DrBanneker
Space is the Place
Its entitled Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Class, and Race. Of course he got a January 27th WSJ op-ed for it. The population geneticists are already starting to respond.
Including a group of researchers who say he completely mischaracterized their research on genetics and cognition
Before someone jumps in here with the basic canards: do you believe all traits are infinitely environmentally flexible, don't you acknowledge human genetic varation across ethnic groups, don't you acknowledge all traits including mental traits have genetic components, etc. etc.
I would reply, yes I am very aware of those things, even on a technical level I won't go into here, and the other geneticists panning this work study these things every single day. So just mentioning those facts to imply some sort of hidden truth is not a demonstration of a knowledge of genetics, its just kicking a straw man in the nuts.
I do find it ironic how many readers probably think a book on "Human Diversity" is bold and timely when hundreds of papers by dozens of researchers get published on this topic every month. The responsible ones clearly state that the arguments be they based on heritability, association studies, and especially polygenic scores which people are acting like is the big cure all--do not settle these questions at all, especially how immutable a phenotype is to change. Since if you can change a phenotype, and often you can, genetic lines in the sand aren't as damning.
There will always be variation in a population based on genetics but this is a study of the variance of a trait, not its mean value and how much this mean value can go up, down, or whatever. There can even be genetic variation between groups that effect trait means but this does not mean that environmental effects aren't mediating the supposed "genetic differences" or that those gaps can't narrow (or widen). Genetic variation does not mean "cause", "unchanging", or immune from environmental effects or interaction. People keep being sloppy though.
There are many examples of this in the literature. I have peer reviewed papers I can link for those who are interested.
I normally would brush this off but with our current leadership I am sure people are hawking this everywhere in DC backchannels since Murray still works for AEI I think.
Including a group of researchers who say he completely mischaracterized their research on genetics and cognition
Before someone jumps in here with the basic canards: do you believe all traits are infinitely environmentally flexible, don't you acknowledge human genetic varation across ethnic groups, don't you acknowledge all traits including mental traits have genetic components, etc. etc.
I would reply, yes I am very aware of those things, even on a technical level I won't go into here, and the other geneticists panning this work study these things every single day. So just mentioning those facts to imply some sort of hidden truth is not a demonstration of a knowledge of genetics, its just kicking a straw man in the nuts.
I do find it ironic how many readers probably think a book on "Human Diversity" is bold and timely when hundreds of papers by dozens of researchers get published on this topic every month. The responsible ones clearly state that the arguments be they based on heritability, association studies, and especially polygenic scores which people are acting like is the big cure all--do not settle these questions at all, especially how immutable a phenotype is to change. Since if you can change a phenotype, and often you can, genetic lines in the sand aren't as damning.
There will always be variation in a population based on genetics but this is a study of the variance of a trait, not its mean value and how much this mean value can go up, down, or whatever. There can even be genetic variation between groups that effect trait means but this does not mean that environmental effects aren't mediating the supposed "genetic differences" or that those gaps can't narrow (or widen). Genetic variation does not mean "cause", "unchanging", or immune from environmental effects or interaction. People keep being sloppy though.
There are many examples of this in the literature. I have peer reviewed papers I can link for those who are interested.
I normally would brush this off but with our current leadership I am sure people are hawking this everywhere in DC backchannels since Murray still works for AEI I think.