Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

Chuck Darwin taught us about the emergence of similarities in response to selective pressures. He didn't account particularly well for variation that we find in individual. Clinicians, however, and parents want to understand variation.

Frank Galton taught us about individuals but attracted zealots who not only embarrassed themselves but also him. Fred Skinner had a similar problem! Meanwhile, my hunch is that Galton deserves a prominance equal to that of Darwin and the difference in their contemporary standing lies mostly in how they attracted and managed their friends. Pearson, in particular, may have been a vector that carried both Darwin and Galton to the Germans.

I today needed a check on Galton's birth and death and found surprising things in Wikipedia and a delightful resource in "http://galton.org," including access to the biography by Pearson, a $1200 item when I last priced it 6 years ago!

Http://galton.org/

"Despite his colossal achievements, contemporary reputation and far-reaching influence, Sir Francis Galton is no longer widely known or appreciated except among specialists. This site corrects the record, collecting online all of Galton's original published work, including all his books, papers and other published work. The complete, definitive biography by Karl Pearson, (emph added, JB) rare even in libraries, is provided here, as are contemporary reviews of, and commentary on, Galton's work. There is a substantial gallery of photographs and portraits of Galton, and concise overviews of his major areas of interest are provided."

An epigraph:
"I have no patience with the hypothesis occasionally expressed, and often implied, especially in tales written to teach children to be good, that babies are born pretty much alike, and that the sole agencies in creating differences between boy and boy, and man and man, are steady application and moral effort. It is in the most unqualified manner that I object to pretensions of natural equality. The experiences of the nursery, the school, the University, and of professional careers, are a chain of proofs to the contrary." -- Francis Galton, Hereditary Genius. Dick Feynman would probably have agreed.

And there is a fine quote from Thomas Bouchard:

"Both the idea of a general factor of cognitive ability ... and the idea that genetic factors might be an important source of variance in cognitive ability have been continuously debated since they were first systematically expounded by Galton ... . Reviews of Galton's books published in the London Times at the time of their appearance could, if slight changes were made, be published today." -- Thomas Bouchard 'IQ similarity in twins reared apart: findings and responses to critics' 1997.

See also: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton"

"...Galton invented the term eugenics in 1883 and set down many of his observations and conclusions in a book, Inquiries in Human Faculty and its Development. He believed that a scheme of 'marks' for family merit should be defined, and early marriage between families of high rank be encouraged by provision of monetary incentives. He pointed out some of the dysgenic tendencies in British society, such as the late marriages of eminent people, and the paucity of their children. He advocated encouraging eugenic marriages by supplying incentives for the able to have children.

"His ideas would greatly influence similar movements in many other countries. He cautioned, however, against the sorts of extreme proposals that the eugenics movement soon produced (emph added, JB) when it was taken up enthusiastically by socialists (emph added. Matt Ridley made a similar point!) such as George Bernard Shaw, HG Wells, and their followers, who were enthusiastic about state compulsion and social engineering..."
JB

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

Thanks for pointing me to the writings of this famous racist. I had read some of his stuff before but the Galton Website provides the Full Monte, you might say.

One that caught my eye was this wherein he expands, from his position as an obviously suprerior Anglo-Saxon - on his scientific estimation of the differences in quality between Negroes and Chinamen.

http://galton.org/letters/africa-for...TheChinese.htm

In this letter-to-the-editor he was proposing that it was in the interest of enlightened men like himself, to settle Chinamen in the lands of the Negroes (the East Coast of Africa), wherein the Negroes would eventually be displaced by the industrious Chinaman and die out, for the betterment of mankind, of course . . . . I have wondered about the attraction of some Evolutionary Biologists to what I had always considered to be the pseudo-science of Eugenics. But realistically, I have no real education or degrees in Psychology or any of the natural sciences.

Perhaps, you could take a few paragraphs to describe your attraction to this area of the human sciences and briefly describe whatever premises you hold, that seem to underlie your many posts and references on this topic.

You may be offering these as lessons in how backward science was in the not too distant past and how easily strong beliefs can affect what even educated scientists see when they look at evidence, but from the tone of your referencing posts that doesn't seem likely.

In any case, here's your chance to explain it for us.

Margaret

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

Oh my! Neither of us surprises the other...

1) Galton shed light on individual differences and, thereby, founded a major branch of psychology that is still vibrant. Clinicians care about individual differences. And so do most parents and children. Galton's work on twins opened doors that would not be entered again until Tom Bouchard's team published their monumental paper in 1990.

2) Galton followed data. (check his essay on Jews and why they are superior!) And his material on Chinamen vs Negroes may yet carry the day...indeed the average Oriental carries an IQ of about 130, the average Ashkenazim about 140. You and I are pegged at 100 simply because items that discriminated in favor of males were discarded from the test. (No one dsigned a test that doesn't discriminate between Orientals, Blacks, and Caucasians!) Thus, your grandchildren and mine will likely speak and read Chinese...and that time may not be far off.

As for Black IQ: there is a tremendous overlap in ranges but average performance is about 85 in North America and 70 in our motherland of Africa. (Although many people don't like Jensen's arguments nor those of Phil Rushton, there has been no empirical rebuttal of their reviews.)

As Francois Jacob noted, "If you are going to have science, you can't have only the science that you like." Or some such...My personal view is that talent in our culture eventually compensates for opportunities whether in academics, professional sports, the performing arts, political leadership, education, or elsewhere. I would have it no other way. If you prefer guaranteed outcomes, then move to Iran and put on your Burka. Or, go to Iran and resurrect yourself as a male.

As for "racist": check Matt Ridley's book, Ridley, M. (2000) Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters. NY: Harper Collins. Study in particular the names of FDR, Orson Wells, GB Shaw, Winston Churchill and the many other luminaries of socialist ilk...famous minds that put the state's interests above those of the individual.

Give The Bell Curve your first reading (not the reviews of it) and Murray's other splendid book, Murray, C. (2003) Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts & Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 NY: Harper Collins.

Otherwise, Margaret, introduce some chaos into your socialist thoughts.


JB

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

Ah yes Margaret, JimB’s “attraction to this area . . .” Very perceptive, and I especially like the (using your verbiage from another post) “personal taunt . . . designed to raise the emotional level of the discussion.” True to your own counsel, you seem to remain “vigilant and guard against the intrusion of ideological narratives into scientific discussions”—thanks, Margaret, for exposing the intrusion of Dr. Brody’s insidious ideological narratives . . . shall we henceforth refer to him as Dr. Evil?

But alas, since we humans, as you’ve illustrated Margaret, lack free will; and as TomJ amplifies, can never be “morally responsible”; the most that can be said is that JimB, at best, is merely “sick,” apparently lacking a fully functional “remorse and regret module.” It seems all so, I don’t know, pitiless and indifferent.

Identity-belief or talent?
 

JimB, I did not ask my question facetiously. I understand that we see many things differently. I am interested in exploring your side of the question. It would take me weeks to read all the references that you listed. I could also provide references like Gould or Nesbitt who I believe make a very good case for my side. But I'd rather hear your personal view.

You offered in your statement that,That seems like a strange statement for a scientist discussing a theory (that they would have it no other way). It seems to indicate an outright refusal to consider alternative theories.

But, if you could overcome that temporarily, let's talk about that unscientific term you use - talent. I taught music in the past as a sideline. I never made any real money at it but it was fun and provided plenty of opportunities to observe differences in learning. When I mention to someone that I am a musician many people will say something like how they wish that they had musical talent but that they are sure they . . couldn't carry a tune in a bucket. I just smile because I know they are just describing a part of their identity-belief system.

As I'm sure you know our brains are quite malleable - even older brains like mine. :rolleyes: But, that's especially true when we are young. If we expose our brains to certain kinds of information and exercise our brains in certain ways, they will over time shift resources from adjacent, less used areas. They'll add connections and may even grow new nerve cells - and we will get better at processing that kind of information. The truth is that if they saw themselves as a musician and were willing to committ the energy to fulfill that image, then anyone could become at least a passable musician - possibly even a great musician depending on their age when they made and internalized that image and committed to it.

There are many possible motivations for learning but that's the one that seems the strongest and most crucial for music. Learning to play any musical instrument takes a lot of work and personal energy. Learning to use one's mind to process scientific and math information requires a similar investment. How do we know that differences in IQ (the ability to do well on an IQ test) are not simply the result of differences in the identity committments that people made when young and then expressed in their decisions as they grew? Do you think that if someone who inherited a talent for science had instead adopted a basketball player identity-belief that their science-math ability would have been unaffected? Are there IQ studies that correct for this factor? Or, that even recognize it?

I suspect that a person's identity-beliefs are an extremely important and little understood source of the emotions that contribute to their decision-making. It seems to me these work as a double edged sword. Kids not only copy the behavior of those whose identities they admire, they will avoid behavior that might identify them in opposite ways. When a student decides to join the math club instead of the basketball team they are not just following the path of least resistance - I believe they are expressing a belief about themselves that they hope to fulfill.

I have no problem with individual differences. I relish them. However, I suspect that they are more likely due to the energy we spend fulfilling our socially acquired identity-beliefs than they are due to the inherited talents you allude to. From an evolutionary perspective it also seems that any human would be better off adapting quickly to changing environmental conditions with such a cultural learning preference mechanism - than they would by following some inherited trait that could take many generations to modify.

According to my theory - these biases first appeared at age two or three (the age when copying behavior is strongest) and then grew to guide the millions of decisions they subsequently made about where to apply their mental focus and energy over the years as they matured. IMO these are more likely what molded their synapses and the organization of their minds to be better at some things and not so good at others.

Before I accept your view that different races and genders are born with such determinative traits, like a greater or lesser talent for science or math, I'd like to see some evidence that corrects for their identity-belief biases.

Margaret

Eugenics in Brody's Pub
 

I've mentioned in earlier pages that I'm something of a barkeep and bouncer for a small taproom in a peculiar block, a transitional neighborhood that lies in between several others. I usually sweep the floor, clean spittoons, stock alcohols, and assure the drunks a safe way home, often to their books and classwork where they should be instead of coming in here too often at some late hour.

I have a personal love of truth but find that truth varies sharply across individuals. Indeed, "truth" about environments has inevitable genetic foundations: ask someone about their upbringing and you hear a story about genes told by genes. I have become, therefore, a collector of stories but stories told well, with open mind and few words. And I especially treasure stories that tell of the arbitrary, fundmentally deceptive nature of thought and reflect their writer's gratitude that we followed our fingertips for millennia before we followed our thoughts. (Stories attached to some data are indeed treasures.)

I sometimes value strays who help to make a point when they spill just-so stories and the Standard Social Science Model (SSSM, See Cosmides & Tooby, 1992). On the other hand, I have a barely hidden irritation for Kmart thinkers who bleat the usual cant, on impulse, and with little regard for contexts. The SSSM represses alternative explanations of human quirks, explanations that may be of great benefit and to more individuals rather than to clumps of them. The SSSM's plausibility adds to its suffocating power but with this particular suffocation, there is no "high" just before you go under. And its plausibility unites like-minded believers who swarm in waves of moral indignation to attack, ridicule, smear, tattle on or, sometimes, just plain kill puzzled geeks like me. (See also: strong reciprocity: esp Herb Gintis).

I, therefore, look deep under my counter for the sweet bottle called patience whenever a standard mind enters my door. I use those sandwich board carriers as displays of the standard confusions to be found in our society and eventually refer them to Steve Pinker. I also distrust the estrogen-guided who infest churches, universities, and public schools. My reasons? First, they preach kindness but seek conformity. Second, I do not want done again to anyone what the socialists did on behalf of the public good to millions of rebels, deviants, and individualists called Jews (Grynberg, 2002). (The most recent episode was targeted at Ed Wilson in the '70s. Leaders: the Marxists Richard Lewontin & Steven Gould).

This anecdote is taken from my review of Matt Ridley's story about genes:

"Karl Pearson told Joshua Wedgwood, "What is social is right, and there is no definition of right beyond that." The '30s socialists decided to suppress reproductive options for those of us who just didn't fit in. Sweden sterilized 60,000 people in this cause and the United States, 100,000: Britain, however, did not because a libertarian hero held the bridge. Wedgwood, whose forebears collaborated with Darwins and even bred with them, was an MP and appalled by the broad assumption of power over individuals by the state. He and a few other libertarians filibustered and tabled 200 pieces of pro-eugenics legislation against Churchill's and the majority's efforts to pass them." (Brody, 2001).

References:
Brody, JF (2001) Genome: Did Ridley Get It Right? A review of Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters by Matt Ridley. Posted Behavior onLine, August 18.
The following help separate Galton from Pearson: Gillham does the better job.
Cornwell, J (2003) Hitler's Scientists: Science, War, and the Devil's Pact.
Gillham, Nicholas W. (2001) A Life of Sir Francis Galton: From African Exploration to the Birth of Eugenics. NY: Oxford.
Grynberg, M. (1993/2002) (Ed.) Words to Outlive Us: Eyewitness Accounts from the Warsaw Ghetto. Philip Boehm, trans. NY: Henry Holt (Picador).
Pinker, S. (2002) The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. NY: Viking.

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

As long as you're quoting me, I need to clear up misconceptions:

No, we're not "morally responsible" in the religious sense, but we're responsible to our instincts as social animals. The only difference is that the cause is the evolution of our psychology so no supernatural 'god' with objective morals is necessary.

Yes, neither Jim nor Margaret have a 'soul' or 'spirit' that is 'good' or 'evil'; they're deterministically reacting to the sum of their genes and environment.

And IMO, it's your 'regret module' as described in the http://www.behavior.net/bolforums/showthread.php?t=742 thread that seems the least effective. Jim and Margaret are both kind people with strong differing views on this particular subject. So, they can discuss their differences and affect their environments so their future deterministic actions can be changed, hopefully for the better.

Identity-belief or talent?
 

You placed this last post as a reply to my previous one where I suggested that, I didn't offer that as a regurgitation of what your ideological enemies have written. These are my own thoughts that I have synthesized out of many things that I have read and learned in my 63 years. You may be interested to know that far from being a socialist (you've accused me of that more than once) I spent most of my earning life as the owner of a business where I employed others and where my taxes and my employees taxes supported such socialist institutions as our public schools and universities. Places where a lot of research is done on things like psychology. Also, that I once worked as a volunteer recording Nathanial Brandon's talks. I no longer lionize Ayn Rand but I retain a strong respect for individualism - and I think I display a bit of that myself.

I'm afraid I can't see much in your post that refers to my proposition at all. Instead, it displays a barely hidden but deep enmity for those who don't share your views. In this post you have insulted me personally, but in a devious way. If you want to call me an estrogen-guided K-mart thinker, go ahead and do it. There's no need to hide behind such generalized prose.

But, I don't think that advances your pov. I really don't want to get into any personal conflict here. I'm more interested in your ideas - and secondarily in the way that you express them. I think that serves to show how one's ideological beliefs can provide almost all the emotional force behind their words. These are far more potent than the weak emotions available from a cold scientific theory. I would think that if my ideas are so standard issue SSSM it would be easier for you to descredit them - succintly, logically and impersonally - in a sentence or two.

Instead, you have avoided that in favor of a veiled personal attack. I really want to know what's wrong with my proposal. Here's your second chance at that. ;)

Margaret

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

Margaret doesn’t seem to share your POV that Jim is all that “kind”—consider the following MM to Jim exchange from above:
And Margaret is obviously convinced that Jim’s “attraction to this area”—the “writings of this famous racist” Galton—is something sinister, apparently b/c it doesn’t conform to whatever she deems is an appropriate ideology or whatever makes her feel good.

Additionally, your own preoccupation with what you’ve determined is my ineffective “regret module” seems to be less than benign. Open your eyes Tom—you people are behaving like a bunch of animals.

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

I understand your frustration with my posts. I don't get baited by these statements of yours, I'm short and concise, and I have valid points.

I talk of your 'regret module' because of your posts and anyone that reads many of them will understand my POV. I truly do feel sorry for your predicament, it's not your fault and it does not mean that you're an immoral person.

I do appreciate you giving me the opportunity to mention again that the 'regret' module is an amazing example of 'Evolutionary Psychology'! And I noticed that you have not argued that point.

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

Fred, Just as a matter of record, if, as you say, I . . then I would have no reason to ask him to clarify his “attraction to this area” that keeps coming up as a recurrent theme in the threads that he initiates - as I politely did.

He seems to have some cause celebre but never states it directly. I'd much rather have him state it than try to impute it from his posts indirectly - which doesn't seem fair to him.

And JimB - You have obvious disdain for the socialist eugenicists of the past. It seems to me that those (socialist or not) who propose that heredity is determinative in human development are the ones who have historically supported sterilization for the feeble minded, repopulating lands with those of better genetic stock (as reflected in your Francis Galton link) - and things like that.

Those who support the notion that culture is highly determinative in human development (as I do) are the ones who like to claim that anyone, regardless of race or gender or family genetics, could potentially become the next great scientist or musical composer. I would never subscribe to eugenics.

You said, Are you suggesting that Gould had something to do with the holocaust? What evidence can you point me to that Gould was a Marxist? The next time you look under the counter for that bottle of patience you might check the label more carefully. ;)

Margaret

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

Yuk Margaret, you can sure be a tad nasty at times—ever wonder why you display such obscenities? . . . oh, that’s right, it’s your lack of free will and moral responsibility. Regarding Gould’s Marxism, if you Google it you’ll get thousands of hits; but in the meantime, here’s a blip from Wikipedia:
Hope that helps you understand that "cause celebre" you referred to. Have a lovely day Margaret. :)

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

Fred, Thanks for the links. I'll admit that I have read several of his books and I never thought that he was more political than simply left-leaning and progressive in his politics. Being on the board of the journal Rethinking Marxism and the Brecht Forum says otherwise. However, I found these mitigating quotes:

It seems here that while he sees value in applying dialecticism to science - he is certainly not endorsing it for politics. From the same source,

This seems quite sensible to me and apolitical. I'd say that this hardly qualifies him as a Marxist. Although he may have said other things that Wikipedia and a few other sources I queried have missed. Stating that he learned his Marx at his father's knee does not mean that he is a Marxist. He also stated flatly once that he did not share his father's (Marxist) politics - whatever that means.

Still, I see now that he was a much more political person than I thought just from reading his books - and I'll modify my pov accordingly. I would say that he was more ideological than I previously thought - and that his (dialectical philosophical) ideology certainly affected his views of science. My statement was I don't think I've seen proof yet that Gould was a Marxist. However, I have seen evidence that some, like you and JimB perhaps, might interpret that way. But I asked for evidence (in a way that implied it did not exist). I did not ask for proof. I therefore stand corrected. :o Please pass that bottle of patience.

Margaret

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

Jim, Jim, Jim,
Screw the bottled patience Gunga Jim.
Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you,
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Jim.

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

Just in case there's someone out there who hasn't been totally turned off by reading the posts to this thread - let me recap.

The moderator started the thread with a paean to Francis Galton. I had always considered Galton to exemplify racist thinking of the past - during those years when the Western world was eagerly co-opting natural selection as a way to justify its colonialism.

So I went to the Galton site and did some reading to reacquaint myself with his ideas. I quoted one Galton letter-to-the-editor that seemed to capture the essence of Galtonian enlightenment. I then asked the moderator to explain just what it was about Galton and his ideas that he found so attractive.

I hoped to get back something significant that I could think about. Instead I got an apologia for heredetary determinism embedded in some pretty insulting statements that even included allusions to the dangers of my kind of K-Mart thinking. That's was pretty good ;) JimB. That launched a frenzy of ideological hand-wringing in the next dozen or so posts.

But, I did get this one statement from JimB: It's this type of Rotary Club ;) thinking that I'm most interested in. I'll recap my cultural determinism view below along with the reasons that it seems to make the most sense to me. I realize this is all a deeply ideological subject but I'm just an old hippy-chick asking dumb questions. So, please don't get so upset about the ideology. Can anyone tell me what is scientifically (not ideologically) wrong with this view?

Please understand that I am not denying that we may inherit some brain characteristics that make it easier or harder to think about certain kinds of problems and information. I just don't see those as so deterministic.

I am proposing that a child's desire to fulfill an identity image of themselves - and thereby appy their mental energy to that purpose over many years - can cause their brain to organize itself to become good at processing that type of information. I am proposing that this identity-fulfilment process is how we become who we are in life - and that we are not so severely limited or endowed by what we inherit. At least, not so much so that with enough motivation and starting early enough, we could not mold our brains to be good at processing almost any kind of information.

I really want to know from an EP perspective why this is such an unreasonable view. How does EP account for all the cases where a highly motivated child applies themselves to fulfilling a dream (an identity image) and becomes an outstanding musician or scientist or astronaut or basketball player or artist - regardless of their hereditary background? IMO these are those outlyers on Bell's curve.

Wilson's ladder seems to set up a straw-man - social engineering. As if the failure to train any particular child to become an engineeer or a musician or an astronaut proves hereditary determininism. I believe children only teach themselves to be those things and that they have an immense amount of energy to spend on that - but only when that identity image is also their own self-image - and when they are motivated. Not when society tells them what to do with their minds and their lives.

Aside from all the ugly things that have been said so far, I do not hold any animosity toward anyone here. In fact, I have even developed some affection for each of you. I'm still hoping to see some reasonable comments on this topic appear on my screen. :) And, I think if you folks can't talk about these things without getting angry then you don't have much of a case. :rolleyes:

Margaret

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

I just don't think this is a subject yet that we can objectively discuss; we don't have enough facts. You can say that most people can be anything and point to some examples of white basketball players and black PhDs, others would call them expected outlyers. They would point out distributions of test scores and NBA players and you would say culture and environment. I would say it's a mixture of genes and environment. But only one side can be discussed without getting into PC trouble, maybe that's where Jim's sensitivity comes from.

But here goes, please keep your yelling to a minimum: I look for mechanisms for perceived differences; you found culture for your POV. For Jim's POV, I see differing environments based on geology; the closer to the poles a race evolved, the more planning was necessary for survival through the winter. Shelter had to be built and food had to be stored (and you can't play basketball while huddled in your igloo). Closer to the equator, there were at least these fewer pressures. Plus, if women can sustain themselves, they're more apt to breed better dancers than better savers.

So, I guess I'm saying that there is a possible mechanism for both POVs. Plus, we can't perform experiments on humans. The jury's still out and may be forever. But your POV seems more all-or-nothing than Jim's.

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

Tom, a very reasonable reply.

You said, But then why have a forum like this on EP? Isn't that the point? IMO this discussion is another version of the nature-nurture dichotomy that has dogged the natural sciences for 200 years. As more is discovered about the brain and human nature it changes the views that we get when we re-examine the question. That's what I find fascinating about this question and it's what I'm interested in exploring.

I agree with you that it must be some mixture of genes and environment. As I see it, the question is, just what part each of those takes in determining who we are. I think Gould's statement on dialecticism expresses it very well - I think that's what makes it so difficult to unravel just where nature and nurture have their effects. Different components can be both inputs and outputs, and probably on several different levels simultaneously. I love those kinds of puzzles.

You add, It seems that since this is his forum, he's the only one who can't get in trouble here. :rolleyes: That genetic differences can affect who we are or who we become is a perfectly valid idea and many parts of that concept are useful in the discussion. The problem is that ever since Spencer coined the metaphor, "Survival of the fittest" those who had accumulated the most power in society or in the world, have used it to justify that power - often by using the latest science to instituitionalize that power and making it inaccessible to others. Now, when JimB starts thread after thread that mocks efforts to distribute that power more equitably (anti-PC) as violations of the natural order, I have to wonder if he is more interested in protecting the status quo or unravelling the nurture-nature puzzle.

That's why I have challenged him to make that clear. And so far, considering his mostly ideological, in-your-face responses, it seems that it's the former. Still, I'm willing to accept that maybe he had some bad experiences with nurturites - and now, anyone who doesn't see things his way scientifically is his ideological enemy. Kind of like Fred. But, that's all cool by me. I don't see him as my enemy. There are definitely some strong emotions happening there - and I can accept those things to a point before I decide that my online time would be more profitably spent elsewhere.

Note: I hereby claim authorship of the terms nurturites and naturites for all time - as the ideologically obsessed proponents of each side of this supposedly scientific debate. :cool: Except that anything that good has probably already been coined by someone else.

But, I'm learning a lot about this stuff, especially the ideological side. I do wish we could get past that though because that is not resolvable. I'm liberal and JimB is not and we'll always see the distribution of power in society in different ways. But the science is available to discuss if we try.

One thing you said puzzles me, I don't understand that statement. Can you explain it in a different way?

Margaret

Re: back to the future . .
 

I said in a previous post, This opens up other questions:

What causes a child to adopt a particular identity-image (or parts of an identity image) and pursue it over the years? I was certain that I would become a cowgirl - after attending a particular Saturday afternoon movie when I was about eight. My bicycle was my trusty horse for weeks after that. Of course, I didn't, literally become a cowgirl. But I'll bet I did internalize some of the independence and Western toughness that I saw in that gal on the screen.

What causes some children to attach themselves to their identity image with all their energy - and others to not really care that much? Are those environrmental or inherited factors? Do we inherit genes for copying behavior that make some of us really go for it and others not willing to put out that much energy? Or, do we all pretty much start as strong copiers but a crappy environment eventually takes the spirit out of some of us?

Margaret

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

I should have stressed the "objectively", we can still discuss it but objectivity is hard to come by.
So, you want me to get into more PC trouble, huh? OK: I was pointing out that I think blacks are better dancers and whites are better at saving for a rainy (or snowy) day. And I think that follows from latitude since women can take care of themselves when the environment allows.

That was a gross generalization, which is why I preferred to leave it rather cryptic ;).

Who's got rhythm and where did they get it?
 

OK Tom, get ready for it - just kidding. ;)

What you are talking about is something that I have also spent a lot of time wondering about. I mentioned previously that I am a musician. I have always been fascinated by both African and S. American rhythm which is very much associated with black culture and originated in Africa.

Rhythm is the foundation of all music. I sometimes see tone and timbre and voice, melody and harmony, as just embellishments, ways to decorate a really cool rhythm. Some of my students have had the problem of approaching music tonally - and never seeing the rhythm under that music. Until they can start over - and first develop a sense of rhythm - and then lay their melodies on top of that - they'll be stuck in the rut of only making sounds and not music.

My theory on this (that has no real reason to be correct other than my intuition) is that rhythm is closely associated with speech in our brains. Some languages are more rhythmic than others and people that speak more rhythmic languages constantly exercise their sense of rhythm when the speak. So from an early age they will tend to have music (and dance) that is more complex rhythmically and where rhythm is a more significant component.

An aside: For many years scholars tried to analyze the drum message codes of some African tribes. Finally they discovered that the drums were replicating the rhythm of common spoken phrases in their languages. For people who speak rhythmically, the drums are almost as good a standing next to the speaker.

When African slaves came to America they didn't just learn English - they naturally put it to the rhythm that they used to speak their native language. That speaking rhythm has persisted in black American culture except for those blacks who have consciously suppressed it or were raised without it. As you know, today hip-hop and rap is a very popular form of black rhythmic/verbal musical communication (that turns off most older whites - but kids are picking up on it).

Another aside: I used to work with a black man who I sensed wanted to succeed in white culture. He claimed not to have any sense of rhythm and said that it was a cultural myth that blacks had more rhythm than whites.

So, here's the question:

Do blacks typically have more rhythm than you and I do (I'm guessing you're not black) and if so, is this cultural or genetic? If it is genetic, then I wonder what happened in those successive waves of homo-sapien northern and eastern migrations that caused the loss of that genetic rhythmic influence.

Or, is it just cultural and any non-black exposed to rhythmic speech patterns (and music) from an early age can do it. From all the white folks I know who do bluegrass and old-time fiddle tunes (very much white music) I'd say that a strong case can be made for culture. (Mark O'Conner, Jerry Douglas, Russ Barenburg, Edger Meyer, Mike Marshall, Laurie Lewis, Alyson Kraus, Alison Brown, etc. - these folks all have what I'd call an extremely well developed sense for complex rhythm.)

Then there's the old-time music of the likes of the Carter family. They'd purposely add a beat here or take one out there to make a tune crooked. That way when you were listening to it on the radio you'd be a bit startled - like, what was that? And you'd remember to listen to them again when the Grand Ole Opry was on. But it takes a very good sense of rhythm to pull that off and not crash - which I often do when I try to emulate them :)

Or, is it simply environmental? Do hot climates just make better dancers?

What do you think?

Margaret

PS - I just happened to think about Norwegian folk music. That's some of the most rhythmically complex stuff I have ever heard - and it developed over the centuries in the far north. On second thought, maybe it's not so complex just wierd. Anyway, I can't follow it. :rolleyes:

PPS - It would seem to me that if this was genetic, then black children might show some difficulty learning to speak non-rhythmically when raised in that language environment. Or at least they might try to impose rhythm of some type on whatever non-rhythmic language they might learn. The opposite might be true for white children raised in a rhythmic speaking environment. I have never heard of anything like this happening (except for Steve Martin in the Jerk ;).

Re: Who's got rhythm and where did they get it?
 

I don't know. I guess I'll have to expound on my nearly useless intuition:

I always lean toward genetics until I reach a dead-end; the nice feature of that is the possibility that they find that gene and I can feel prescient.

This is one of those just-so stories that everyone dislikes, but it's all I have, again not enough data. I first look at survival, followed by competition (defending resources/eliminating competition) and then sexual selection as the primary evolutionary forces since they have so much to do with progeny. Is rhythm more important to survival in the tropics than the arctic? I don't think so. Is rhythm more important to competition in the tropics than the arctic? I doubt it. Is rhythm more important to sexual selection in the tropics than the arctic? Possibly.

I look at other species and see some that have male dance-offs. If the living is hard, it makes sense that survival skills are attractive (penguins ought to be fat); if living is easier, I'm thinking that some proxy must be attractive.
I think it's just as likely that the rhythmic speech followed the displays, or maybe are a part of it.
It may also be that the genes developed after the migrations. Or the genes were de-selected when the roofs of the igloos were not tall enough to do the watusi justice. Or maybe there wasn't as much time for avocation in the tougher environments. Your guess is as good as mine.

Who's got rhythm and where did they get it?
 

Tom, I see your reasoning and preference for a genetic basis. It's a fascinating question. I came across this interesting article that appeared in the NYT in 2003 on this topic. Thought you might enjoy reading it. It includes references to both of our views.

NYT Music link

I notice in this article that most of the scientists commenting (who I assume tend to be white male) ignore the concept of rhythm and talk about music exclusively in terms of tone and intervals on the 12 tone scale, harmonics, etc.

As I mentioned I see music as a primarily rhythmic experience - with tones embellishing the more direct emotional experience of the rhythm. IMO rhythm provides the emotional context for the tones that we love so much in the West. In a sense, the melody gives our analytical mind (and other emotional regions) something to focus on while we groove to the beat - and adds to the pleasure.

I think there is a cultural bias that is evident in Eurpoean cultures where the rhythmic component of music and speech is less developed compared to esp. African or African derived cultures. This article is perhaps a good example of how even trained scientists are strongly biased to see the world only through their own experience.

Your suggestions regarding sexual selection and fitness I think are right on. But that leads to an EP paradox. In our culture (today) it seems that relatively few males become musicians yet those who do seem to have greater access to mating opportunities. From a female perspective what's not to like about a boy who so easily and competently expresses such powerful emotions.

Yet, in school, it's the male athletes who are more often lionized. The band (if the school has one) is often seen as support for the football and basketball teams. But I think it is natural for both sexes to instinctively experience music as a way to attract mates.

I wonder if we culturally sense that boys who become musicians would much rather jam some tunes with males from other countries than kill them - and so we encourage the football star with huge scholarships but the few young musicians are usually left to their garage bands - especially those who are into sexually potent rock or rap.

A confession: I started getting very interested in brain science and psychology about four years ago as the result of my music teaching. Specifically, I had a student who seemed to have no sense of rhythm, yet loved music and wanted badly to make music herself. It has taken a tremendous effort on her part but she has improved a great deal and is now at least passable. She can enjoy herself now and not embarrass herself - and that's what I call success. Interestingly, when she was young she had an accident that caused a pin to penetrate through her left inner ear and into her brain which I think may be related to her rhythm deficit.

But anyway, that might shed some light on why I find these discussions interesting and also on some of my opinions about the power of a motivated mind to mold itself - regardless of heredity and sometimes even physical handicaps.

Margaret

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

OK Margaret, so the black man you once worked with, who you “sensed wanted to succeed in white culture,” claimed not to have any sense of rhythm; but let’s get back to Tom’s more controversial point—did this black man claim that he was as good as any white guy “at saving for a rainy (or snowy) day,” or that it was a cultural myth that blacks were worse “at saving for a rainy (or snowy) day?”

Anyway Margaret, Tom already explained the loss of what you refer to as “genetic rhythmic influence”—“you can't play basketball while huddled in your igloo.” Shouldn’t you be more curious about Tom’s POV that “whites are better at saving for a rainy (or snowy) day," whether he thinks it’s, as you say, “cultural or genetic,” and if, as you ask, genetic, “what happened in those successive waves of homo-sapien northern and eastern migrations that caused the [gain] of that genetic [saving] influence?”

Re: Who's got rhythm and where did they get it?
 

Yes, I'll have to sleep on that paradox for a couple of days. I'm a bad test subject since there was no musical training available to my family; I don't know if my disconnectedness is from genes or environment.

I know that the stereotypical parent is not too keen on the starving-artist life plan.

Who's got rhythm?
 

Fred sed, I don't remember him saying anything about that. But, he and his wife who I became friends with were doing that. They were both working and saving for a down payment on a home.

Fred sed, I thought it was a joke. Actually the Inuit I've read about spent quite a bit of time outdoors, even in the winter - and when inside it was often in rather large huts that easily accomodated dancing. Igloos were mostly for temporaray shelters when caught out in a storm etc. I'd highly recommend the film Atanarjuat; The Fast Runner which is the film version of a very old Inuit story that really does a good job of describing what Inuit life was like before snowmobiles and satellite TV.

Canada's Official Selection - Foreign Language Oscar® !Winner of 6 Genie Awards!
Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Editing, Claude Jutra
Best Canadian Feature Film (2001 Toronto International Film Festival)
Co-Winner, Guardian Award for Best New Director (2001 Edinburgh International Film Festival)
Grand Prix of the Flemish Community for Best Film (2001 Flanders International Film Festival - Ghent)
Special Jury Prize and the Prix du Public (Festival International du nouveau Cinema et des nouveaux Medias de Montreal 2001)
CTV Best of Fest Award (Next Fest 2001 - Digital Motion Picture Festival)
Best Film (ImagineNATIVE Media Arts Festival)
Best Feature Film (2001 Sante Fe International Festival)
Best Feature Film (2002 San Diego International Film Festival)
Audience Award (2002 Newport International Film Festival)
Audience Award (2002 Lake Placid Film Forum)
Best Film, Best Actor, Best Actress (2002 American Indian Film Festival)
Best Feature-Length Mountain Fiction Film (2002 Banff Mountain Film Festival)

Fred sed, I don't think I've ever heard of any research that tried to find the "rainy day" gene and/or correllate that with skin color. Do you think this might be a generalized hoarding instinct that whites have or is it just to be used for hard times?

Margaret

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

Apparently Margaret you intended that question for Tom, since, as you should know by now, it’d be my view that humans, whether white or black, would be equally capable of “choosing,” using their free will, to save, or to not save.

But for those convinced that we humans lack free will, such as you and Tom, I suppose it’s to be expected that you’d also have the view that some groups of humans are going to be somehow “better at saving for a rainy (or snowy) day” than other groups of humans. (And would that be “culturally or genetically” better?)

I don’t suppose that you and Tom will be providing any actual proof for your (what some may see as controversial) beliefs?

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

Fred sed, No, I was responding to your question,
I knew at the time it was probably a mistake to do so. We both know this is just a transparent attempt to sidetrack a polite discussion of evolution back to your theology where you get to call atheists immoral. Fred, I really don't care what you think about god or free will or atheists or me. Get over it. :rolleyes:

Margaret

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

Here’s what we now “know,” Margaret—no proof, no evidence, no explanation, nothing much at all for your unsubstantiated beliefs, except for your unsubstantiated accusations. Surprise, surprise.

Something else Margaret: You seem to have the rather ugly habit of making unsubstantiated accusations—I don’t recall anywhere in our threads where I “call atheists immoral.” Now on various occasions, when you yourself have demonstrated a lack of intellectual rigor, consistency, and/or honesty (as your doing right here), I’ve of course so noted your lack, as I’m doing here; but then you seem compelled to maliciously extrapolate that into the fabricated accusation that I “call atheists immoral,” compounding your dishonesty.

Bye for now.

Re: Who's got rhythm and where did they get it?
 

Well, I slept on it for one night and have a thought. I have case histories of exactly one man so any extrapolation to the masses is obviously dangerous... And to spare other readers these just-so stories, I'll send any further responses as personal messages.

When I knew my first marriage was going to be over I had planned to date multiple women for months until I found my second wife. While there were plenty of available women, my nature went directly against my plans: when I was dating a woman for months that I thought was a good match but met another whom I thought was better, I had to immediately break it off with the first. Huh??? A gorgeous woman who I had rolling with laughter in her apartment held onto my hand as I tried to leave through the front door, yet I left and never dated her again. What???

Years ago I had written about lumping men into 2 groups: penguins and spiders. I found out that I am a penguin: I can't date a woman as rarely as once a week or alternate between women. If I'm in for a penny, I'm in for a pound.

What does that mean here? It's just that I never could figure out why I'm not jealous of the rock stars or basketball players (yes, to counter your 'music over sports' I'd have to say that Jabbar had more sex than Hendrix, at least 10,000 :rolleyes: ). I remember thinking about the women being so easy that they probably screwed the entire basketball team. I think the same about music groupies. These women would appeal to me if I just wanted to have one-night stands, but I don't. In fact, the only one-night stand I ever attempted did not turn out very well.

This penguin male wants a penguin female. I don't value women who have 'slept around' and any that would sleep with me on the first night have probably done the same with other men. Any that would faint in my arms just because I sang a song would probably not be good to have children with. Plus, if they take their sex as seriously as I do, these women have probably built up a LOT of resentment over the way they let men treat them. If they don't take their sex as seriously, I don't trust them to remain faithful.

So, my answer, in a phrase is "male sexual selection". Paradox solved.

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

Margaret, I'm glad that Fred is offering more proof for my warning against bothering to debate him. He's willing to stand on the literal, ignore valid points, misrepresent others views and sometimes be completely dishonest. He does, though, offer a perspective that is good to counter in this forum. Plus, he does make choices, as do we all, based on his social animal instincts and deserves pity rather than dislike. He can't help but behave this way based on what he allows to enter his mind but I wish he could lean a little more toward his 'morality' and be a bit nicer about it.

As for "huddling in igloos", that wasn't intended to be a joke or a literal statement. It was a metaphore for the work that's necessary to survive in a harse environment vs an easy one, with a little humor thrown in.

I wasn't saying that blacks can't save money and whites can't play basketball, that's patently false. As I've said, I do not know how much of our psychologies are nature vs nurture and I was offering possible mechanisms which leave the nature possibility open. If I could not think of any possible genetic way that groups of humans could be psychologically different then I'd have to agree with the nurturists. It's an open question that I don't think we can discuss objectively at the moment, as I've said; humans from seasonal environments may have developed instincts to prepare for the coming winter while those in tropical environments may not have since they didn't have to worry about the local fruit being out of season. Women in these environments would, in my view and if they had the choice, breed for different qualities in mates. If there is enough Evolutionary Psychology to drive this forum then I think that's almost a given; otherwise, we'd have to agree with Margaret's more "cultural psychology".

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

Tom, I enjoy these discussions as a way to consider various ideas and discuss the evidence pro and con - but when I do that I am not trying to say that other views are wrong. Some here are looking for ideological confrontation and I sometimes let myself get sucked into that - but I always regret that afterwards.

Even though I seem to fall more on the nurture side of things I expect that there are gaps and errors in my understanding of it all. I am no pro at this. I just think it is all so fascinating.

If I argue against your view, that doesn't mean that I really believe that I am right and you are wrong. It's just a challenging way of testing ideas. You always offer your views thoughtfully and respectfully and I sense that you have a sincere interest in the underlying questions - and especially that you are pushing no agenda.

Just wanted to be sure that you know that I appreciate that, :cool:

Margaret

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

I “deserve pity?” You’ve made similar charges numerous times Tom—e.g., that you “feel sorry for [my] predicament, “sympathize with [my] plight,” “know [my] pain is not easy to bear,” etc., etc., etc.

It seems to have become a rather nasty habit of yours. And while I tend to ignore your gratuitous ad hominems as useless distractions, they nevertheless do tell me something about who and what you are. Consider using a little more restraint in the future.

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

Fred, while you may take these statements as an attack, I assure you that I absolutely mean them. That's the peace I get from my philosophy, I don't get angry or frustrated with people like you; you suffer from a personality disorder that would make my life miserable if I suffered the same.

If it truly bothers you, I will refrain in the future as long as you refrain from misrepresenting my statements and insulting me. If you don't refrain and it does bother you, then cool!!! And anyone that reads a large number of your posts will not be blind to the fact that you would be the best target of this post of yours, so you could lead by example by granting us your request.

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

Yes, I see now how you would have taken my "Paradox solved" as a "Take that!", but it was surely not meant to be. Tone is sometimes so hard to convey via writing, especially for me when I value brevity; that's probably where much of Fred's feelings of being attacked by my sympathy comes from.

I love puzzles and paradoxes are my favorite. That's why I read all of these posts; I'd love thoughtful challenges and while puzzle books are fun, they don't come close to the puzzles of real life. I was just excited that I resolved this apparent paradox in my own mind, it allowed me to know myself better.

Thanks for raising it and all of your great posts.

PS. I, however, do believe that I am right! ;)

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

Yes Tom, I don’t doubt that you “absolutely mean them,” and that you do “believe” that you are “right”—lacking expertise or evidence, you’ve ascertained that the guy who points out various flaws in your arguments suffers from a “personality disorder.” Maybe someone else here will explain to you why your conviction is a bit over the top, a bit ominous—you may be taking that “Übermensch ” thing way too seriously.

Or maybe I just should have let you “win” a few of your arguments.

OK Tom, maybe I can throw you a bone—There actually is, as JimB has more or less indicated in his opening posts, differences in various traits among individuals, and it’s essentially a genetic thing (shocking, isn’t it?)—Arthur Jensen, a prominent UC Berkeley supergrade professor emeritus of education psychology, known for his work in psychometrics, and differential psychology, a leading authority on IQ, has provided an enormous amount of overwhelming evidence on this area in his various papers and books.

So here’s your assignment Tom: Read and study Jensen’s book, The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (1998); and then, with actual (overwhelming) evidence documenting genetic differences, see how long you can discuss/debate this area with any estrogen-guided K-mart thinking friends you may have recently acquired before charges of Full Monte racism emerge.

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

OK Fred, I guess you decided not to accept my invitation to take the high road and set a good example. Very well.

First, the reason I diagnosed you with a personality disorder couldn't have been because you "pointed out various flaws in my arguments", since you haven't. You don't have to let me 'win' any arguments and it's not right to imply that I 'lost' any.

Second, leave it to you to cast yourself as my teacher and suggest that I read a book that supports the nature side of my argument and use that to debate people whom I have no quarrel with. I don't think so.

I mentioned a personality disorder because of the mean-spirited posts you send. You must have a lot of fear and anger to be so rude.

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

Thanks so much for noticing! ;) As wonderful a thing it was for you to write, I feel compelled to be open and honest and spoil the moment: if I appear to be pushing no agenda then it's purely by coincidence that my agenda matches "agendalessness". To illustrate my point, it would help for you to read one or two of the "The case of..." pages at the bottom of the "Forum Jump" list near the bottom of this page; kinda long but fascinating reading. Plus, there's the http://www.behavior.net/bolforums/showthread.php?t=728 thread, to which nobody has replied.

My point is that we are all born intelligent and fragile psyches. Each of us could write a "The case of..." that would pretty fully explain every one of our posts. Mine would say something about having bad adult role models and better sibling role models. This put me on a course where I do not respect authority and believe that we mere humans are responsible for our futures. So, I accept nothing on faith and have to see the facts for myself. (If this actually is agendalessness and I'm completely right, then cool!)

The case of Margaret might say something about suffering at the hands of men. ;)

The case of JimB might say something about suffering at the hands of women who suffered at the hands of men. ;)

The case of Todd might say something about the horror of the Holocaust and continued anti-Semitism. ;)

The case of Fred might say...I have no idea.

I don't think there were any replies to the "The Repressor Module: EP's Holy Grail" thread because of the threat the ideas pose to the bubbles we've built around ourselves (or maybe it was just my clunky prose). That our brains do not let us have all the information that might damage our self-concept kind of explains why these discussions take on the tone of everyone speaking an entirely different language. And it really is; what I have in my brain is filtered before it shows up in my post, everyone reads the words but their brains interpret them different from each other and different from my intent.

To believe this seems pretty uncomfortable; how can we exercise free will when the brain is not giving us a true picture of reality? That's my point, we don't have free will; we make choices with our brains but those are completely dependent on the state of our brains (and Fred's meds). So what do we do? I say we accept everyone's shortcomings, including our own, and keep trying. It's the only human way to go and at some point we may all realize our limitations and create a society that is more effective before we kill ourselves.

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

You (and Margaret) initiated the mean-spirited posts, the rudeness—I wasn’t first to raise the stakes. If anyone has a “personality disorder,” it’s you, along with a poor memory.

Go back to Feb 10 in the “Intelligent Design and Why Not” thread—until then our posts were reasonably cordial, but then Margaret decided to raise the stakes in her post #49 (with her hypersensitive inferences/allegations from my review of Woody Allen’s Match Point), and you then decided to join forces with her in your mean-spirited (and groundless) remarks about me in your post #50: Also Tom, if you’re interested in actual evidence and science regarding genetic differences, you should consider reading Jensen’s book—The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (1998)—so that you can provide something more intelligent than, “you can't play basketball while huddled in your igloo.”

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

This still does not "point out various flaws in my arguments". And Margaret's concern that you were calling her morally blind in your post previous to your examples is sufficient for me. Especially in view of this post of mine based on replies to posts of yours from last year:

Re: Who's got rhythm and where did they get it?
 

Ha, who woulda guessed. Within days of this quote, I find the following at
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...82809EC588ED9F: