I'll have to read Chris' blog on that stuff.
I have no intention to inflame or defame here, but
Mike Palij wrote
"Joseph's axe? ... 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."
I think this is the way all scientists approach their field. I don't believe that a scientist invested in their work can "undertake a disinterested examination of the evidence."
Rather they seek to find any way to show how the new evidence is based on faulty assumptions, or how it can be subsumed under the current theory. Indeed, the evidence for a counter-theory has to build to the point where it can no longer be ignored before it will (or should) be accepted.
So, I don't have a problem with scientific axes per se.
--Mike
--- On Mon, 3/24/08, Allen Esterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Allen Esterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re:[tips] The Gene Illusion
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, March 24, 2008, 5:53 AM
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]) |
