Larry Moran  wrote or quoted:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 03:50:03 +0000 (UTC), 
> Tim Tyler  wrote:
> > Larry Moran  wrote or quoted:
> >> Tim Tyler  wrote:
> >> > Anon. 
wrote or quoted:
> > 
> >> >> Criminality is social - is there really a gene for smoking in 
> >> >> an Irish bar?
> >> > 
> >> > Definitely - according to conventional biological usage.
> >> > 
> >> > If you have any doubt about the matter, I refer you to the section
> >> > on "genes for tying shoelaces" - in The
Extended Phenotype - p.22.
> >> 
> >> Here's another point of view .....
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> >>    Rose, S. (1998) Lifelines: Biology Beyond Determinism.
> >>             Oxford University Press, p. 116
> > 
> > I read lifelines.  My book review would not be complimentary :-(
> > 
> > It would read something like:
> > 
> > This book is one long winge about the evils of genetic determinism -
> > and the views of authors such as Richard Dawkins.  I learned next
> > to nothing from it - and regard the time I spend on it as time
> > wasted.
> 
> This doesn't surprise me. It's clear from your postings that you
> are not going to be in sympathy with the views of Rose (or Lewontin).
> It's clear that you choose to learn nothing from them. That wasn't 
> the point of posting these quotations. I wanted to make sure that 
> our readers were aware of other points of view.
> 
> >>   "Complex organisms cannot be construed as the sum of their
> >>    genes, nor do genes alone build particular items of anatomy
> >>    or behavior by themselves. Most genes influence several aspects
> >>    of anatomy and behavior - as they operate through complex
> >>    interactions with other genes and their products, and with
> >>    environmental factors both within and outside the developing
> >>    organism. We fall into a deep error, not just a harmless
> >>    oversimplification, when we speak of genes 'for' particular
> >>    items of anatomy or behavior.
> >> 
> >>    No single gene determines even the most concrete example of
> >>    my physical being, say the length of my right thumb. The very
> >>    notion of a gene 'for' something as complex as 'intelligence'
> >>    lapses into absurdity. We use the word *intelligence* to 
> >>    describe an array of largely independent and socially defined
> >>    mental attributes, not a quantity of a single something, 
> >>    secreted by one gene, measurable as one number, and capable
> >>    of arranging human diversity into one line ordered by relative
> >>    mental growth.
> >> 
> >>    To cite one example of this fallacy, in 1996 scientists 
> >>    reported the discovery of a gene for novelty-seeking behavior
> >>    - generally regarded as a good thing. In 1997 another study
> >>    detected a linkage between the same gene and a propensity for
> >>    heroin addiction. Did the 'good' gene for enhanced exploration
> >>    become the 'bad' gene for addictive tendencies? The biochemistry
> >>    may be constant, but context and background matter."
> >> 
> >>    Gould, S.J. (2002) "The Without and Within of Smart Mice"
> >>             in I HAVE LANDED, Harmony Books, New York  p. 234
> > 
> > I haven't read "I Have Landed" yet.  However here Gould
is not just
> > complaining that the terminology is misleading - he is speaking
> > as though he is unaware of what it is actually used to mean.
> 
> I don't think it's going to advance your case if your main argument
> is to accuse Gould of being stupid.

Tell Gould to stop attacking ridiculous straw men, then :-(

> > As he says, his interpretation is an "absurdity". But Gould is 
> > attacking a straw man of his own making. Noboby using the "gene 
> > for X" terminology was ever asserting that single genes determined 
> > behaviour - and Gould should have been aware of that.
> 
> Gould is well aware of the problem, as is Rose. Neither of them claim
> that their opponents are thinking of a single gene "for" a complex
> trait. [...]

Then why does Gould bother writing:

``No single gene determines even the most concrete example of
  my physical being, say the length of my right thumb. The very
  notion of a gene 'for' something as complex as 'intelligence'
  lapses into absurdity.''

....if he doesn't think anyone is lapsing into the absurdity he speaks of?

The fallacy Gould attempts to point out isn't a fallacy, either.
He describes a gene linked to both a positive and a negative trait.
Where is the a fallacy in that?

As for:

``We use the word *intelligence* to describe an array of largely 
  independent and socially defined mental attributes, not a quantity of a 
  single something, secreted by one gene, measurable as one number, and 
  capable of arranging human diversity into one line ordered by relative
  mental growth.''

Here it seems Gould has a social agenda.  He repeats the assertion
that single genes do not solely determine complex traits (well, duh) -
and then suggests that such a retationship would allow classification
of humans by intelligence onto a single linear graph.

He thus mis-represents his opponent's position - and then associates
them in the reader's mind with a social injustice.

The whole paragraph is like a smear campaign - but it's all totally
unjustified - since Gould's opponents simply don't hold the position
he is criticising.

> Both of them claim that the excuse used by people like you
> (it's just a short-hand way of expressing something) is deeply
> flawed and distorts one's thinking about genes and phenotypes. That's 
> why Gould said ...
> 
>      "We fall into a deep error, not just a harmless     
>       oversimplification, when we speak of genes 'for' 
>       particular items of anatomy or behavior."

I agree that "for" and "which influences" are not exact
synonyms if
you substitute them for X into "gene X trait".

IMO, those who are arguing that the terminology is bad need to be 
proposing alternatives - preferably some with a fighting chance against 
the established terminology.

We are always going to want to talk about genes which influence 
particular traits.  Saying the gene is "for" the trait is brief,
to the point, and fairly intuitive.

It does not have the slightest implication that the gene is the *only*
one that influences the trait - and that's what Gould spends most
of the quoted paragraphs arguing against.  That's just a confusion
of his own making - not a product of the terminology he is criticising.

When I say I vote "for" a candidate it /doesn't/ imply I'm the *only* one
doing so - /or/ that my vote entirely determines who gets elected.

Such criticisms of the terminology are just ridiculous.
-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim{at}tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 9/7/04 9:39:01 AM