> 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".
Allen Esterson replied: > > 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 <snip> There's a review in _Intelligence_ (Spinath, 2004). The gist of it seems to be that Joseph raises important points (particularly relating to the "equal environments assumption") but in an extreme and one-sided manner which does not give one confidence, while failing to give a fair hearing to the response of behaviour geneticists to his charges. See for yourself. Some quotes from the review: "The book's major claims can be summarized as follows: (a) The classical twin method was the creation of racial hygienists and eugenicists; (b) studies of twins reared together are invalid because the equal environments assumption (EEA) is not met; (c) studies of twins reared- apart are invalid because the `unequal environments assumption´ is not met; (d) heritability as a concept is inherently misleading, has no practical purpose, and is nearly equivalent to no information at all; (e) adoption studies (of schizophrenia and, arguably, such studies in general) are flawed by selective placement, unsound methodology, and bias; in the case of schizophrenia, Joseph concludes that "the results from family, twin and adoption studies do not support the position that genes influence the appearance of a set of behaviors given the name `schizophrenia´ " (p. 230); and (f) "molecular genetic research in psychiatry will prove to be a gigantic waste of time, energy, and money. The same can be said for the search for behavioral and IQ genes" Whew! "Over large parts of the book, Joseph-a practicing clinical psychologist-presents a well-written and forceful critique of methodological difficulties and challenges in twin and adoption research. Some of these issues have been voiced before (e.g., Pam, Kemker, Ross, & Golden, 1996) and need to be taken seriously in contemporary genetic research". But... "The main problem with The Gene Illusion is a predominantly black-and- white portrayal, its reliance on the "adversary principle" in contrast to the "truth-finding principle" (Eysenck & Kamin, 1981), and the unwarranted (and unquantified) conclusion that the methodological difficulties and challenges in behavior genetic research render the approach meaningless and invalid." and therefore... "Modern behavior genetics has become an interdisciplinary field, in which researchers interested in genetic and environmental influences work together towards a better understanding of individual differences in human behavior. Exchange between researchers and critics and the consideration of justified criticism will further advance the field. Adherence to the adversary principle, denunciation, or a priori dismissiveness will not." Other behaviour geneticists think similarly. For example, Thomas Bouchard, a founder of one of the longest-running studies on twins (Minnesota Study of Identical Twins Reared Apart (MISTRA)), with matt McGue, has an extended discussion of the EAA (Bouchard and McGue, 2003). They address Joseph's charge without mentioning him directly. They cite evidence that "tests of the equal environmental similarity assumption have repeatedly shown that it is valid in most instances [references omitted]. Good scientific practice, however, requires that the assumption be repeatedly tested for each trait under investigation." They also note, "Fortunately, inferences about the nature and existence of genetic and environmental influences...do not rest solely with twin studies. In particular, the adoption study design provides the opportunity for constructively replicating findings from twin studies". [but Joseph rejects adoption studies as well--SB]. Judith Harris (2006) does cite Joseph on the EAA (reference 25, p. 41, although he is identified in the text only as a 'critic". She feels that the EAA is reasonable for twin studies of intelligence, but agrees that it is "less tenable" for personality studies. Here she says that parents do behave more similarly to identical twins than to fraternal twins but this is a consequence of the more similar genes of MZ pairs. She then makes a comment which could be directly aimed at Joseph, noting: "Fortunately behavioral geneticists don't have to rely on a single method for calculating heritability...they generally use two or more methods to home in on a result. Since each method has its own strengths and weaknesses, the critics have had to resort to thinking up a different, ad hoc criticism for each one." She then asks what is consequence for her theory if, hypothetically, "the critics" are right. "Why should I care? The answer is, I don't. I'm not trying to explain why identical twins are so alike--I'm trying to explain why they are so different". (fFor more, you're better off reading her than depending on my imperfect summarizing and excerpting) Stephen References Harris, J. (2006). No Two Alike: Human Nature and Human Individuality. Norton. Bouchard, T., and McGue, M. (2003). Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences. Journal of neurobiology, 54, 4-45. Spinath, F. (2004). Book Review: The Gene Illusion. Intelligence, 32, 425- 427. Stephen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Subscribe to discussion list (TIPS) for the teaching of psychology at http://flightline.highline.edu/sfrantz/tips/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
