tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6146376483374589779.post3690235136591438277..comments2024-02-14T11:18:50.296-08:00Comments on Wiring the Brain: Reductionism! Determinism! Straw-man-ism!Kevin Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07172255754953214162noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6146376483374589779.post-27024066019472454332014-06-09T22:19:22.935-07:002014-06-09T22:19:22.935-07:00thanks ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,thanks ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Yasmeen Elsayedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01006460247540617776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6146376483374589779.post-72047934311409824942014-03-28T06:40:35.338-07:002014-03-28T06:40:35.338-07:00Its great ideas have to share with us and custom e...Its great ideas have to share with us and <a href="http://www.usessay.com/" rel="nofollow">custom essay writing</a> also helpful in science studies. I am appreciating with you. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00758068460468982641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6146376483374589779.post-60982714955224011832014-02-25T09:30:41.293-08:002014-02-25T09:30:41.293-08:00Fantastic advice - wish there was a way to forward...Fantastic advice - wish there was a way to forward this to every university press office too!Kevin Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07172255754953214162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6146376483374589779.post-24811376665438031492014-02-25T08:05:17.672-08:002014-02-25T08:05:17.672-08:00Terrific post. Two specific pieces of advice for s...Terrific post. Two specific pieces of advice for scientists that I'd add: <br /><br />1. When talking to reporters, never use the disruptive sense of the word "gene." Just say "variants in a gene." And explain why you're phrasing it that way.<br /><br />2. Never say a variant "causes" a phenotype. People naturally assume that "cause" means "THE cause" rather than "a cause" (despite the fact that this is rarely the case in reality). Say the variant "contributes to the risk of" the phenotype. And, again, make it explicit to the journalist why you are saying it that way.<br /><br />Yes, "variants in a gene contribute to the risk of X" is a much clunkier phrase than "a gene causes X." It's also more accurate. If you are precise with your language -- and if you explain to the journalist why you are phrasing things the way you are -- you can turn an interview into a teaching opportunity. You can't cause the journalist to phrase things properly, of course, but you can increase the probability that she will. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6146376483374589779.post-76542646420765967682014-02-25T05:08:00.637-08:002014-02-25T05:08:00.637-08:00I'm perhaps your biggest fan when it comes to ...I'm perhaps your biggest fan when it comes to the issue of developmental noise. I think your talk at Ignite 9 was quite brilliant! Indeed, HBD Chick made a post featuring your talk along with Steven Pinkers discussion of the matter:<br /><br /><a href="http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/its-not-nature-and-nurture/" rel="nofollow">it’s not nature and nurture… | hbd* chick</a><br /><br />We both circulate this a lot. People are much too quick to assume that "not immediately attributable to heredity" (for whatever reason) = nurture, when that's far from necessarily the case.<br /><br />Now, that said, developmental noise can't explain (male, anyway) homosexuality. It is so big of a fitness hit that natural selection should have made such a developmental outcome rare (a lot rarer than it is). See Greg Cochran on it:<br /><br /><a href="http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/homosexuality-epigenetics-and-zebras/" rel="nofollow">Homosexuality, epigenetics, and zebras | West Hunter</a><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6146376483374589779.post-26539301984551787122014-02-25T01:09:55.575-08:002014-02-25T01:09:55.575-08:00I agree with you completely - many phenotypes do n...I agree with you completely - many phenotypes do not lend themselves to categorical definitions. Twin studies like the ones referenced have been done using different measures related to sexual orientation, including ones reporting preference and ones reporting behaviour. But none of them is perfect. Nevertheless, that fuzziness does not undermine the heritability findings - if anything, it makes the estimates of heritability likely to be underestimates. On the other hand, it will make finding genetic variants contributing to sexual orientation more difficult, if it is a highly heterogeneous condition. Kevin Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07172255754953214162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6146376483374589779.post-49226990592092596112014-02-25T01:06:28.344-08:002014-02-25T01:06:28.344-08:00Thanks JayMan. I too am looking forward to seeing ...Thanks JayMan. I too am looking forward to seeing Bailey's post come out - but generally it simply confirms many previous findings of heritability of sexual orientation (whether it's 10% or 40% may still be an issue). The idea of sexual orientation being arising as a "Unique Reaction to Environmental Factors" is interesting and I almost agree with it. But not if environmental is meant in the colloquial sense - the term "non-shared environment" as used in twin studies also importantly includes intrinsic developmental variation, which I think is really the key here, when understanding the factors that affect the outcome of probabilistic phenotypes. More on that in an upcoming post. (and see here: http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2009/06/nature-nurture-and-noise.html)Kevin Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07172255754953214162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6146376483374589779.post-27412830289697022302014-02-25T01:01:31.804-08:002014-02-25T01:01:31.804-08:00Thanks Jason. I agree completely that any effects ...Thanks Jason. I agree completely that any effects of single variants will typically be modified by the genetic background. It is hugely important for us to grapple with these complexities and figure out how genome-types, not just genotypes, related to phenotypes. Kevin Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07172255754953214162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6146376483374589779.post-91506409980562187212014-02-24T20:45:51.057-08:002014-02-24T20:45:51.057-08:00I understand your argument, but I am afraid you ar...I understand your argument, but I am afraid you are the one committing the straw-man fallacy here: it is not the genotype-phenotype interaction that is put into question as "reductionist", but what a phenotypical trait itself is. <br /><br />For example, what does it actually mean to be gay? To define oneself as gay or to have experienced at least "x" homosexual encounters? How do you define "x" then? X as greater than 1? 2? 10? And the self-definition is very problematic as well: some environments will be more open for gay people than others, thus obviously changing "x" and the "phenotypical frequency of self-definition as homosexual". Further, did the classical Greeks experience a genetic bottleneck or what that made them normativize homosexuality? However, the geneticist usually assumes by default (like everyone) the current common wisdom regarding sexuality or race or gender or class. It is not a problem of bad research design, but of hegemony, which defines a priori the social categories which the geneticist will use for her research. <br /><br />A conversation needs to take place between anthropology and genetics, I guess. The phenotype itself is as complex as the genotype.Oriolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00078523840686036908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6146376483374589779.post-42113908336557769492014-02-24T07:25:50.757-08:002014-02-24T07:25:50.757-08:00Thank you so much for this! I doubt it will educa...Thank you so much for this! I doubt it will educate (much less convince) any of the reductionists with whom I regularly debate, but it definitely fills out my arsenal quite a bit.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04068844904769160913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6146376483374589779.post-86160174436495008052014-02-23T08:06:48.033-08:002014-02-23T08:06:48.033-08:00Brilliant post! You've said so many things tha...Brilliant post! You've said so many things that <i>needed</i> to be said.<br /><br />(Of course, will the very charges you address in the post go away? Not a chance. But your post will be circulated a lot by me when they do come up ;) )<br /><br />One technical quibble, only tangentially related to the gist of the main post. I'd sure like to see Bailey's study when it comes out. Regardless of what he finds, I'm sure it won't be enough to throw off the considerable evidence from twin <i>registry</i> studies that show that the heritability of (male) homosexuality is very low, much less than 0.3-0.4, apparently less than 0.22.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.mygenes.co.nz/whitehead_twinjhs.pdf" rel="nofollow">Neither Genes nor Choice:<br />Same-Sex Attraction Is Mostly a Unique Reaction to Environmental Factors</a><br /><br />http://www.hollanddavis.com/?p=3647<br /><br />Regardless of how you slice the heritability, which is difficult due to both the relative rarity of homosexuality, and the low concordance rate between MZ <i>and</i> DZ twins, at the end of the day, identical twins are usually discordant, anywhere from 75%-90% of the time. Bailey's studies may get headlines (probably more than Bailey himself may have wanted), but somehow I doubt it's adding anything new.<br /><br />Interested readers can also see <a href="http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/02/11/hbd-is-life-and-death/comment-page-1/#comment-25691" rel="nofollow">this commenter here</a> at my blog for more on that study.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6146376483374589779.post-32495029034638439162014-02-23T07:54:21.062-08:002014-02-23T07:54:21.062-08:00Well said!Well said!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6146376483374589779.post-52490696232257047642014-02-23T06:02:48.585-08:002014-02-23T06:02:48.585-08:00I agree with everything you said. This is a very w...I agree with everything you said. This is a very well-written and balanced piece. I like your juxtaposition of "the system is complex" and "single variants can influence a complex system". One variant at a time studies aren't inherently reductionist. We all want to know what the effects of any variant are independent of genomic background and ecology. This is an important part of genetic architecture and should not be ignored. From my point of view the problem is with the *assumptions* made when investigating the single variant effect on interindividual variation in a biological trait. One assumption (1) is that the system is complex and the single variant analysis will reveal only a piece of that complexity. Another assumption (2) is that the system is complex but can be teased apart as a sum of independent effects. Yet another assumption (3) is that the system appears complex but is really simple and can be explained by a sum of variants. The human genetics and genetic epidemiology disciplines span all of these assumptions in a non-uniform manner. I am old enough to have been a graduate student and beginning assistant professor during the linkage era that began with assumption 3 coming off the successes of Mendelian genetics and positional cloning. This off course shifted to assumption 2 during the GWAS era. I think we are now in the process of shifting toward assumption 1 as digest the largely negative results of using single variant analyses to predict disease susceptibility. I believe this shift in assumptions will continue over the next year as WGS plays out. Thanks for the post! - Jason Moore (Dartmouth)Jason H. Moore, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07692025646640606430noreply@blogger.com