On 15 Oct 2010, Mike Palij (standard disclaimers apply) wrote: > The answer to the question in the subject line appears to be "Yes", > at least that is the contention of Oliver James in an article that he > wrote for the Guardian U.K.; see: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/12/why-genes-are-leftwing >
After Allen's tour de force post, it's hard to know what to add. But it might be worth noting a famous dust-up between James and Steven Pinker back in 2002, including a reference to a shocking use of bad language by a notorious New Jersey grandmother (http://tinyurl.com/27qxka8 ). For the insights of a certain A. Esterson on this affair, see http://tinyurl.com/2fqoogu But what about James' claim in the current Guardian that the preeminent behaviour geneticist, Robert Plomin now admits that the evidence has proved that "genetic effects are much smaller than previously considered: the largest effects account for only 1% of quantitative traits"? True, he did say it (Plomin and Davis, 2009). And if this means that Plomin is now repudiating his years of work showing the powerful effect of genes in human behaviour, it would be astounding. But not to worry, he does not. The next sentence, which James does _not_ quote, is key. Plomin goes on to say "This finding implies that hundreds of genes are responsible for the heritability of behavioural problems in childhood". The point, as I understand it, is that genetic effects are alive and well ("important for most behavioural disorders and dimensions" is how Plomin phrases it). But they turn out not to be caused by the dramatic action of a small number of genes; instead recent research suggests that their effects are spread out over a large number, each contributing only a tiny part to the whole. As one of the sources Allen cited noted, "Oliver James either does not understand, or wilfully misunderstands" such matters. It's also worth emphasizing that Plomin (and many others) have never denied the role of environmental effects in human behaviour. He says, for example, that "heritabilities for common disorders are never 100% and are usually 50% or less [that includes personality, BTW]. It is at least as important to identify the environmental causes of psychopathology as it is [sic] genetic causes". But does this mean that Oliver James' view on the critical role of the family in development are correct? Not a bit, because the environmental influence time after time turns out to be of the non-shared variety, special experiences unique to the individual, and not shared with other family members, as family upbringing would be. Stephen Plomin, R. and Davis, O. (2009). The future of genetics in psychology and psychiatry: microarrays, genome-wide association, and non-coding RNA. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 63-71. -------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca -------------------------------------------- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5730 or send a blank email to leave-5730-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
