A brief hiatus

By -
Apologies for not posting anything recently. I have something in the works at BigThink and a few more in the pipeline but it has been hard finding the time to blog recently. I hope to be back to it in a couple of weeks.

Comments

  1. NeuroskepticSeptember 22, 2011 at 11:53 PM

    Looking forward to seeing your BigThoughts :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousNovember 25, 2011 at 6:18 AM

    You don't have to worry about it. I know that it is quite hard to give enough time to blog something. It takes a lot of time that why I am impressed with sites like xlpharmacy facts because they are adding content constantly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. WikiFebruary 14, 2012 at 10:05 AM

    If you want to make your free website I think you need free flash templates .

    Free flash intos is one of the best free flash effects that you need.

    ReplyDelete
  4. UnknownMarch 26, 2013 at 7:34 AM

    Enormous statistics I like your post. It is good to see you express from the heart and accuracy on this important subject can be easily captured here.
    MBA Thesis Writing

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The genetics of stupidity

By -
Image
What if we’ve been thinking about the genetics of intelligence from completely the wrong angle?  Intelligence (as indexed by IQ or the general intelligence factor “ g ”) is clearly highly heritable in humans – people who are more genetically similar are also more similar in this factor. (Genetic variance has been estimated as explaining ~75% of variance in g , depending on age and other factors).  There must therefore be genetic variants in the population that affect intelligence – so far, so good.  But the search for such variants has, at its heart, an implicit assumption: that these variants affect intelligence in a fairly specific way – that they will occur in genes “for intelligence”.  An implication of that phrase is that mutations in those genes were positively selected for at some stage in humanity’s descent from our common ancestor with apes, on the basis of conferring increased intelligence .  This seems a fairly reasonable leap to make – such genes must exist and,
Read more

Is Mental Illness Good For You?

By -
Image
Mental illness is surprisingly common.   About 10% of the population is affected by it at any one time and up to 25% suffer some kind of mental illness over their lifetime.   This has led some people (many people in fact) to surmise that it must exist for a reason – in particular that it must be associated with some kind of evolutionary advantage.   Indeed, this is a popular and persistent idea both in scientific circles and in the general public.   (See the recent article “ Depression’s Upside ” from the New York Times Magazine, for example). Such theories come in two main varieties – the first, that mental illness confers some specific advantage to those afflicted; and second, that the mutations which cause mental illness in one person’s genetic background may confer an advantage when they are in a different genetic background (balancing selection).   Both of these suffer from some misconceptions about how evolution by natural selection works.   The intuitive appeal of the “surv
Read more

Telling good science from bad – a user’s guide to navigating the scientific literature

By -
“Did you find it convincing?” That’s what one of my genetics professors used to ask us, a small group of undergraduates who blinked in response, like rabbits in the headlights. We didn’t know we were supposed to evaluate scientific papers. Who the hell were we to say if these papers – published by proper grown-up scientists in big-name scientific journals – were convincing or not? We thought published, peer-reviewed papers contained The Truth. But our professor (the always inspirational David McConnell at Trinity College Dublin) wasn’t about to let us off so easily. We learned quickly that it absolutely was our job, as fledgling scientists, to learn how to evaluate scientific papers.   This is not a responsibility that can be offloaded to peer reviewers and journal editors. It’s not that pre-publication peer review, when it works as intended, doesn’t perform a useful function. But those supposed gatekeepers of knowledge are as fallible as the primary producers of the research itse
Read more