taw comments on Review: Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids - Less Wrong

17 Post author: jsalvatier 29 May 2012 06:00PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (257)

Comments (257)

Sort By: Leading

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: taw comment score below threshold [+] (13 children)

Comment author: Vladimir_M 31 May 2012 03:05:18PM 7 points [-]

Well, then I'm puzzled why you didn't reply to these misguided assertions.

In any case, the paper you cite may well be correct point-by-point, but on the whole, it's a lawyerly argument that tries to overwhelm and misguide the readers by amassing a pile of hand-picked one-way evidence that will dazzle them and make them lose sight of the overall balance of evidence. As I wrote in that earlier comment thread in response to similar points:

As for heritability studies, you are certainly right that there is a lot of shoddy work, and by necessity they make a whole lot of wildly simplifying assumptions. If there existed only a handful of such studies, one would be well advised not to take them very seriously. However, the amount of data that has been gathered in recent decades is just too overwhelming to dismiss, especially taking into account that often there have been considerable ideological incentives to support the opposite conclusions.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 31 May 2012 05:12:04PM * 1 point [-]

As for heritability studies, you are certainly right that there is a lot of shoddy work, and by necessity they make a whole lot of wildly simplifying assumptions. If there existed only a handful of such studies, one would be well advised not to take them very seriously. However, the amount of data that has been gathered in recent decades is just too overwhelming to dismiss,

Piling up shoddy evidence does not make good evidence. (And it still doesn't if you -- that's the impersonal "you", not you in particular -- call it "Bayesian evidence".)

especially taking into account that often there have been considerable ideological incentives to support the opposite conclusions.

There are considerable ideological incentives on both sides.

The Sesardic book you recommended is in my university library, but when I went to look at it, I found at least a shelf-foot of books on the subject, some (I could tell just from the authors' names) on one side, some on the other. So I didn't bother looking any further and left all the books there. I could read Sesardic saying what you say he says, but then I could read Kamin arguing the opposite, and in that situation, to form a view of my own with any real basis I'd have to research the subject enough to write a book of my own. I have other things to do. Such is the nature of controversies: they cannot be settled by saying "read this book".

One observation though, that I haven't seen made on either side. Failing to find strong genetic causes for something does not imply that it's the environment; failing to find strong environmental causes does not imply that it's the genes; failing to find either does not imply that it's the interaction of genes and environment. I believe I've seen (but no cites) all three wrong arguments being made from time to time. All that failing to find the causes implies is that we have failed to find the causes.

Comment author: Vladimir_M 02 June 2012 05:54:49AM * 6 points [-]

There are considerable ideological incentives on both sides.

I don't think it can be reasonably argued that ideological incentives and pressures have been equally strong in both directions.

[T]o form a view of my own with any real basis I'd have to research the subject enough to write a book of my own.

At one point, I spent quite a bit of time trying to make some sense of these controversies, and based on what I've found, I disagree with this. Even though my initial bias back then was strongly against hereditarianism, it quickly became apparent to me that the writings of prominent anti-hereditarians raise many more red flags of kinds that are readily apparent even to a reader without an in-depth knowledge of the subject.

Now, of course, we may disagree about this when it comes to this particular topic. But as a more general point, I think it's neither necessary nor useful to approach controversies with the attitude that one must suspend judgement unless one is an expert. Often there is strong evidence in favor of one or the other side that can be correctly evaluated even if one has only a casual familiarity with the subject.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 02 June 2012 07:55:05AM * 1 point [-]

it quickly became apparent to me that the writings of prominent anti-hereditarians raise many more red flags of kinds that are readily apparent even to a reader without an in-depth knowledge of the subject.

That is my general impression also. But the presence of bad arguments is a very indirect indication of where the truth of the matter itself lies, so weakly related to the matter that I judge it completely worthless. It may be interesting for other reasons, but does not bear on the primary matter and has a negative effect on the whole discussion. I have not seen a convincing reply to some of the technical matters that have been raised by the anti-hereditarians; the argument is too easily derailed into attacking the anti-hereditarians' politics.

ETA: Perhaps more important is arguments being derailed into focussing on the weak points only.

Comment author: wedrifid 31 May 2012 07:59:13PM 5 points [-]

Piling up shoddy evidence does not make good evidence.

Um... yes, often it does.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 31 May 2012 08:03:14PM 0 points [-]

For example, 100 people saying "Um... yes, often it does" would not sway me a jot.

Do you have an example?

Comment author: wedrifid 31 May 2012 08:08:26PM * 4 points [-]

Do you have an example?

1 study with too small a sample size to even make the findings significantly significant is shoddy evidence. 100 such studies is (probably) good evidence.

Second example:

For example, 100 people saying "Um... yes, often it does" would not sway me a jot.

It should (unless all 100 people are known to be fools.)

Comment author: RichardKennaway 01 June 2012 07:46:55AM * -2 points [-]

Um... yes, often it does.

Do you have an example?

1 study with too small a sample size to even make the findings significantly significant is shoddy evidence. 100 such studies is (probably) good evidence.

That isn't an actual example, and there are many more ways of being shoddy than merely a limited sample size.

It should (unless all 100 people are known to be fools.)

This presumes explicitly that they are not, and tacitly that they are all independent, have not all come to the same conclusion for the same bad reasons. These are very substantial presumptions and need substantial justification to make such a meta-analysis worth anything at all. The presumption that one would have to be a "fool" to be wrong about something is just rhetorical spin.

100 pieces of crap is still just a pile of crap, however you spin it.

Comment author: wedrifid 01 June 2012 07:58:06AM * 5 points [-]

and there are many more ways of being shoddy than merely a limited sample size.

"Give me an example! ... Ha! Your example isn't a fully general enumeration of the entire class... Fooled you!!"

Comment author: RichardKennaway 01 June 2012 08:10:29AM -2 points [-]

Your example wasn't an example at all, just a made-up scenario of many small pieces of evidence adding up to large evidence. You originally said

Um... yes, often it does

(emphasis mine.) When asked to back that up, you just made stuff up.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 01 June 2012 09:21:41AM 1 point [-]

The Sesardic book you recommended is in my university library, but when I went to look at it, I found at least a shelf-foot of books on the subject, some (I could tell just from the authors' names) on one side, some on the other.

I can imagine the titles giving clues to the slant of a book, but how do you make such deductions from the authors' names?

Comment author: RichardKennaway 01 June 2012 04:30:11PM * 3 points [-]

By already knowing who they are and their general views on the subject. Kamin will say environment, Pinker will say genes, Gould will say environment, and Sesardic, I have learned, will say genes. And if in doubt, the publisher's blurb will tell me all I need to know if I'm not going to do my own extensive research.

In fact, the situation is even worse: to have a real view of my own, not only would I have to acquire expertise sufficient to write my own book, I would have to achieve substantially greater expertise than all of the people whose conclusions I ended up disagreeing with, in order to have reasonable grounds to think that I was right and they were wrong.

Who has the time?

Comment author: taw 31 May 2012 10:57:08PM -1 points [-]

Well, then I'm puzzled why you didn't reply to these misguided assertions.

Sadly there are many blind spots here where groupthink rules, and people will just happily downvote anybody who has a different opinion. They are not worth replying to. I see the downvote brigade found this thread as well.

taw comments on Review: Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (257)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (257)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login