The Fox article was, no, IS bullshit journalism. The Seven Deadly Sins Of Science JournalismQuote by: Sonart
The Fox article was, no, IS bullshit journalism. The Seven Deadly Sins Of Science Journalism
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Empirical? Since when does self-identified ideology count as empirical? Such weak empirical evidence could show that Facebook spreads acne. I expect you've a lot stricter standard for empirical evidence for AGW (Anthropic Global Warming.) Why demean empirical evidence by embracing the standards of this "first of its kind" study as empirical?
Besides, even DRD4-7R does not code for ideology and the authors never said it did.
"However, we argue that the DRD4-7R allele cannot by itself predispose someone to a liberal ideology." Cambridge Journals Online - Fulltext
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Gray means unknown then. Bell curve. The genome's workings are so complex that predictions and engineered solutions to problems of PSED (pain, suffering, and early death) that it becomes difficult to pick out their influence in the noise of ideological behaviors, especially the self-identified ones. I prefer gray to God though.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Gray may mean "unknown in absolute specificity" but it does not mean "completely unknown". Any question of human behavior, any social science question, can not be quantified in the same way that a purely natural science question can be quantified, but that does not mean the measures are useless for practical purposes. The data provided is empirical data. It can be confirmed and tested. Take the idea of height/weight correlation presented here: Correlation - Statistical Techniques, Rating Scales, Correlation Coefficients, and More - Creative Research Systems. Though it is not always the case that someone 5'5" is going to weigh more than someone 5"4", it is always the case that on average, someone 5'5" is going to weigh more than someone 5'4". If John Smith checks the hypothesis, he finds it to be true. If Jim Doe comes along and rechecks the data, he too finds the hypothesis to be true. Though neither will EVER be able to make an absolute correlation between height and weight, they will always find the same basic statistical correlation. Human choices affect specific case outcomes, but where a statistical correlation exists, some sort of natural science law is at play. That makes the data empirical. Complicated, yes. But correlations of these types do not happen in a void. It is real science and it is of immense value.Gray means unknown then. Bell curve. The genome's workings are so complex that predictions and engineered solutions to problems of PSED (pain, suffering, and early death) that it becomes difficult to pick out their influence in the noise of ideological behaviors, especially the self-identified ones. I prefer gray to God though.
All I see when I look down, something jumpin' on the ground, Scratchin' dirt, cluckin' in the barnyard -
Tell me, could that be you?
John Kay
.
So? How does that make legitimate scientific research into the genetics of political identification invalid?
Partisanship, voting and the Dopamine D2 receptor gene - UCSD, 2009
Scientists Find 'Liberal Gene' - NBC, Oct. 2010
Is There a Liberal Gene? - Discovery News, Oct. 2010
Researchers liberate a ‘liberal gene’ - AlphaGalileo, Oct. 2010
Researchers Find a 'Liberal Gene' - ScienceDaily, Oct. 2010
DRD4 Liberal Gene say Researchers - rightpundits.com, Oct. 2010
Liberals: Gene and social factors as kids - UPI, Oct. 2010
Researchers find a 'liberal gene' - Medical Daily, Oct. 2010
Researchers find a ‘liberal gene’ - UCHealth, Oct. 2010
I used to say that a story didn't mean anything until it "Played in Vegas"... meaning, until it ran in the legitimate mainstream press. This is definitely playing Vegas. Whether the research is accurate or not is another story... this is just one study that I'm aware of.
But it certainly fits into my personal belief in neo-Darwin neuro-theologist. :
And Darwin never said we were descended from Monkeys, but somehow issues get defined by forces outside themselves trying to simplify the complex.
For instance, when I talk about the 'Religion Gene' and the 'God Spot' in the brain, I'm not actually talking about either religion or god. They're simply easy ways to describe how complex genetic factors can affect significant areas of human behavior.
For another instance, I pointed out the 'Risk Taking' gene. I'm not sure I could tie that directly to gambling without involving socialisations and environment, but even you must be able to make a reasonable connection to a lot of human behaviors that involve risk taking.
.
I don't suffer from insanity... I thoroughly enjoy it
How about good enough to confirm an achievable, predictable result suitable for clinical application in the same manner as done for the baby born free of the BRCA1 gene in England? That would be only the first step of course, necessitating the further proper upbringing and numbers of friends necessary to ensure the liberalist of liberal citizens.
I'm with you on the empirical nature of the data, height and weight example. The statistical correlation is not empiric for non-empiric data involving self-identified judgment calls.The data provided is empirical data. It can be confirmed and tested. Take the idea of height/weight correlation presented here: Correlation - Statistical Techniques, Rating Scales, Correlation Coefficients, and More - Creative Research Systems. Though it is not always the case that someone 5'5" is going to weigh more than someone 5"4", it is always the case that on average, someone 5'5" is going to weigh more than someone 5'4". If John Smith checks the hypothesis, he finds it to be true. If Jim Doe comes along and rechecks the data, he too finds the hypothesis to be true. Though neither will EVER be able to make an absolute correlation between height and weight, they will always find the same basic statistical correlation. Human choices affect specific case outcomes, but where a statistical correlation exists, some sort of natural science law is at play. That makes the data empirical. Complicated, yes. But correlations of these types do not happen in a void. It is real science and it is of immense value.
Height and weight correlation are easily understood. The data IS empiric. Measured as physical parameters. Distance (height) can be measured to less than a gnat's ass these days, and weight. These are physical dimensions. Is an ideology even in the same league as a physical dimension when a datum is dependent on adolescents' ability to self-measure ideology? Might be fun and make for an interesting exercise of probability and statistics classes OR a study to relate number of friends (again self identified) to the self-identified ideology.
The only physical parameter I see in the "liberal gene" paper is the gene itself or rather, in the study, the 8 genes in the Add Health data that are being linked to liberalism. False positive?
Nevertheless, I do admire the audacity of the author's goals, namely to find an effect (self described ideology variation), linked by statistical significance, to a gene(DRD4-7R and a particular environment no matter how vaguely that environment and effect are measured. I do believe that subtlety will be the name of the game in these areas. The speed of evolution is not near light speed. I just don't know about the tendency to brand intelligence to ownership of a gene or ideology when it's correlation is of such risky propositions as a teen self rating his number of friends and ideology.
THAT was pop science journalism that I find wanting in reporting excellence. The legitimacy of the scientific research issue can be determined by examining if the test the paper's authors applied to their theory was capable of proving their theory false. It was not.
Since our test was not able to contradict the theory, the way forward is to seek replication in different populations and age groups. Cambridge Journals Online - FulltextFunny it didn't play the New York Times, that I can find anyhow. They hold to higher standards of science reporting perhaps? Perhaps your Vegas analogy might play better at the NYTimes.I used to say that a story didn't mean anything until it "Played in Vegas"... meaning, until it ran in the legitimate mainstream press. This is definitely playing Vegas. Whether the research is accurate or not is another story... this is just one study that I'm aware of.
I've lost resonance with that one. Neuron's give experience that are best described in theistic terms? Selected for reproductive success or as a byproduct of some gene baggage that gave the reproductive success? Eh? Resonance?But it certainly fits into my personal belief in neo-Darwin neuro-theologist. :
When the blue eyed blondes are journalistically tied to such as the related increase in intelligence of the popularized liberal gene concept, ...then will you be more inclined to be cautious of the ideologies where the forces are pushing us? Thanatos mentioned it tongue in cheek. I hope. To be intelligent then you'd only have to declare yourself a liberal. I don't buy this type of thinking even tongue in cheek.And Darwin never said we were descended from Monkeys, but somehow issues get defined by forces outside themselves trying to simplify the complex.
Fowler and his buddies hold that their first attempt is not without serious methodological problems and the statistical significance seen is small.For instance, when I talk about the 'Religion Gene' and the 'God Spot' in the brain, I'm not actually talking about either religion or god. They're simply easy ways to describe how complex genetic factors can affect significant areas of human behavior.
Especially me, you mean.For another instance, I pointed out the 'Risk Taking' gene. I'm not sure I could tie that directly to gambling without involving socializations and environment, but even you must be able to make a reasonable connection to a lot of human behaviors that involve risk taking.I find the most descriptive term that will result in picking out the risk takers is the word "crazy fucker." A technical term measured by how many married spouses he/she has cuckolded, how many times they've jumped from a plane, ride motorcycles, fly small planes, etc.
Thanks for spotting that first link of yours that is an original paper of Fowler's, though not the paper that sparked all the bullshit journalism. The actual paper means a hell of a lot more than those pop science junior journalists interested in hits to their columns.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
By this logic, we could never do one bit of research on depression or headaches or crime. After all, one has to self report being a victim of most crimes. One has to self report depression. One has to self report pain. Now, don't get me wrong. I do understand the difficultly self reporting can create. People tend to not be very honest when they are self reporting on issues they feel can bring sanction. They do not want to call themselves depressed because of the possible stigma, they don't want to call themselves gay for the same reason. Conversely, there is the social desirability effect and people want to report themselves in positive ways. The fact of the matter is that there are checks for these problems, too. Depression has a definition. There are empirical fact sets that can help correlate what is reported.
I have to tell the eye doctor if the glasses he gave me improve my vision. That is self reporting. An empirical check on my self reporting would be to ask me to read the eye chart. In the end, a good social scientist, using reliable methods, will give you a data set that has found the statistical rate at which people lie to the eye doctor and are unable to read the eye chart after claiming the glasses fixed the problem. Some other social scientist from the other side of the globe can run the same "survey" and get the same results. They may not be able to pinpoint who will lie, but they will be able to tell you the rate at which the lying will occur.
Don't get me wrong. I am not claiming that there is no such thing as bullshit results in this type of research. One need look only at something as simple as that damn company that sold the Baby Mozart crap based on the study that found children who listened to Mozart got higher test scores. People misuse and incorrectly interpret data all the time. I'm saying the data itself is not inherently flawed.
If you want to fall down the metaphysical philosophical rabbit hole, you can claim even natural science relies on "self reporting", in that we can not know in absolute terms that what we see is "real". Maybe I'm not actually talking to another human right now. Maybe there is no matter. Maybe the universe consists entirely of figments of my own imagination and every response I think I receive on this board is nothing more than my own mind, reflecting some personal desire or prejudice back to me. All I can tell you is that last night, I left what I perceived to be a two liter bottle of Mt Dew on the kitchen counter upstairs and I'm going to take the thing I perceive to be a cup sitting in front of me upstairs and I will find that self-same Mt Dew bottle and pour it's perceived contents into my perceived cup and after I seem to swallow some of that seeming liquid, I anticipate feeling what I perceive to be a lessening in what I believe to be thirst. I pretty much can rely on gaining the same sense perception if I repeat that same sequence at any time. I can't absolutely prove shit about how real any of that is absent some level of relying on my own senses and then reporting that to someone else...someone that I might, unreliably, only falsely believe exists. My reductio ad absurdum for the day.
All I see when I look down, something jumpin' on the ground, Scratchin' dirt, cluckin' in the barnyard -
Tell me, could that be you?
John Kay
Self reporting MUST be relied on when objective ratings are lacking. The evidentiary quality of self-reporting is met with suspicion when it comes to experiences and belief of the supernatural. The line is fine between the chaos of ignorance and precision knowledge I'll grant you.
All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have. ~ Albert Einstein (1879-1955)I'm unclear what lying has to do with the determining of optimum optical focal point determinations.I have to tell the eye doctor if the glasses he gave me improve my vision. That is self reporting. An empirical check on my self reporting would be to ask me to read the eye chart. In the end, a good social scientist, using reliable methods, will give you a data set that has found the statistical rate at which people lie to the eye doctor and are unable to read the eye chart after claiming the glasses fixed the problem. Some other social scientist from the other side of the globe can run the same "survey" and get the same results. They may not be able to pinpoint who will lie, but they will be able to tell you the rate at which the lying will occur.
The self reporting here is a measurement of optic focal points. How is that determining of a physical parameter by the observer the same as the self reporting of an ideology? How is an ideology like a physical parameter? It is language that, by placing the words "ideology" and "focal point" in a sentence in a similar semantic fashion, generates the illusive implication that they rate similar respect as to measurability.
The handling of the data in the original paper is not inherently flawed. That is as far as I'll go. The derivation of the data is suspect in the case of the authors' study. They are aware of the limitations of their test. They, at least, have not been shy about admitting it. Tis the journalists' interpretation of the paper that is manipulative. It's their job to catch people's eye.Don't get me wrong. I am not claiming that there is no such thing as bullshit results in this type of research. One need look only at something as simple as that damn company that sold the Baby Mozart crap based on the study that found children who listened to Mozart got higher test scores. People misuse and incorrectly interpret data all the time. I'm saying the data itself is not inherently flawed.
How do you rate the quality of the reports of people who attest to the existence of God? Or reports of the efficacy of prayer? It is the evidentiary quality of self reporting in both cases that are suspect. Suspect because the data represents a judgment -- which is not a measurement as of a physical parameter -- of interpretive thought relating to a political dynamic of broad vague opposites called liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism and conservatism are NOT physical empiric parameters.
Good one too.If you want to fall down the metaphysical philosophical rabbit hole, you can claim even natural science relies on "self reporting", in that we can not know in absolute terms that what we see is "real". Maybe I'm not actually talking to another human right now. Maybe there is no matter. Maybe the universe consists entirely of figments of my own imagination and every response I think I receive on this board is nothing more than my own mind, reflecting some personal desire or prejudice back to me. All I can tell you is that last night, I left what I perceived to be a two liter bottle of Mt Dew on the kitchen counter upstairs and I'm going to take the thing I perceive to be a cup sitting in front of me upstairs and I will find that self-same Mt Dew bottle and pour it's perceived contents into my perceived cup and after I seem to swallow some of that seeming liquid, I anticipate feeling what I perceive to be a lessening in what I believe to be thirst. I pretty much can rely on gaining the same sense perception if I repeat that same sequence at any time. I can't absolutely prove shit about how real any of that is absent some level of relying on my own senses and then reporting that to someone else...someone that I might, unreliably, only falsely believe exists. My reductio ad absurdum for the day.
Yet to rate being empirical, evidence is able to be confirmed a posteriori by third person testimony and is not inherently limited for examination by only one observer. Your metaphysical reduction is an example of the limitations of measuring objectively, repeatably, the things called thoughts, emotions, feelings, hunger, pain, qualia, ideologies, etc.
I think it a proclivity of people to support that which resonates with their own thinking. The journalists will hype a study in a fashion to garner hits to a targeted audience. Political ideology has a broad appeal. The Baby Einstein appealed to a specific group and reinforced their self-ratings as good parents.
So what is the appeal of a liberal gene to an audience that prizes liberalness on a personal level? Feel good about self? Scientifically confirmed feel good about self?
The appeal to me is the potential an ideology gene presents for eugenics and the influence of education and environment on development of the perfect liberal.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
.
{{SIGH}} So now you're judging by who didn't write the story? So? You're essentially right... in the major media, it's pop science. It's a little science section story of amusing interest at best. Yet it's enough legitimate, peer reviewed science to be written in the mainstream scientific media, like ScienceDaily, Discovery News, Medical Daily and the respected AlphaGalileo and even an OpEd in Scientific American Magazine.
So once again, it's one small study that's piqued the bemused interest of the enough of the MSM to research and confirm it, and which may or may not be confirmed with future studies, that doesn't mean it's wrong.
The Journal of Politics (your source) -- "Our findings do not undermine the rich body of literature that has developed regarding the environmental influences that shape political behavior. Rather, we hope to complement prior work and seek to show how incorporating a role for specific genes into our models of political behavior can enrich our understanding of the origin and nature of these behaviors. Political scientists have a wealth of material from which to form hypotheses about potential gene-environment interactions that influence deeply held political ideas and values."
Sonart, Free Will? Post #95 -- "What is so damn complicated or scary about the idea that humans have the capability of making arbitrary choices, but that those choices are "influenced" or "guided" or "biased" by a lifetime of learned experiences built upon a framework of genetically predetermined aptitudes and personality traits?"
'Spiritual' terms, which we humans then interpret as gods and religion. It's a huge topic that I'm surprised you haven't come across me rambling about before. If you're interested, you can review my references to neurotheology and the 'God Spot' here...
Going back to 2004 here...
my anthropological justification here...
and a brain 'God Network' diagram here
Here's a Socratic exercise in why this is all correct taken from a recent thread on atheist Sam Harris that gets all over the topic of evolution and religion.
I'm not disagreeing with you, minorwork.
"Whether the research is accurate or not is another story... this is just one study that I'm aware of." -- sonart #29
What I am saying is that you can't just airily dismiss it simply because FOX News reported it.
.
I don't suffer from insanity... I thoroughly enjoy it
I was critiquing your "plays in Vegas" standard as perhaps substandard without the inclusion of the NYTimes.
Doesn't mean it's not pseudoscience either. No, I don't see as the MSM did any more research than read a publicity notification of the release of a paper and maybe that paper's abstract with the possible exception of the NYTimes. But perhaps I presume too much from their silence.So once again, it's one small study that's piqued the bemused interest of the enough of the MSM to research and confirm it, and which may or may not be confirmed with future studies, that doesn't mean it's wrong.
The authors' techniques have not gone without criticisms by peers. The MSM pop science articles don't mention them. My big bitch is about the quality of the MSM unscientific journalism.The Journal of Politics (your source) -- "Our findings do not undermine the rich body of literature that has developed regarding the environmental influences that shape political behavior. Rather, we hope to complement prior work and seek to show how incorporating a role for specific genes into our models of political behavior can enrich our understanding of the origin and nature of these behaviors. Political scientists have a wealth of material from which to form hypotheses about potential gene-environment interactions that influence deeply held political ideas and values."
Nothing scary about the idea. What obscenities men will justify in the name of an idea is plenty scary.Sonart, Free Will? Post #95 -- "What is so damn complicated or scary about the idea that humans have the capability of making arbitrary choices, but that those choices are "influenced" or "guided" or "biased" by a lifetime of learned experiences built upon a framework of genetically predetermined aptitudes and personality traits?"
Seems I have run into these. I have my own related ideas that yours supports but they are mainly of internal value only to me with a smattering of references by cognitive scientists here and there.'Spiritual' terms, which we humans then interpret as gods and religion. It's a huge topic that I'm surprised you haven't come across me rambling about before. If you're interested, you can review my references to neurotheology and the 'God Spot' here...
Going back to 2004 here...
my anthropological justification here...
and a brain 'God Network' diagram here
Here's a Socratic exercise in why this is all correct taken from a recent thread on atheist Sam Harris that gets all over the topic of evolution and religion.
Catches the eye though doesn't it?I'm not disagreeing with you, minorwork.
"Whether the research is accurate or not is another story... this is just one study that I'm aware of." -- sonart #29
What I am saying is that you can't just airily dismiss it simply because FOX News reported it.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
.
No disagreement here. However, ask yourself, WHAT IF... what if, as seems perfectly plausible at this point, this turns out not to be bemusing pseudo science, but verifiable reality?
I've gone to great lengths on other threads to point out how liberal thought - ie, new ideas and reform - has been a guiding force in the evolution and advancement of human societies throughout history, so it makes perfect sense to me.
.
I don't suffer from insanity... I thoroughly enjoy it
I had just that question the other day, I asked an acquaintance WHAT IF his nation was not good (he aggressively claimed his nation, a backwards third world country, was very good and superior to western Europe and United States because, well, he believed this) after he said that one should be proud of ones Nation/Society/National Heritage, and I asked, over and over, WHAT IF it was not good.
He couldn't answer, no, that is not, He couldn't answer, I mean, He COULDN'T ANSWER, he did not GIVE a response, he simple IGNORED my question, I asked and asked and asked and eventually stood SCREAMING to him "WHAT IF!!!!!!" and he simple refused to accept "what if" as a question, it couldn't happen.
Because what if demands progress of thinking, of seeing what can happen, the possibilities of change in whatever direction..
In other words, scary sh!t....
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks