Mon, 24 Mar 2008 05:56:10 -0700, Allen Esterson writes: >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.
A few points: (1) In my previous comments, I pointed out the Joseph seems to be arguing that contemporary behavior geneticists downplay or avoid making connections to either eugenics or the techniques such as twin studies that were used by Nazis. It is understandable that they might be embarassed by such connections but it is historical fact. For example, see Bachrach (2004) "In the Name of Public Health - Nazi Racial Hygiene", New England Journal of Medicine. This is available at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum at: http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/deadlymedicine/related/naziracialhygiene.pdf or http://tinyurl.com/2zhqc4 (see Figure 1 for photographic evidence) which is part of a larger exhibit on how medical science was perverted for Nazi purposes; see: http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/deadlymedicine/ If neuroscientists can acknowledge the historical contributions of phrenology to contemporary thinking (although some should be more careful about how they do so, in my opinion), perhaps contemporary behavior geneticists can acknowledge that there have been terrible abuses made in name of genetic science which they should be ever vigilant for. (2) I recommend Daniel Kevles' "In the Name of Eugenics" for a reasonably comprehensive history of the eugenics movement in the 19th century and first half of the 20th century. As Allen points out, the eugenics movement attracted people from a broad political spectrum (at least early on), including radicals such as Havelock Ellis and Emma Goodman. The attraction was how to maintain the "greatness" of one's country when it was at risk of being overrun by the "unfit" or "undesirables", that is, the lower social classes, the criminals, the alcoholics, those suffering from "pauperism", those suffering from "feeblemindedness", the chronicly ill (e.g., diabetics), southern and eastern Europeans, and on and on. However, a quote from Kevles provides some insight into where the movement was by the 1930s: |In 1935, the American geneticist and future Nobel laureate |Herman J. Muller was moved to write that eugencis had become |"hopelessly perverted" into a pseudoscientific facade for "advocates |of race and class prejudice, defenders of the vested interests of |church and state, Fascists, Hitlerites, and reactionaries generally." |By the mid-thirties, mainline eugenics had generally been recognized |as a farrago of flawed science. Jacob Landman summarized the |failings of the creed: "It is not true that boiler washers, engine |hostlers, miners, janitors, and garbage men, who have large |families, are necessarily idiots and morons. It is not true that |college graduates, people in 'Who's Who,' and some 'successful' |people, such as racketteers and bootleggers, are necessarily |physically, mentally, and morally superior parents...It is not |true that celebrated individuals necessarily beget celebrated |offspring... [or] that idiotic individuals necessarily beget idiotic |children. ... It is not true that, because the color of guinea pigs |is transmissable in accordance with Mendalisn theory, therefore |human mental traits must also be...It is not true that, by any known |scientific test, there is a Nordic race or that the so-called |Nordic race is superior to any other race." It was also not |true, either, many others would have added, that the unemployed |were any more unfit than the employed. And it was not true, |most geneticists had come to understand, that eugenic |sterilization could rapidly rid society of the eugenically undesirable. (Kevles, 1985, p164) A brief version of the preface to Kevles' 1995 re-issue is provided at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/nameof/index.html (3) I don't think that Joseph is trying to use "guilt by association" but I don't know what is in his mind. I do know, that the study of genetics has taken some very bad turns and there are still people today who would find eugenics (as described above) acceptable. Behavior genetics research should be aware of their history and repudiate it as necessary. >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/ [other examples of attempt to connect Dawinian theory to Nazism snipped] A couple of points: (1) I believe that a credible argument for the development of Nazism can be made without having to reference Darwin at all. This, I believe, can be done simply on the basis of historical facts. (2) Whether we like it or not, Darwin was a eugenicist as was Galton, Pearson, Goddard, Hall, and many other people. However, being a eugenicist does not entail that one advocate genocide as a solution to the problem of increasing "undesirables" in one's nation. Indeed, as Kevles points out, there were two approaches advocated by the eugenicists: (a) positive eugenics: the professional and upper classes tended to have fewer children than the "undesirable" classes, so, the "desirable classes" had to have more children. This was the position that Sir Ronald Fisher and others chose. (b) negative eugenics: sterilization of "undesirables" and restriction of immigration, options which proved to be popular in the U.S. It was argued that the "feebleminded" (a wastebasket category what could include many different groups of people), criminals, people on welfare, and others should either voluntarily agree to be sterilized or be forced to undergo sterilization (a practice which I had previously pointed out had been supported by the U.S. Supreme Court). The Nazis clearly chose negative eugenic procedures and took them a step further: simply kill the undesirables now. Genocide as a eugenic tool is clearly a Nazi innovation no matter what others may say. >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. I believe that I never said that modern behavior genetics was "tainted" by its association with eugenics or the extreme methods used by the Nazis. I do believe that these historical aspects of behavior genetics do need to be acknowledged if for no other reason than to serve as reminder of the errors made in the past. I am willing to give to behavior geneticists the benefit of the doubt that they are not closet Nazis (well, most of them anyway). >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.) Perhaps it is a bias on my part but I am leary of genetic explanations for human behavior unless one can show the specific genes or chromosomes involved. I wonder why people look for genetic explanations for complex human behavior when it seems to me that gene-environment interactions are probably the more reasonable thing to focus on. And if a behavior geneticist is negative in their evaluations of a critic, I will try to remember that that behavior geneticist has a stake in showing that he is right and his critics are wrong. Just like a proponent of Stevens' power law will negatively evaluate Fechnerian approaches and Anderson's functional measurement framework while showing that he has the correct perspective. >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/< >[snip] Is it possible that Joseph is just a crank and does not make any valid points about the limitations of contemporary behavior genetics? That certainly seems to the consensus of the people you cite. They are after all experts in behavior genetics. However, there are problems in making arguments based on authority, no matter how expert those authorities are (think of the arguments made by experts in eugenics back in the day; who could dispute Pearson's correlations and other evidence?). Only additonal research and insightful analysis will show to what degree today's behavior geneticists are correct in their assumptions, methods, and conclusions. One of the fatal flaws of the eugenics movement was the notion that Mendalism (single gene basis) could explain all behaviors, an assumption that was shown early on to be inconsistent with various data but was still maintained as a basic tenet (to Pearson's credit, he rejected Mendalism but thought his biometrical approach would provide the real basis for eugenics). I guess we'll have to wait to see whether there are any fatal flaws in contemporary behavior genetics and whether Joseph might have been right (even if purely by luck). -Mike Palij New York University [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
