On 20 March 2008 Mike Palij wrote: >Given the recent discussion of Harris' books and genetics, >I was wondering if anyone was familiar with the work of Jay >Joseph, the author of "The Gene Illusion". One review of the > book is avaialable at:
>http://human-nature.com/nibbs/03/jjoseph.html >A search of PsycInfo provides a variety of publications, >one with an intriguing title: >Joseph, J. (2002). Twin studies in psychiatry and psychology: >Science of pseudosciece? Psychiatric Quarterly, 73(1), 71-82. >Retrieved March 20, 2008, from PsycINFO database. >Opinions? >P.S. Regarding credentialing, Joseph has a Psy.D. >but don't hold that against him. ;-) About 6 years ago Joseph's writings came up in an email exchange I had with psychiatrist friend. Checking back, I see that my reaction to the review of the *Gene Illusion* cited above was disappointment that it consisted of little more than a resume of each chapter, rather than an informed examination of Joseph's arguments. My friend canvassed some people involved with twin studies research, etc, and the unanimous view was not exactly complimentary. You may say "what would you expect?", but before quoting some of these views let me expand on this. The statistical analysis of twin study research is immensely complicated. As Mike notes, Joseph has a Psy.D., not a Ph.D, and a Google search tells me that a "Psy.D. is designed primarily to train psychologists to be clinicians able to work in a wide range of clinical settings. Generally the emphasis is on clinical work and focuses less heavily on research than Ph.D. programs." Joseph himself tells us that he is "psychodynamically trained psychotherapist". Is there anything here to suggest he has the expertise required for serious critical analysis of the complexities of twin studies? So to the comments. Thomas Bouchard reported that he had "spent some time reviewing one of Joseph's papers, taking it apart point by point. The editor published it anyhow..." Kenneth Kendler (mentioned in the cited articles), while acknowledging "There are certainly many methodological issues in our field to be concerned about,", reported: "I did review a long review article of his a year or so ago. My conclusions were that he was not a serious student of the subject but had an 'axe to grind'." David Rowe reported: "I've corresponded with Jay Joseph... At first I thought he was a scientist of some kind. But it did not last long - he's a complete ideologue who distorts data by omission... He barely mentions the mass of work that has been done to test method's assumptions, nor does he offer any kind of alternative explanation for kinship correlations..." Reading Joseph's writings/reviews, and given his apparent lack of expertise for the analysis of twin studies, my sense is that as Kenneth Kendler says, he has an axe to grind, and that the conclusions at which he has arrived were predetermined by the beliefs he held prior to his investigations. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
