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.

>   "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.

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.
-- 
__________
 |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 9/3/04 6:11:31 AM