidate was a youngish black guy who's been a good local councillor and whose policies on education (especially in relation to under-achieving boys of Afro-Caribbean descent) I was impressed by. Whether in the political field, or any other, my approach is to endeavour to take any case on its merits, regardless of who is the proponent. It is also one of taking contentions (whether in articles or books) with a modicum of caution, always wanting to know the evidence for specific assertions, no matter how categorically they are asserted. (I'm constantly astonished how often reviewers of non-fiction books take supposedly factual assertions at their face value, as if they are true by virtue of their being published in a book.) Maybe this attitude of mind became a basic part of my outlook because I was brought up in a Communist household, and was involved in one or two other left wing groups in my early adulthood. What that background impressed on me was the extent that the thinking of many people (most people?) who have a strong interest in political/social affairs is constrained by whatever is acceptable within the groups (or, more generally, social circles) within which they function. As indicated above, I hope that experience has largely immunised me against such a restriction on one's critical faculties. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org --- From: Christopher D. Green chri...@yorku.ca Subject:Re: Are Genes Left-Wing? Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 18:08:58 -0400 Free will for me. Determinism (genetic or environmental) for thee. Chris Green currently in Montreal... reading and enjoying _The Spirit Level: Why Equlaity is Better for Everyone_, in which Oliver James is occasionally cited, which I am sure will rankle Allen's apparently reflexive Toryism. :-) --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=5751 or send a blank email to leave-5751-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Are Genes Left-Wing?
Getting caught up on email, so only briefly scanned these posts, but two things come to mind about the gene/environment/left/right wing issue. While in my personal experience left wingers seem to favor environmental explanations for individual differences, I have to point out that Marx (Karl,not Groucho) was a fan of Darwinism (I am lumping evolution with genes, big jump I know, but both imply biological determinism), and wanted to dedicate portions of Das Kapital to Darwin, who declined partly because of his unfamiliarity with the topic, and also I believe Marx' opposition to religion. My readings of the original communists/socialists was that they saw parallels between biological and cultural evolution (Though what happened in history didn't quite fit the theory. England and Germany, being more advanced in the Industrial Revolution, were supposed to be where workers united. In Russia, it was reversed, communism was used as a means to industrial growth). Second, when one follows the logic of Herrnstein Murray's Bell Curve, you can see how genetics and left-wing can be easily combined. That is, right-wingers sometimes combine two incompatible ideas: (1) don't help the poor because everyone should be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and (2) the poor, unemployed, etc. are stuck there because of genetic inferiority (putting it too crudely perhaps). The Bell Curve makes a case for people rising and falling through the socio-economic ladder based on genetics. IF people gravitate toward the bottom of society because of genetics, one can more easily make the case for charity and welfare imo, echoing the famous phrase from each according to their ability and to each according to their need. Though, some conservatives opt for family, friends, churches being the source of charity rather than big government. Interestingly, the authors are an odd couple, with Herrnstein being the liberal and Murray from the conservative Heritage Institute. == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 == - Original Message - From: Allen Esterson allenester...@compuserve.com To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 5:14:19 AM Subject: RE: Re:[tips] Are Genes Left-Wing? Chris Green writes: currently in Montreal... reading and enjoying _The Spirit Level: Why Equlaity is Better for Everyone_, in which Oliver James is occasionally cited, which I am sure will rankle Allen's apparently reflexive Toryism. :-) Ignoring the smiley (which just possibly may be a device by which Chris may brush off my reply as taking his comment too seriously), Chris's comment says more about him than about me. Evidently anyone who doesn't endorse a 'progressive' (or whatever word one might use to describe it) agenda on a variety of subjects is right-wing or, in the British context, a Tory. Scott Lilienfeld recently dubbed this mind-set group think. In fact I have voted Conservative in a general election only once in the whole of my fairly lengthy life – and that was in the recent election, and only because my local Tory candidate was a youngish black guy who's been a good local councillor and whose policies on education (especially in relation to under-achieving boys of Afro-Caribbean descent) I was impressed by. Whether in the political field, or any other, my approach is to endeavour to take any case on its merits, regardless of who is the proponent. It is also one of taking contentions (whether in articles or books) with a modicum of caution, always wanting to know the evidence for specific assertions, no matter how categorically they are asserted. (I'm constantly astonished how often reviewers of non-fiction books take supposedly factual assertions at their face value, as if they are true by virtue of their being published in a book.) Maybe this attitude of mind became a basic part of my outlook because I was brought up in a Communist household, and was involved in one or two other left wing groups in my early adulthood. What that background impressed on me was the extent that the thinking of many people (most people?) who have a strong interest in political/social affairs is constrained by whatever is acceptable within the groups (or, more generally, social circles) within which they function. As indicated above, I hope that experience has largely immunised me against such a restriction on one's critical faculties. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org --- From: Christopher D. Green chri...@yorku.ca Subject:Re: Are Genes Left-Wing? Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 18:08:58 -0400 Free will for me. Determinism (genetic or environmental) for thee. Chris Green currently in Montreal
Re:[tips] Are Genes Left-Wing?
Mike Palij (copied below) quotes from an article by the British psychotherapist Oliver James. TIPSters in North America will probably not know that James is a ubiquitous pop psychologist always popping up on the pages of The Guardian or on BBC radio programmes. His most notable characteristic is that he is highly critical of any published paper that doesn't accord with his own psychoanalytically-oriented views, but blissfully credulous when reporting papers that supposedly lend support to them. According to Oliver James, if all our psychological/psychiatric problems are not the fault of the wicked capitalist system, then it's the fault of our parents (or both, of course): *Affluenza: How to be Successful and Stay Sane* Review: On every key aspect of his argument he is deluded. His connection with reality is often tenuous. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2891/ *They F*** You Up: How to Survive Family Life* Judith Rich Harris would have a field day exposing the fallacies (and cherry-picking) in this book! James' views come from a psychoanalytic position. He even endorses Freud's potty-training explanation of the 'anal personality': How the mother goes about curbing the child's messy pleasures affects his later attitudes to his instincts. If her response is rigid, condemnatory and angry, the child develops an 'anal personality', comprising obsessive orderliness (from being made fearful of mess), obstinacy (still angry at being forced to excrete on demand), and parsimony, especially about money (it becomes equated with faeces, and in later life, being tight about money may symbolize holding faeces in). (pp. 91-92) While allowing some place for genetic influence, he also endorses a primarily family environment explanation for schizophrenia. In an email to a colleague of mine, Ben Goldacre (Guardian Bad Science) wrote: Oliver James says: There is no evidence that the genetic material of schizophrenics differs in any way from people without the illness. This is ludicrous. Off the top of my head I can think of about ten genes loci that are significantly associated with schizophrenia, and I really do mean off the top of my head, there's a huge load more out there. That isn't to say that schizophrenia is entirely genetic: but it doesn't have to be one or the other, and on that subject, I've never met a *single* psychiatrist who conforms to James' straw man and believes that schizophrenia is entirely genetic. More: In his latest rant against genetics, Oliver James either does not understand, or wilfully misunderstands, the genetic basis of neurobiology, and purposefully overlooks huge swathes of scientific literature. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/28/genetics-dna-neurobiology-family-parenting Does Oliver James Damage the Brain? http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/05/does-oliver-james-damage-brain.html James argues we should look to Freud and psychoanalysis to understand postnatal depression: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/sep/26/oliver-james-postnatal-depression Response: Is Freud back in fashion? http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2009/10/is-freud-back-in-fashion-no.html More on James: The bizarre journalism of psychologist Oliver James The psychologist Oliver James – author of Affluenza, The Selfish Capitalist and innumerable what-does-it-all-mean think-pieces in the press – has recently been churning out a series in the Guardian entitled Family Under the Microscope. Each week James offers a stunning revelation about the psychology of family life. Some of these revelations are either dubious or just outright wrong. At times the reader is left wondering how much this says about psychology and how much is about Oliver James’ view of the world. http://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/08/09/the-bizarre-journalism-of-psychologist-oliver-james/ Another critic taking James apart: Well, it *would* be really worrying if it wasn’t a load of complete cobblers. Time for me to go all Ben Goldacre on Mr James’ ass. http://www.mentalnurse.org/2009/07/girls-just-dont-wanna-have-fun/ Same author: Is Oliver James the Gillian McKeith of psychology? http://www.mentalnurse.org/2009/07/is-oliver-james-the-gillian-mckeith-of-psychology/ N.B. Ben Goldacre (Bad Science) on Gillian McKeith: Gillian McKeith – or to give her full medical title, 'Gillian McKeith'.” http://www.badscience.net/2010/07/and-then-i-was-incompetently-libelled-by-a-litigious-millionaire/ http://www.badscience.net/2007/02/ms-gillian-mckeith-banned-from-calling-herself-a-doctor/ Back to mentalnurse.org: Oliver James has the answer to Alzheimer’s You know what, I’d like to formally apologise for saying such nasty things about Oliver James. I may have inadvertently given the impression that he’s a ridiculous snake-oil salesman who cherrypicks and misrepresents research in order to support his own personal prejudices masquerading as academic psychology. But
Re:[tips] Are Genes Left-Wing?
Rick Froman writes in appreciation of Mike Palij's quotations from Oliver James's article in The Guardian Why genes are leftwing: Good point. The media is widely known for their right wing proclivities. Hey! We don't all live in the States! The most influential medium in the UK, the BBC, is hardly right wing. And while the popular national press is predominantly right-wing, there is also a strong centrist and left-wing presence. Just in case that might not be true, I think it might be more productive to look for reasons that both the right and the left might fear finding that human behavior is largely determined by environment. Wouldn't it be more productive to spend the time checking out the evidence itself? Alternatively, may I suggest that, if are inclined to follow up your own suggestion, you might also look at the reasons why (predominantly) many on the Left might fear finding that genetic predispositions play a substantial role in human behaviour. (You could start with Oliver James. :-) ) Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org From: Rick Froman rfro...@jbu.edu Subject:Re: Are Genes Left-Wing? Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 20:50:36 -0500 Good point. The media is widely known for their right wing proclivities. Just in case that might not be true, I think it might be more productive to look for reasons that both the right and the left might fear finding that human behavior is largely determined by environment. Rick --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=5726 or send a blank email to leave-5726-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re:[tips] Are Genes Left-Wing?
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 02:22:47 -0700, Allen Esterson wrote: Rick Froman writes in appreciation of Mike Palij's quotations from Oliver James's article in The Guardian Why genes are leftwing: Good point. The media is widely known for their right wing proclivities. Hey! We don't all live in the States! The most influential medium in the UK, the BBC, is hardly right wing. And while the popular national press is predominantly right-wing, there is also a strong centrist and left-wing presence. First, I want to thank Allen for providing background on Oliver James. I had gotten a pointer to the article from another list that I'm on and was not familiar with his background (though I had looked briefly on the Guardian website for some background on James but I did not find anything; I would have searched more but I was taking a break from Yankees-Rangers League Championship game #1 when they were still down 5 runs before their AMAZING comeback to win the game -- GO YANKEES! ;-) Just in case that might not be true, I think it might be more productive to look for reasons that both the right and the left might fear finding that human behavior is largely determined by environment. Wouldn't it be more productive to spend the time checking out the evidence itself? Indeed, but considering that I posted this late on a Friday evening, one might be forgiven for not being more engaged in fact checking (especially with a Yankee game on ;-). It should be noted that James does not refer to psychoanalysis at all in the article, instead he focuses on research on the human genome, the editorial in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and related sources that argue that It's The Environment, Stupid!, the research by Anita Thapar which has been used to calim that there is a genetic basis to ADHD but examination of her results appear to suggest that only 16% of the children in her sample had genetic characteristics that she claimed served as the basis for ADHA, and so on. Though I am sure that Allen's depiction of James as an all-round intellectual badguy is valid, Allen did not address the specific points in James article. Alternatively, may I suggest that, if are inclined to follow up your own suggestion, you might also look at the reasons why (predominantly) many on the Left might fear finding that genetic predispositions play a substantial role in human behaviour. (You could start with Oliver James. :-) ) Well, that one is easy, both historically and philosophically though James did allude to some of the reasons towards the end of his article, namely, that genes imply, at least popularly, that certain characteristics of individuals are immutable and unchangable and that individuals with such traditional genetic defects as stupidity, reluctance to work, etc. (extra points to anyone who can explain draptomania without checking out the Wikipedia entry on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania ), will require individuals with superior genetics to take care of them -- one of the issues that Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein tackled in their right-wing The Bell Curve. Quoting from the Wikipedia entry on The Bell Curve (yada-yada): |Its central argument is that intelligence is a better predictor of many |factors including financial income, job performance, unwanted pregnancy, |and crime than parents' socioeconomic status or education level. Also, |the book argues that those with high intelligence, the cognitive elite, |are becoming separated from those of average and below-average |intelligence and that this is a dangerous social trend. Most of the |controversy concerns Chapters 13 and 14, in which the authors wrote |about racial differences in intelligence and discuss the implications of |those differences. The authors were reported throughout the popular |press as arguing that these IQ differences are genetic, and they did |indeed write in chapter 13: It seems highly likely to us that both genes |and the environment have something to do with racial differences. |The introduction to the chapter more cautiously states, The debate |about whether and how much genes and environment have to do with |ethnic differences remains unresolved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve So, while Oliver James may claim that genes account for a tiny amount of behavioral characteristics (say, 1%), Murray and Herrnstein would argue that certain characteristics, such as intelligence as reflected by a general intelligence factor or g has, say, 40-80% of its variability accounted for by genetic factors. I'll leave it to the interested reader to locate the APA Task Force on Intelligence Report on the The Bell Curve and what it states. The nickle version is available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence:_Knowns_and_Unknowns (Hint: there's a link to the report at the end of the entry) This wouldn't be much of an issue if one assumed that the environment could overcome
RE: Re:[tips] Are Genes Left-Wing?
Well, when I read the word appreciation in the first line of Allen's post, I wondered if he had recognized the sarcasm in my remarks and returned with his own. But then the rest of the message indicated that he took my words at face value. Of course, I couldn't have expected those outside the US to know what I intended by it. I just thought the idea that the news media in the US is predominantly right-wing (even to the extent of being able to suppress news about the genetic or environmental causation of behavior) to be patently ludicrous. That there would be insufficient coverage of the true story of genetics and human behavior due to its support of a political argument seemed delusional. I also didn't think it was entirely clear what side of the political spectrum the influence of genetics would support. Certainly, there are many on the left who would be happy to find that people are born (genetically determined) to be who they are. Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences John Brown University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 rfro...@jbu.edu From: Allen Esterson [allenester...@compuserve.com] Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 4:22 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re:[tips] Are Genes Left-Wing? Rick Froman writes in appreciation of Mike Palij's quotations from Oliver James's article in The Guardian Why genes are leftwing: Good point. The media is widely known for their right wing proclivities. Hey! We don't all live in the States! The most influential medium in the UK, the BBC, is hardly right wing. And while the popular national press is predominantly right-wing, there is also a strong centrist and left-wing presence. Just in case that might not be true, I think it might be more productive to look for reasons that both the right and the left might fear finding that human behavior is largely determined by environment. Wouldn't it be more productive to spend the time checking out the evidence itself? Alternatively, may I suggest that, if are inclined to follow up your own suggestion, you might also look at the reasons why (predominantly) many on the Left might fear finding that genetic predispositions play a substantial role in human behaviour. (You could start with Oliver James. :-) ) Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org From: Rick Froman rfro...@jbu.edu Subject:Re: Are Genes Left-Wing? Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 20:50:36 -0500 Good point. The media is widely known for their right wing proclivities. Just in case that might not be true, I think it might be more productive to look for reasons that both the right and the left might fear finding that human behavior is largely determined by environment. Rick --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: rfro...@jbu.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5f8an=Tl=tipso=5726 or send a blank email to leave-5726-13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=5729 or send a blank email to leave-5729-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Are Genes Left-Wing?
On 15 Oct 2010, Mike Palij (standard disclaimers apply) wrote: The answer to the question in the subject line appears to be Yes, at least that is the contention of Oliver James in an article that he wrote for the Guardian U.K.; see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/12/why-genes-are-leftwing After Allen's tour de force post, it's hard to know what to add. But it might be worth noting a famous dust-up between James and Steven Pinker back in 2002, including a reference to a shocking use of bad language by a notorious New Jersey grandmother (http://tinyurl.com/27qxka8 ). For the insights of a certain A. Esterson on this affair, see http://tinyurl.com/2fqoogu But what about James' claim in the current Guardian that the preeminent behaviour geneticist, Robert Plomin now admits that the evidence has proved that genetic effects are much smaller than previously considered: the largest effects account for only 1% of quantitative traits? True, he did say it (Plomin and Davis, 2009). And if this means that Plomin is now repudiating his years of work showing the powerful effect of genes in human behaviour, it would be astounding. But not to worry, he does not. The next sentence, which James does _not_ quote, is key. Plomin goes on to say This finding implies that hundreds of genes are responsible for the heritability of behavioural problems in childhood. The point, as I understand it, is that genetic effects are alive and well (important for most behavioural disorders and dimensions is how Plomin phrases it). But they turn out not to be caused by the dramatic action of a small number of genes; instead recent research suggests that their effects are spread out over a large number, each contributing only a tiny part to the whole. As one of the sources Allen cited noted, Oliver James either does not understand, or wilfully misunderstands such matters. It's also worth emphasizing that Plomin (and many others) have never denied the role of environmental effects in human behaviour. He says, for example, that heritabilities for common disorders are never 100% and are usually 50% or less [that includes personality, BTW]. It is at least as important to identify the environmental causes of psychopathology as it is [sic] genetic causes. But does this mean that Oliver James' view on the critical role of the family in development are correct? Not a bit, because the environmental influence time after time turns out to be of the non-shared variety, special experiences unique to the individual, and not shared with other family members, as family upbringing would be. Stephen Plomin, R. and Davis, O. (2009). The future of genetics in psychology and psychiatry: microarrays, genome-wide association, and non-coding RNA. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 63-71. Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=5730 or send a blank email to leave-5730-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: Re:[tips] Are Genes Left-Wing?
My point was simply that it is ridiculous to believe 1) that the media in the US is so monolithic and dominated by the right-wing (of all things) that scientific findings favoring the left-wing would be suppressed and 2) that a genetic explanation is inherently conservative (both genetic and environmental explanations, by turns, may support both right and left-wing ideas). Maybe Yankee fever is the explanation. The SF Giants (they're not in NY anymore) are clearly going to beat whoever the AL sends up. Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences John Brown University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 rfro...@jbu.edu From: Mike Palij [m...@nyu.edu] Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 7:24 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Cc: Mike Palij Subject: Re:[tips] Are Genes Left-Wing? On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 02:22:47 -0700, Allen Esterson wrote: Rick Froman writes in appreciation of Mike Palij's quotations from Oliver James's article in The Guardian Why genes are leftwing: Good point. The media is widely known for their right wing proclivities. Hey! We don't all live in the States! The most influential medium in the UK, the BBC, is hardly right wing. And while the popular national press is predominantly right-wing, there is also a strong centrist and left-wing presence. First, I want to thank Allen for providing background on Oliver James. I had gotten a pointer to the article from another list that I'm on and was not familiar with his background (though I had looked briefly on the Guardian website for some background on James but I did not find anything; I would have searched more but I was taking a break from Yankees-Rangers League Championship game #1 when they were still down 5 runs before their AMAZING comeback to win the game -- GO YANKEES! ;-) Just in case that might not be true, I think it might be more productive to look for reasons that both the right and the left might fear finding that human behavior is largely determined by environment. Wouldn't it be more productive to spend the time checking out the evidence itself? Indeed, but considering that I posted this late on a Friday evening, one might be forgiven for not being more engaged in fact checking (especially with a Yankee game on ;-). It should be noted that James does not refer to psychoanalysis at all in the article, instead he focuses on research on the human genome, the editorial in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and related sources that argue that It's The Environment, Stupid!, the research by Anita Thapar which has been used to calim that there is a genetic basis to ADHD but examination of her results appear to suggest that only 16% of the children in her sample had genetic characteristics that she claimed served as the basis for ADHA, and so on. Though I am sure that Allen's depiction of James as an all-round intellectual badguy is valid, Allen did not address the specific points in James article. Alternatively, may I suggest that, if are inclined to follow up your own suggestion, you might also look at the reasons why (predominantly) many on the Left might fear finding that genetic predispositions play a substantial role in human behaviour. (You could start with Oliver James. :-) ) Well, that one is easy, both historically and philosophically though James did allude to some of the reasons towards the end of his article, namely, that genes imply, at least popularly, that certain characteristics of individuals are immutable and unchangable and that individuals with such traditional genetic defects as stupidity, reluctance to work, etc. (extra points to anyone who can explain draptomania without checking out the Wikipedia entry on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania ), will require individuals with superior genetics to take care of them -- one of the issues that Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein tackled in their right-wing The Bell Curve. Quoting from the Wikipedia entry on The Bell Curve (yada-yada): |Its central argument is that intelligence is a better predictor of many |factors including financial income, job performance, unwanted pregnancy, |and crime than parents' socioeconomic status or education level. Also, |the book argues that those with high intelligence, the cognitive elite, |are becoming separated from those of average and below-average |intelligence and that this is a dangerous social trend. Most of the |controversy concerns Chapters 13 and 14, in which the authors wrote |about racial differences in intelligence and discuss the implications of |those differences. The authors were reported throughout the popular |press as arguing that these IQ differences are genetic, and they did |indeed write in chapter 13: It seems highly likely to us that both genes |and the environment have something to do with racial differences. |The introduction to the chapter more cautiously states, The debate |about
Re: [tips] Are Genes Left-Wing?
Mike Palij wrote, quoting me first: Just in case that might not be true, I think it might be more productive to look for reasons that both the right and the left might fear finding that human behavior is largely determined by environment. Wouldn't it be more productive to spend the time checking out the evidence itself? Indeed, but considering that I posted this late on a Friday evening, one might be forgiven for not being more engaged in fact checking (especially with a Yankee game on ;-). Mike: The quote was from Rick Froman, so my comment wasn't directed at you! Though I am sure that Allen's depiction of James as an all-round intellectual badguy is valid, Allen did not address the specific points in James article. Wasn't my extensive post long enough for you. :-) I am not in a position to respond to specific points in James' article without undertaking a full investigation of the studies he cites. But I do know (as I hope my several citations indicated) that James cherry-picks (and sometimes gives an incomplete or misleading impression of) the studies he cites, so what he writes should always be treated with caution. Mine: Alternatively, may I suggest that, if are inclined to follow up your [i.e. Rick's] own suggestion, you might also look at the reasons why (predominantly) many on the Left might fear finding that genetic predispositions play a substantial role in human behaviour. Mike's response: Well, that one is easy, both historically and philosophically though James did allude to some of the reasons towards the end of his article, namely, that genes imply, at least popularly, that certain characteristics of individuals are immutable and unchangable and that individuals with such traditional genetic defects as stupidity, reluctance to work, etc. (extra points to anyone who can explain draptomania without checking out the Wikipedia entry on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania ), will require individuals with superior genetics to take care of them... If you're going to rebut a position, you really should tackle the best arguments for that position, not the crudest one or a caricature of that position (a straw man argument). Virtually no serious academics or commentators would dream of saying that certain characteristics are immutable and unchangeable, or assert what you say here after that. -- one of the issues that Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein tackled in their right-wing The Bell Curve. One doesn't have to take a position on the arguments in The Bell Curve (and I don't pretend to have the statistical knowledge or the time available for a close reading and investigation of the contentions in that book) to know that what you have implied here (in the context of your words immediately before this reference to Murray and Herrnstein) about the views of those authors is a caricature of their position. So, while Oliver James may claim that genes account for a tiny amount of behavioral characteristics (say, 1%), Murray and Herrnstein would argue that certain characteristics, such as intelligence as reflected by a general intelligence factor or g has, say, 40-80% of its variability accounted for by genetic factors. I'll leave it to the interested reader to locate the APA Task Force on Intelligence Report on the The Bell Curve and what it states. The nickle version is available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence:_Knowns_and_Unknowns For those who don't think an APA report is necessarily the last word on The Bell Curve (or any other issue), *The Bell Curve Debate* contains 81 contributions on both sides of the debate (and no doubt many shades in between): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve_Debate […] But if one believes that environments can't overcome such genetic influences, then the best one can do is control the genetic defectives so that they have minimal opportunities to disrupt society and stay out of the way of the genetic superiors […] See above remarks about caricatures and straw man arguments. Rick Froman writes: Well, when I read the word appreciation in the first line of Allen's post, I wondered if he had recognized the sarcasm in my remarks and returned with his own. Sorry about that, Rick. But as you suggest, an outsider to the US scene would be hard put to appreciate you were being sarcastic: Good point. The media is widely known for their right wing proclivities. I took my cue for the rest of your post from my misconception about this initial comment. Re-reading it in the light of what you now tell me, I can see I failed to grasp the import of your follow-up remarks. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org --- Re:[tips] Are Genes Left-Wing? Mike Palij Sat, 16 Oct 2010 05:25:09 -0700 On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 02:22:47 -0700, Allen Esterson wrote: Rick Froman writes
RE: Re:[tips] Are Genes Left-Wing?
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 07:49:00 -0700, Rick Froman wrote: My point was simply that it is ridiculous to believe 1) that the media in the US is so monolithic and dominated by the right-wing (of all things) that scientific findings favoring the left-wing would be suppressed and 2) that a genetic explanation is inherently conservative (both genetic and environmental explanations, by turns, may support both right and left-wing ideas). Re: (1) Multinational corporations now control the major media outlets. Corporate capitalism doesn't have to be right-wing but it seems like it favors that type of environment, espeically in its libertarian form. Re: (2) Except that genetic explanations have a long history in right-wing politics and environmental explanation have a long history in left-wing politics. As we learn more about gene-environment interactions, the overly simplistic conceptions of nature vs nurture ideologies will have to be reworked. But, just as creationsists will not find any scientific evidence that undermines creation science to be credible, eugenics-oriented right wingers will not be deterred by evidence that their conceptions of bad genes are invalid. Left-wingers, I think, should be cautious in embracing genetic explanations unless the research is really, really good. Maybe Yankee fever is the explanation. The SF Giants (they're not in NY anymore) are clearly going to beat whoever the AL sends up. You're right about sarcasm not being well communicated; I almost thought you were being serious here. ;-) For those unfamiliar with the San Francisco Giants -- who had only won the World Series when they were the NY Giants -- check out the Wikipedia entry (yadda-yadda): see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Giants As for predictions: World Series will include NY Yankees vs. Philadelphia. Philies -- Yanks in 7 games (hell, if Cal Ripken can predict a Tampa Bay win over the Phillies, then I can risk calling a Yankee victory ;-). For Ripken's misprediction, see: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports-sentinel-sports-now/2010/10/05/cal-ripken-jr-predicts-tampa-bay-rays-win-world-series/ -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu P.S. Number 28, baby! ;-) --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=5733 or send a blank email to leave-5733-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: Re:[tips] Are Genes Left-Wing?
I don't see any evidence that either right or left wingers really are motivated to find the ultimate causes of behavior in either genetics or environment. The majority still feel that such explanations de-humanize and violate human freedom and responsibility. I think that is true for the majority of both left and right and, despite what they might think about the causes of other's behavior, very few act as if they believe their own behaviors are not largely freely chosen. To find evidence of both left and right support for genetic explanations, one need look no further than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics. As Wikipedia is reflective of the wisdom of the crowds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds), no critical thinking required). Fear the Beard! Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences John Brown University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 rfro...@jbu.edu From: Mike Palij [m...@nyu.edu] Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 11:29 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Cc: Mike Palij Subject: RE: Re:[tips] Are Genes Left-Wing? . Re: (2) Except that genetic explanations have a long history in right-wing politics and environmental explanation have a long history in left-wing politics. As we learn more about gene-environment interactions, the overly simplistic conceptions of nature vs nurture ideologies will have to be reworked. But, just as creationsists will not find any scientific evidence that undermines creation science to be credible, eugenics-oriented right wingers will not be deterred by evidence that their conceptions of bad genes are invalid. Left-wingers, I think, should be cautious in embracing genetic explanations unless the research is really, really good. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=5734 or send a blank email to leave-5734-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Are Genes Left-Wing?
Free will for me. Determinism (genetic or environmental) for thee. Chris Green currently in Montreal... reading and enjoying _The Spirit Level: Why Equlaity is Better for Everyone_, in which Oliver James is occasionally cited, which I am sure will rankle Allen's apparently reflexive Toryism. :-) = Rick Froman wrote: I don't see any evidence that either right or left wingers really are motivated to find the ultimate causes of behavior in either genetics or environment. The majority still feel that such explanations de-humanize and violate human freedom and responsibility. I think that is true for the majority of both left and right and, despite what they might think about the causes of other's behavior, very few act as if they believe their own behaviors are not largely freely chosen. To find evidence of both left and right support for genetic explanations, one need look no further than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics. As Wikipedia is reflective of the wisdom of the crowds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds), no critical thinking required). Fear the Beard! Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences John Brown University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 rfro...@jbu.edu From: Mike Palij [m...@nyu.edu] Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 11:29 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Cc: Mike Palij Subject: RE: Re:[tips] Are Genes Left-Wing? . Re: (2) Except that genetic explanations have a long history in right-wing politics and environmental explanation have a long history in left-wing politics. As we learn more about gene-environment interactions, the overly simplistic conceptions of nature vs nurture ideologies will have to be reworked. But, just as creationsists will not find any scientific evidence that undermines creation science to be credible, eugenics-oriented right wingers will not be deterred by evidence that their conceptions of bad genes are invalid. Left-wingers, I think, should be cautious in embracing genetic explanations unless the research is really, really good. --- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=5735 or send a blank email to leave-5735-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Are Genes Left-Wing?
Chris--do you have a source for that quote--love it as so on target. Hope I'm not repeating myself . . . but whatever, attended a lecture by Skinner in the early 1980's at Loyola University in Chicago and left rather depressed. The reason was, as per that quote, I had always understood Skinner's position that our notion of free-will was an illusion in a general sense and was one of the few that found his book, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, interesting and thoughtful. But I clearly never received his message on a personal level until attending this lecture. Only then did I feel distressed by the reality of MY lack of free-will as he was so clear, engaging and brilliant but also distressing as I finally had to accept determinism for me also?! But I also knew that soon my illusion of free-will would return and, of course, it did. After that experience, I finally understood why Skinner's work has been so viciously attacked and eagerly dismissed as it's simply too punishing to our our important perception of having personal autonomy. Joan jwarm...@oakton.edu Free will for me. Determinism (genetic or environmental) for thee. Chris Green currently in Montreal... reading and enjoying _The Spirit Level: Why Equlaity is Better for Everyone_, in which Oliver James is occasionally cited, which I am sure will rankle Allen's apparently reflexive Toryism. :-) = Rick Froman wrote: I don't see any evidence that either right or left wingers really are motivated to find the ultimate causes of behavior in either genetics or environment. The majority still feel that such explanations de-humanize and violate human freedom and responsibility. I think that is true for the majority of both left and right and, despite what they might think about the causes of other's behavior, very few act as if they believe their own behaviors are not largely freely chosen. To find evidence of both left and right support for genetic explanations, one need look no further than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics. As Wikipedia is reflective of the wisdom of the crowds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds), no critical thinking required). Fear the Beard! Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences John Brown University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 rfro...@jbu.edu From: Mike Palij [m...@nyu.edu] Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 11:29 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Cc: Mike Palij Subject: RE: Re:[tips] Are Genes Left-Wing? . Re: (2) Except that genetic explanations have a long history in right-wing politics and environmental explanation have a long history in left-wing politics. As we learn more about gene-environment interactions, the overly simplistic conceptions of nature vs nurture ideologies will have to be reworked. But, just as creationsists will not find any scientific evidence that undermines creation science to be credible, eugenics-oriented right wingers will not be deterred by evidence that their conceptions of bad genes are invalid. Left-wingers, I think, should be cautious in embracing genetic explanations unless the research is really, really good. --- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: jwarm...@oakton.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=49240.d374d0c18780e492c3d2e63f91752d0dn=Tl=tipso=5735 or send a blank email to leave-5735-49240.d374d0c18780e492c3d2e63f91752...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=5736 or send a blank email to leave-5736-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Are Genes Left-Wing?
Joan Warmbold wrote: Chris--do you have a source for that quote--love it as so on target. Green, 2010, personal communication. :-) (Though the me...thee rhyme has been used by many in the past.) But I clearly never received [Skinner's] message on a personal level until attending this lecture. Only then did I feel distressed by the reality of MY lack of free-will as he was so clear, engaging and brilliant but also distressing as I finally had to accept determinism for me also?! Fear not. Skinner didn't have any choice about saying that. It was due to his conditioning history. Chris Green = Free will for me. Determinism (genetic or environmental) for thee. Chris Green currently in Montreal... reading and enjoying _The Spirit Level: Why Equlaity is Better for Everyone_, in which Oliver James is occasionally cited, which I am sure will rankle Allen's apparently reflexive Toryism. :-) = Rick Froman wrote: I don't see any evidence that either right or left wingers really are motivated to find the ultimate causes of behavior in either genetics or environment. The majority still feel that such explanations de-humanize and violate human freedom and responsibility. I think that is true for the majority of both left and right and, despite what they might think about the causes of other's behavior, very few act as if they believe their own behaviors are not largely freely chosen. To find evidence of both left and right support for genetic explanations, one need look no further than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics. As Wikipedia is reflective of the wisdom of the crowds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds), no critical thinking required). Fear the Beard! Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences John Brown University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 rfro...@jbu.edu From: Mike Palij [m...@nyu.edu] Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 11:29 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Cc: Mike Palij Subject: RE: Re:[tips] Are Genes Left-Wing? . Re: (2) Except that genetic explanations have a long history in right-wing politics and environmental explanation have a long history in left-wing politics. As we learn more about gene-environment interactions, the overly simplistic conceptions of nature vs nurture ideologies will have to be reworked. But, just as creationsists will not find any scientific evidence that undermines creation science to be credible, eugenics-oriented right wingers will not be deterred by evidence that their conceptions of bad genes are invalid. Left-wingers, I think, should be cautious in embracing genetic explanations unless the research is really, really good. --- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: jwarm...@oakton.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=49240.d374d0c18780e492c3d2e63f91752d0dn=Tl=tipso=5735 or send a blank email to leave-5735-49240.d374d0c18780e492c3d2e63f91752...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd0dan=Tl=tipso=5736 or send a blank email to leave-5736-13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=5739 or send a blank email to leave-5739-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Are Genes Left-Wing?
Chris Green currently in Montreal... reading and enjoying _The Spirit Level: Why Equlaity is Better for Everyone_, in which Oliver James is occasionally cited, which I am sure will rankle Allen's apparently reflexive Toryism. :-) = Ironically black kids learned more and came out very scholarly in the days of segregation. Michael omnicentric Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=5740 or send a blank email to leave-5740-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Are Genes Left-Wing?
michael sylvester wrote: Chris Green currently in Montreal... reading and enjoying _The Spirit Level: Why Equlaity is Better for Everyone_, in which Oliver James is occasionally cited, which I am sure will rankle Allen's apparently reflexive Toryism. :-) = Ironically black kids learned more and came out very scholarly in the days of segregation. So did white kids. Don't confuse causation and correlation. Chris Green --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=5741 or send a blank email to leave-5741-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Are Genes Left-Wing?
I don't know about that.but I do subscribe to a handedness theory of politics.It does appear that left-handed presidents initiate and maintain more social programs to help the poor than presidents who are right handed.Lefties seem to be more kind and compassionate and make better husbands. Michael omnicentric Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=5719 or send a blank email to leave-5719-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
