heritability is not genetic determinism

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: John Stevens: "practical epistemology"
• Previous message: Hugh Jarvis: "ARIT Permit Review"

I do not think much is gained by accusing each other of being idiots, even if
we all do not understand each other well.

An issue that seems lost in the race-IQ debate is the difference between
heritability and genetic determinism. Rushton et al claim to document
heritability of IQ, not genetic determinism.

My apologies to Dave Degusta if he reads my commentary as implying he believes
correlation = cause, and that identifying "causal mechanisms" is not important.
Clearly he does not, and I did not mean to suggest he did. However, I
appreciated his commentary on these issues, and felt it appropriate to identify
his ideas as worth examining in comparison with Mike Lieber's. In hindsight,
"cf." might have set off fewer sparks than "contra."

So what is "politically correct" these days? In anthroland, it is a different
thing than in Limbaughland. I agree with Dave's suggestion that we need to be
as hard on hypotheses that we "like" (find socially acceptable, emotionally
satisfying, or whatever) as those that we do not like.

Mark Flinn

P.S., for those interested in non-invasive measurement of hormones, I would be
happy to send you information regarding salivary radioimmunoassay techniques.

• Next message: John Stevens: "practical epistemology"
• Previous message: Hugh Jarvis: "ARIT Permit Review"