Topic: Genes and Behavior

This forum is for discussion of thoughts arising from and extending materials in Serendip's Genes and Behavior section. Comments entered here will be automatically posted. Comments not meant to be posted can be sent by Serendip.

Go to last comment or Post a comment

Serendip's forums sometimes get longer than what can conveniently be accessed and displayed. They are, at the same time, in their entirety an important part of what Serendip has become at any given time (and, of course, particular contributions may well be of lasting significance). To try and balance needs for easy display and those of continuous and permanent record, only this year's forum comments are displayed on this page with earlier comments being preserved elsewhere. To go to the forum for prior years, click on the year below.

Year: - Current Postings - 1999/2000 - 1998 - 1997 - 1996 - 1995

Name: Frances
Username: f.hauge@mail.utexas.edu
Subject: Bell Curve
Date: Thu Jan 11 18:32:29 EST 1996
Comments:
I appreciated Grobstein's piece enough to have a copy for my own students if the issue arises. I hate to be non-contrarian, but given the SAT-college success comments raised earlier, could there be a middle ground? I.e. standardized tests serve as societal heuristics for testing competency in a limited number of tasks. The unfortunate issue is that society infuses value of people based on its limited number of heuristics. I find intriguing the blatant avoidance of the importance of having a foundational belief in the intrinsic value of man is one of the few defenses to falling into the trap of valuing people by a particular societal test which is the flavor of the month. I suppose this issue is avoided because a leap of faith is required to believe humans are valuable; and the word God becomes increasingly uncomfortable for most people interested in grounding their opinions... (See, I did get contrarian in the end..)

Name: anonn
Username: anon
Subject: bell curve
Date: Mon Feb 26 15:52:27 EST 1996
Comments:
I feel that Dr. Grobstein's comments regarding the role of "intelligence" make sense, although I am not at all sure that they are correct. It would seem that the suggestion that predictive value of these tests is due to the negative self image evoked by poor performance on the tests is an empirical question that could be answered (or perphaps has already been answered). It is not clear that an answer to this suggestion would contribute to an end of the debate. You may notice that I have not signed my name to this message, because I honestly feel that I might be harrassed if I did. I feel that the great majority of published comments I have seen about the bell curve, misrepreset what is actually in the book. Typical of the comments is the assertion that the Bell Curve states that racial differences are due to genetic factors; that if it is genetic it is not modifiable; that all attempts to raise IQ have failed, etc. The book does not maintain any of these statements. Rather it seems to take great pains to avoid these statements. Thus I conclude that the commentators that make these assertions are political zealots, that are beyond reason. In fact, by making these false assertions, these commentators, promulgate the very erroneous ideas that they are trying to attack. If pretigeous authors such as Murray and Herrnstein are make these statements, the naive reader may think perhaps there is something to the statements, even though the commentators say the statements are false. I am not sure how much of the Bell Curve is correct. Many of the arguments made seem persuasive, and are not made any less persuasive by reviews that distort the position. If even a part of the argument in the book is correct, it raises ethical and political issues that I find disturbing, and for which I have not easy answers and for which the answers offerred in the Bell Curve seem simplistic and not practical.

Name: anonymous
Username:
Subject: IQ
Date: Wed Apr 3 11:25:49 EST 1996
Comments:
Last time I checked, the average IQ of Congress wasn't especially high. Nor is the average IQ of millionaires in the USA especially high. The wealthiest man in my neighborhood owns 27 7-11 Convenience stores and says that his IQ score is 102. Outside of academia, who gives a shit about IQ scores? Besides parents trying to get their kids into a decent college, that is? Nobody, and you know it, too. I believe firmly that this whole damn debate has to due with college entrance and the availability of training. NOT the availability of EDUCATION, which is something else altogether, but the availability of training. Job training. There are actually a few schools with a sink or swim entrance policy. Purdue University is the only one I know of for sure. The rest of the schools in the USA are being nearsighted asses who need a good kick in the, uh, ass. If you want to do something useful today, write to your favorite school and insist that they change their entrance policy. Suggest a sink or swim policy, a personal interview policy, a balance the alphabet policy, a first come-first served policy, or even a frigging lottery with Vana White drawing the names policy.

Name: David Abrams
Username: dabrams@fas.harvard.edu
Subject: Bell Curve letter by Paul Grobstein
Date: Mon Apr 22 00:06:23 EDT 1996
Comments:
Dr. Grobstein makes a very well written argument citing first-hand experience as to why standardized testing has no predictive value in any socially useful skills (standardized test-taking not withstanding). His point about his experience with the school children seems contradictory because he acknowledges that there is a correlation between test scores and success (even in school). Though he acknowledges the correlation, he attributes it simply to lack of confidence brought on by bad test performance. The idea that people perform poorly in jobs, school, etc. for their entire lives because of lack of confidence from poor test performance is far-fetched. I propose a simpler solution- that there is a correlation between lower test scores and lower success because these tests do in fact have some predictive ability as to a person's future success. Dr. Grobstein may disagree that verbal, writing, and math skills, and a basic knowledge of the world is useful in school, and beyond, but I would venture to guess that this view is not shared by most college admissions officers and job interviewers. I do not wish to say that standardized tests fully measure a person's "intelligence" or ability to succeed, but there is a correlation that is not due to the shattering of a person's self- confidence due to a bad test score. David Abrams Physics Concetrator Harvard University

Name: Brandon
Username: grand@cloudnet.com
Subject: NEED ADVICE?
Date: Wed Jun 12 23:45:57 EDT 1996
Comments:
If you need advice e-mail me at grand@cloudnet.com

Name: anonymous
Username:
Subject:
Date: Thu Aug 8 09:34:15 EDT 1996
Comments:

Name: anonymous
Username:
Subject:
Date: Thu Aug 29 12:24:35 EDT 1996
Comments:

Name: Concerned Citizen
Username: badseed@hotmail.com
Subject: IQ ?
Date: Thu Sep 5 14:59:19 EDT 1996
Comments:
That was a most interesting commentary on intelligence. My observations also make me wonder what exactly the educational community is trying to accomplish. Creativity and individuality are most often frowned upon and even regarded as nonconformity in the area where I live. It takes a standardized test to even begin school. A child that is bright, inquisitive, and generally eager to learn is often changed forever by the emphasis placed on being like other students. I guess if we want to churn out carbon copies then success is around the corner!

Name: doreen caputo
Username: doreen_caputo@houghton.edu
Subject: genetic code
Date: Fri Jan 19 15:49:24 EST 1996
Comments:
though the article was indeed about much more, the one thing that i thought of writing was how i find that determining every variation as a genetic function tends to give rise to the idea of genetic disease. homosexuality risks becoming labelled as a disease, as does left handedness or the way one speaks. defining everything by the genetic code does not in my mind make anything easier, but rather tends to elaborate other circumstances.

Name: anonymous
Username:
Subject:
Date: Sun Jan 21 17:35:17 EST 1996
Comments:
Thanks

Name: Ron Gardner
Username: ronrg@alaska.net
Subject: Genes, Inviornment etc.
Date: Mon Mar 18 19:29:58 EST 1996
Comments:
That sounds good, but I think future research will prove you wrong. There is more to predisposion because of genes than You explain. Nurture can modify nature but there is predisposition.

Name: Robert Phelps
Username: stdrdp11@pop3.shsu.edu
Subject: questions
Date: Tue Mar 26 11:30:22 EST 1996
Comments:
I have a few questions to ask of the author. I am doing a paper on the nature and nurture debate. Please contact me at stdrdp11@pop3.shsu.edu Thank you!

Name: An
Username: Lam@Prep_Network.ucc.on.ca
Subject: Boner
Date: Wed Mar 27 12:49:57 EST 1996
Comments:
I can't getone. How?

Name: Alex Grunfeld
Username: Lam@Prep_Network.ucc.on.ca
Subject: Post me E-Mail
Date: Wed Mar 27 12:51:32 EST 1996
Comments:
Please post my E-MAil address. and make a link to my homepage. http://www.agriculture.net/home/Nicky.html Capital N in Nicky Thanx cya!

Name: Robert Phelps, Jr.
Username: stdrdp11@shsu.edu
Subject: reply
Date: Mon Apr 29 16:11:50 EDT 1996
Comments:
I do believe that given the right amount of time that nurture can and will affect a people's nature. Maybe I believe this because I also believe in evolution!? I do like the information that is provided in this letter, but I do disagree, to some extent, what is said about nature being an influence and not a determinant. A person's nature has influence but it does determine assist the influences of they one is nurtured. Thanks.

Name: anonymous
Username:
Subject:
Date: Thu Jun 6 00:34:49 EDT 1996
Comments:

Name: anonymous
Username:
Subject:
Date: Tue Jun 25 16:40:44 EDT 1996
Comments:
hjgkjlkhgjkgh;lj hgkj;lhgjmhglkjlhg

Name: anonymous
Username:
Subject:
Date: Tue Jun 25 16:42:06 EDT 1996
Comments:

Name: anonymous
Username:
Subject:
Date: Wed Jun 26 08:50:05 EDT 1996
Comments:

Name: anonymous
Username: Patty2515@aol.com
Subject:
Date: Sun Aug 4 16:06:52 EDT 1996
Comments:
I need info on the nature vs nurture controversy. Where can I find it?

Name: Daniel Muijs
Username: Roland_Muijs@soc.KULeuven.ac.be
Subject: nature, nurture, self
Date: Thu Sep 5 08:38:01 EDT 1996
Comments:
Coming from a different field (social & behavioural sciences) I agree with Paul Grobstein's comments on nature and nurture, and also believ that the argument is basically futile, both elemnts being important. I do however see certain problemds in the self asz a source of free will, the question being what the origins and structuring nfactors of the self are if not genes and the environment?

Name: BRIIAN HUNT
Username: G94h7447@GIRAFFE.RU.AC.ZA
Subject: Information
Date: Sun Sep 8 08:52:44 EDT 1996
Comments:
I am currently writing a paper on the nature/ nurture pseudoquestiion. Where can I find info?

Name: Paul Grobstein
Username: pgrobste@brynmawr.edu
Subject: nature/nurture info
Date: Mon Sep 9 08:23:29 EDT 1996
Comments:
We're planning a new Serendip section on Genetics and Behavior, with a list of readings. In the meanwhile, the article by Berkowitz, Our Genes, Ourselves? , has a pretty good reference list (available on Serendip, it was originally published in BioScience, January 1996). The Ontogeny of Information, by Susan Oyaama (Cambridge University Press, 1985) is a very interesting exploration of the complexity of genome/enviornment interactions. The complexity of the interactions is also the them of "Learning by Instinct", a Scientific American article by Gould and Marler ((January, 1987). Science had a special section on "Genes and Behavior" in their 17 June 1994 issue. Needless to say, we'd be pleased to hear what others have found useful to help us create a more comprehensive list.

Go to first comment or Post a comment

| Back to Forums | Back to Genes & Behavior | Back to Serendip |