Mike Palij writes in relation to Jay Joseph's writings: >To which I say, "what exactly is that axe?" and "Does Kendler >really believe that he entered into his investigations without any >preconceived notions?" If Joseph's axe is to be concerned about >research that has its roots in eugneics and how such research >may misdirect interest from other issues, then I don't think that >Jospeh should stop chopping.
Because much early interest in genetics (by no means all) was the work of people interested in eugenics (as much from the Left of the political spectrum as from the Right - e.g. H.G. Wells, Bernard Shaw, the Fabians), why should it follow that recent or current research into the genetic influences on human characteristics and behaviour is *rooted* in eugenics, or misdirects interest from other issues. (I find no lack of people out there with an alternative approach, seeking socio-political/environmental explanations for human characteristics, mental illness, etc.) If we're going to go in for guilt by association, then there are plenty of people ready and willing to argue that modern Darwinism is tainted in a similar way. Who can doubt that pre-Nazi and Nazi philosophies were influenced by notions derived from Darwinian theory? This is routinely used by creationists to denounce Darwinism. Try these as samplers: "Richard Weikart, professor of modern European history at California State University, Stanislaus,... showed that Darwinism provided many of the foundations for Nazi principles. [...] Sadly, today, the very philosophy that was foundational to Nazism is taught as fact in Western media and educational circles." http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1892/ "It is not a coincidence that Neo-Nazis are inspired by the theory of evolution of Darwin since, from the day it was conceived, Darwinism has always been an inseparable part of Nazi ideology." http://www.evidencesofcreation.com/solution_11.htm "Darwinism was a central, guiding principle of Nazi ideology, especially of Hitler's own world view." http://www.evidencesofcreation.com/solution_11.htm The argument that modern research into the genetic influences on human characteristics and behaviour is tainted by the fact that early interest in the subject was mostly bound up with eugenics theory has about the same validity as the arguments of creationists that Darwinian evolutionary theory is tainted by the fact that it was (mis)used by the Nazis. Mike writes re Kenneth Kendler's words about Jay Joseph: >To which I say, "what exactly is that axe?" and "Does Kendler >really believe that he entered into his investigations without any >preconceived notions?" Of course it is impossible not to have *some* preconceived notions, but does that mean all are equal on (i) the scale of such preconceptions, and (ii) the strength with which the preconceptions are held and the extent to which an individual is prepared to try to be as open as possible to evidence that is inconsistent with his or her beliefs? The negative evaluation of Joseph in this respect is being made specifically about him *on the basis of his writings*. (See below.) Mike writes: > [...] being a clinical psychologist does not automatically > disqualify one from either rigorous research interest or > from quantitative sophistication. Of course I didn't argue that this was the case. I followed up by observing that I saw no evidence that Joseph had acquired the expertise for serious critical analysis of the complexities of twin studies, went on to note that my view was also based on my impression from reading his writings, plus the comments on these from academics and researchers with considerable experience in the field, to which I'll add another, that of Robert Plomin: >http://www.robertplomin.com/< "Sigh...it's the same old stuff... Even more than David Rowe, I decided long ago not to waste my time addressing these polemics -- because they are not interested in scientific adjudication (and do not do any research) -- as soon as you knock off one objection they go on to six others." As Mike writes in relation to a couple of notable individuals who transcended the limitations of a training in psychodynamic psychology to go on to accomplishments in other fields, such people are exceptions and not the rule. But in any case, as I've already said, my point was not based merely on Joseph's background, that was just a lead into my other relevant observations. Where is there any evidence in the information available about Joseph that indicates he has acquired the expertise necessary for handling the immense complexities involved in the analysis of twins studies, etc? I can find none. On the other hand there are the negative appraisals by several people with precisely this kind of expertise. I make no claims to such expertise, but reading both his interview in "The Psychologist" and his article on twin studies, both cited by Mike, I can recognize that he recycles arguments that I know have been addressed on numerous occasions in the literature. My inexpert impression is consistent with the comment of David Rowe about Joseph: "He barely mentions the mass of work that has been done to test method's assumptions..." Joseph's axe? He says he came into the field of psychology "believing that to the extent that people suffer psychological distress and damage, the likely causes are abusive and neglectful family environments, social and political distress and damage, social and political factors, and the pressures of living in advanced industrial societies". I think his writings indicate that he approached the examination of twin and adoption studies with a view to confirming these beliefs, with little if any attempt to undertake a disinterested examination of the evidence. Added to the testimony of the specialists in twin/adoption studies I've quoted, we have the observations of the reviewer cited by Stephen Black: "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." Rather, in contrast to that of Joseph, the approach should be predicated on the following: "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." Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- Re: [tips] The Gene Illusion sblack Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:38:11 -0700 > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Re:[tips] The Gene Illusion Mike Palij Sun, 23 Mar 2008 08:51:29 -0700 On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:38:11 -0700, Stepehn Black wrote: >> 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> First, some responses to Allen's comments: (1) I agree with Allen that the book review is somewhat problematic because it uses the "outline the book and summarize" approach instead of focusing more on the substance, there are some important points that are presented and I highlight in the following. (2) It seems to me that perhaps Joseph is working from a concern about the origins and goals of genetics research. As Holdsworth notes in his review, Jospeh does emphasize the reluctance of contemporary behavior geneticists to acknowledge the outgrowth of their field from the turn of the century eugneics movement, subsequent "race science", and consequences basing public policy, public health, and laws on such eugenics. Nazi atrocities easily come to mind in this area but it is important to remember that there were many eugenicists in other countries and that the U.S. implemented strerilization laws for the "unfit". Indeed, when the legality of such laws were brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, Oliver Wendell Holmes infamously commented "three generations of imbeciles if enough" in support of such laws. (3) There may be the larger concerns as well, given that genetic interpretations of human differences have be used to support political aganedas that stress differences among groups, especially distinguishing "desirables" from "undesirables". In a democracy, our similarities should be more important than our differences, embodied in such views as "we are all equal before the law", in contrast to "seperate but equal" viewpoints (as embodied in the "Jim Crow Laws" in the U.S.). Certain types of politicians use "divide and conquer" strategies to obtain and maintain power and genetic differences can be used in various ways to divide people and prevent them from organizing to prevent the abuse of power. (4) I highlighted Joseph's Psy.D. because I wanted to make clear that he was a clinician. However, being a clinical psychologist does not automatically disqualify one from either rigorous research interest or from quantitative sophistication. Jacob "Jack" Cohen, perhaps best known for his books on multiple regression and power analysis as well as numerous articles promoting good practices in psychology's use of statistics, got his Ph.D. in clinical psychology at NYU, historically a program with a psychodynamic orientation. I believe that Peter Bentler, researcher on structural equation modeling (SEM) and developed of the EQS program, also got his Ph.D. in clinical psychology. I recognize thtat these people are exceptions and not the rule in clinical psychology but being a clinician doesn't mean that one's critical faculties have been turned off (though one might be able to come with examples where this does seem to be the case). (5) I reproduce Allen's last statement below: |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. To which I say, "what exactly is that axe?" and "Does Kendler really believe that he entered into his investigations without any preconceived notions?" If Joseph's axe is to be concerned about research that has its roots in eugneics and how such research may misdirect interest from other issues, then I don't think that Jospeh should stop chopping. There are benefits to having gadflys who are willing to provide alternative perspectives, maybe once in a while pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. With respect to the second question, only Kendler can answer but experience has taught me that most people do research for a reason and sometimes asking why they are doing a particular type of research can be quite insightful. One just has to be reminded of the Rushtons out there (e.g., http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr_ggs.html ) I know that this is getting too long but I do want to comment on Stephen Black's statements: >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. First, let explain why I asked about the "Gene Illusion" in the first place. On another email list, people had started to discuss the topic of "genomics" or the genetic basis of psychiatric illnesses (aka neuropsychiatric genetics) and one person provided the following quote from an editorial for the "American Jorunal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics": |It is no secret that our field has published thousands of candidate |gene association studies but few replicated findings. Source: S.V. Faraone, J.W. Smoller, C.N. Pato, P. Sullivan, M.T. Tsuang (2008). The new neuropsychiatric genetics. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics 147B(1), 1-2 DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.b.30691 US: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.b.30691 In context, the purpose of the journal is to present research that identifies associations between genes and manifestations of the effects of those genes, such as psychiatric illnesses like bipolar disorder (see the editorial for more context and, if you have access to the journal, examine it for research in this area). Because this is not my area, I don't completely understand this point but from a naive perspective I am tempted to ask "Are you saying that there is a lot of published research on gene-behavior relationships that have not been replicated?" Given the difficulty of doing such studies, especially the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart (MISTRA), should we uncritically accept the results from such studies or wait until they are replicated? Of course, the more complex a research study is, the more costly it is, the more specialized the population population involved, the more difficult it will be to replicate it. Do we take the research results as is and possibly make Type I errors along the way or do we wait for replication? [snip] >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." I am not an expert in behavior genetics but I do have some familiarity with scientific controverys in psychology. For example, regarding color vision in the 19th century and early 20th century, the Young-Helmholtz trichomaticity theory was seen as the competitor to the Opponent Process theory and the proponents saw no resolution to the argument of which one was the "true" explanation. As it turns out, both are necessary to account for color vision but even this synthesis cannot completely account for it. Depending upon who you asked at the beginning of the 20th century about how color vision operated, one could get two very different mechanisms described and both accounts would be correct, though only partial answers. Today we have similar problems regarding the "psychophysical law": is Fechner's logarithmic law a better account of the relationship between stimulus energies and sensation than the Stevens' power law? Talk to the Fechnerians you'll get one answer, talks to the Stevens' people you'll get another. However, I do believe that Roger Shepard pointed out that both camps oversimply the situation and both laws are at best crude approximations of the true relationship. Moreover, other cognitive processes such as memory (e.g., for responses made to earlier stimuli in a psychophysical experiment) and decision-making (e.g., willingness to respond one way or another) also play significant roles which the simple mathematical laws cannot take into account. The problem about these types of controversies is the difficulty of transcending the argument, that is, realizing that neither side may have the "true" theory or account and whichever position is taken has to be tentative until new research provides answers to standing questions. But I think that what often happens in these situations is that we may get the scientific equivalent of claims of "heresy": "this position represents true science and what the other position advocates is not science". It's one thing to hear about such things when discussing ESP or UFOs, its another to hear psychophysicists saying such things about each other. I think that maybe behavior genetics has similar sorts of things going on. Finally, concerning the comments by Judith Harris and the validity of the equal environments assumption: >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". Indeed. But my comments upfront might provide a context to interpret this statement from a new perspective. -Mike Palij New York University >(For 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. --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
