Re: Behavioral Genetics: A pseudo science or real scientific discipline

MR: You raise some good points. I would need to find out more about the
study the Princeton researcher did on the mice, the particular inserted
gene, and why it was selected and what evidence there is it is
associated with "intelligence". Would also have to find out if is has
been replicated in other mice and animals. This happens all the time.
For example, researchers in North Carolina have recently stated they
found a "gene" only in males (mice I believe) which when averages are
taken confers an IQ score of up to 30 points more. The study hasn't
been replicated and they don't know why it only effects male IQ. Is
there an IQ test for mice? LOL! I could be getting some of this wrong.
Let me see if I can fish it up. I'll be back. I'm back.



GS: My criticism is at the conceptual level. This is a very difficult issue
to understand by most people because most philosophies of science tend to
emphasize data and theory. But conceptual analysis is extremely important -
we don't ask "Is the concept of intelligence wrongheaded?" We ask "What
kinds of intelligence are there?" How can we measure intelligence more
accurately?" etc. Much of what you have commented on with respect to my post
has seemed to miss this point, though I am pleased that, at least so far,
our exchanges are less vitriolic than they were a couple of years ago. I
often suggest that people read Machado et al's "Facts concepts and theories:
the shape of psychology's epistemic triangle." The paper is published in
Behavior and Philosophy, and is available in its entirety, electronically,
for free.



<snip newspaper article>

MR: I find this research highly dubious for several reasons. First, it has
not been published in a Journal and peer reviewed. That was done on
purpose IMO. Many of these scientists have an agenda and they know the
subject matter will make a splash in the media and effect cultural
attitudes.



GS: Well, they want any attention they can get, for several reasons. In any
event, the data probably will be published.



MR: So theoretically it is quite possible in the future
prospective parents will "select a gene" for "intelligence" and many
other traits thinking their child will be more "intelligent", etc. If
you think the mice or rat research by the Princeton scholar had low
standards at least it attempted to measure the rodent's response time
whereas this study merely attempts to correlate a gene with the score
on an IQ test.



GS: I doubt that the measure was "response time," but I don't know the
specifics of the "Princeton study." But "memory" was mentioned, and talk of
memory is connected intimately with such notions as representation, storage
and retrieval, etc. I believe these notions are wrong-headed, and the
problem is that they are not hypotheses, they are assumptions.



MR: The study hasn't been replicated either.



GS: In many areas, replication is actively discouraged. There are reasons
for this (none of them good), but any way you slice it, it is extremely
damaging. But, again, my primary argument is not the facts, it is the
conceptual structure within which the facts are interpreted.



MR: And what about
all the other numerous variables. It is all boiled down to a gene? And
this gene only effects males IQ? There is the danger, however, in the
future the practice of selecting a particular gene which correlates
with "intelligence" and other traits will become commonplace. It
doesn't matter it is pseudo-science because it will buttress the
Establishment agenda. Genes=people and can be produced on an assembly
line with various "cookie cutters". Very dangerous as it could lead to
people becoming merely "objects" in medicine and science like they did
in Nazi Germany. No longer human beings. Since Phillip Rushton thinks
brain size is related with genital penis size maybe a gene for a small
*** will become in vogue. According to Rushton, the smaller your ***
the bigger your brain and the bigger your *** the smaller the brain.
The Asians with their "baby cocks" are the most intelligent, Whites in
the middle, and Blacks with "Big Cocks".



GS: Well, remember, we are talking about a distribution here. Many white
guys are hung like priapistic ponies. Seriously, though, the issues you
raise are not necessarily restricted to behavioral genetics. Any philosophy
that holds that behavior is determined raises the same issues.

MR: I disagree. I think intelligence (whatever that is) does have an
"innate" quality to it. I know, if you can't exactly define it then how
is it innate? This doesn't sound very scientific but on a realistic
level intelligence does exist and there is an innate component to it.



GS: The term "intelligence" has a bunch of colloquial meanings, but that
does not mean that it is a useful scientific concept.



MR: Whether it is given the opportunity to thrive and flourish and utilize
its potential is another question. You can take a person who isn't
tremendously bright but has been able to utilize their full potential.
You take somebody who has the innate capacity for being tremendously
bright and because of their envioronments that gets fucked up.

I believe behaviors certainly have a genetic component. Is intelligence
a behavior? I personally consider "intelligence" to be largely abstract
although it is undoubtedly a product of natural selection. Natural
selection is hardly abstract as it confers mutations which lead to the
organism adapting to its environment and differential reproduction. I
think, however, definitions of what intelligence is will continue to
change. Why? If we intervene in natural selection through genetic
engineering this will change to some extent what we consider
intelligence to be. Presently, most researchers are focused on what the
traditional definition of intelligence is (as if it were a fixated
thing) but in the future hopefully we will have gone beyond that,
expanding our knowledge and effecting changes. Forgive me for sounding
arrogant but currently at the biological level the human species is so
hopelessly dum it causes me fear and trepidation.



GS: As I said, the question is "What is inherited?" What people do on
"intelligence tests" is extremely complex behavior. It isn't one "thing," or
even several "things." It is the outcome of the dynamically interacting
variables that constitute the organism/environment interaction. Sometimes it
is, essentially, behavior itself that is inherited, but more often what is
inherited are behavioral processes that appear to function in a reasonably
general fashion - especially with humans.

MR: You're reading too much into Hawking. Just take it at face value and it
makes the most sense of all. You write, "behavior itself is so
conceptualized so badly that "we" don't even know what we are trying to
explain. I think this has alot of merit to it but is too extreme. You
haven't offered any possible hypothetical solutions of getting out of
this "conceptual muddle".



GS: Yes, I did, but I did not emphasize it. I suggested that, for example,
STM should be conceptualized as a set of response classes that are produced
via the interaction of an animal with its ontogenic environment. What are
inherited are the processes that we call operant and classical conditioning,
in all their complexity, and the associated processes (motivational and
emotional variables) of which we have some current understanding. STM is not
a "module" we inherit, if anything, it is "operant conditioning" we inherit.
I am not arguing that natural selection is unimportant in understanding
behavior, I am saying that the issue is "What is it that is inherited?" This
is partly a conceptual issue.



MR: You state, "No, I am suggesting that the
sentiment expressed by "as if improved memory were the central, or even
sole, criterion for defining intelligence" is revealing. It reveals the
conceptual muddle that characterizes virtually any discussion of topics
that have anything to do with the behavior of animals, human or
otherwise. First, to equate the effect of the gene manipulation as
affecting "memory" is simple-minded Second, thinking that a reasonable
goal is "defining intelligence" is simple-minded." I don't think so. I
think genes are involved in memory. How exactly remains the question. I
certainly think gene manipulation could have effects of memory.



GS: Needless to say, I believe I have dealt with this.


MR: Certainly the environment has effects but I think if you really
genetically engineered our genome and created profound changes in the
organism I think you would see the "environments" interacting with
"genes" would be different.



GS: Of course, since a large aspect of behavior involves behavior's effects
on the environment. That is the essence of operant conditioning.



<whitesickle@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dn0kbi$17is$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> You raise some good points. I would need to find out more about the



.

Quantcast