View Single Post
  #11  
Old 09-15-2009, 12:46 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: New diavloggers we'd like to see

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me&theboys View Post
no I am not saying that. Genetic explanations that do not take environmental influences into account are almost always going to be flawed. Environmental/cultural explanations that do not take genetics data into account are almost always going to be flawed. I find that there are far more examples of the latter than the former in the literature; consequently, I tend to be far more skeptical of the claims based on cultural explanations, which have a long history of being plagued by poorly substantiated or non-existant or misinterpreted or biased data and by the unwarranted assignment of causation to correlation. And I am saying that the knee jerk reaction to take a negative stance against genetic data or explanations simply because they contradict cherished beliefs about culture and human nature is wrong. I have no problem with criticizing all unwarranted conclusions drawn from data. I have a problem with assuming that behavioral genetics data is prima facie bad. And to the extent that one conclusion offers valid genetic data in support of it and a competing conclusion offers only cultural speculation or invalid cultural data in support of it, I'll go with the fomer as the better working hypothesis.



Me too, in the sense that they are not warranted by the data, but not in the sense that I just don't agree with them or find them offensive. I am an equal opportunity disdainer of the misuse of data, but not of data itself. Which is why I am willing to examine data from whatever source provides it, even while rejecting the conclusions those sources may draw from that data.
We're in strenuous agreement!
Reply With Quote