Download MP3 · RSS · Subscribe via iTunes · Discuss

Digg · Facebook · del.icio.us · reddit · StumbleUpon

They really just skimmed what this guy was talking about. I don’t see what is so controversial about what he was saying. But like I said he really didn’t get to say much in that interview.
I couldn’t make the connection he was making about how people and animals adapt to birth defects(ie)and what that has to do with evolution.
That being said, I believe that we see lot’s of evolution in progress when we see all kinds of “freaks”. Like I said once before here, I think homosexuality is evolution in progress. It is a reaction of some sort by “mother nature” to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Now maybe this has to do with development more than it does genes. I don’t know. Also, the thing about homosexuality is only an example. I know it is a touchy subject, and I said “I think”. It is my opinion. I just want to illustrate the point. I’m not referring to gay people as freaks or anomalies.
Don’t we develop with what our genes have given us?
And don’t our genes slowly change through time due to our development within a given environment? This is evolution.
What am I missing from this podcast? What is so controversial?
Yeah! maybe that’s it. I agree with Blumberg that we develop with what DNA has given us to a large extent. Like he said 2 identical genetic units could turn out totally different with different development. But our genes do have an influence on how we will react and develop.

I found a lot of what Blumberg said very confusing. To start with, I was surprised that the term of sexual selection was not mentioned at all throughout the whole episode. Clearly, sexual selection plays a big role in designing, yes in designing, what we think is “normal”. Why is that?

I am also not sure why Blumberg felt the need to attack the evolutionary psychologists. I was really puzzled at his example where the eyes fail to develop, and where the same part of the brain that would normally (oops, I guess I shouldn’t use that word) be responsible for vision now responds to touch. So what? How does that disprove that we can’t learn from our evolutionary past the reason why we have evolved to experience jealousy? I am not following his argument at all.

The only thing I got from this episode was that Blumberg seems to be upset at something or somebody. What that something or somebody was, is I guess up to us, the listeners, to decide.

Ahh, I just finished finished listening to the whole episode, and got to find out who that somebody, that Blumberg seems to be upset at, is. It is Coyne, Dawkins and Pinker. Supposedly, these three often make the error of telling us that it is all in the genes. 

I found a lot of what Blumberg said very confusing. To start with, I was surprised that the term of sexual selection was not mentioned at all throughout the whole episode. Clearly, sexual selection plays a big role in designing, yes in designing, what we think is “normal”. Why is that?

I am also not sure why Blumberg felt the need to attack the evolutionary psychologists. I was really puzzled at his example where the eyes fail to develop, and where the same part of the brain that would normally (oops, I guess I shouldn’t use that word) be responsible for vision now responds to touch. So what? How does that disprove that we can’t learn from our evolutionary past the reason why we have evolved to experience jealousy? I am not following his argument at all.

The only thing I got from this episode was that Blumberg seems to be upset at something or somebody. What that something or somebody was, is I guess up to us, the listeners, to decide.

I don’t know George. If I remember correctly you don’t think that parents have any influence in a child’s development, is that right?
I totally disagree with that. Maybe I’m wrong about what you said. I think what this guy is basically saying is that development is just as much of a ‘designer” as is genes. But then he goes on to say how development is inherited also. Which I agree with, but not in the same sense as genes. Genes are inside of us and pretty constant. Development is external, and ranges from chaotic to pretty predictable.
I don’t think he was attacking George. He said he was Heavy Duty Evolution and genetic follower- but he want’s to round out the picture more. I agree- it needs to be done. There is too much emphasis placed on genetics when studying behavior.

Well, I do think (or rather it feels to me as if) parents have influence over the personality of their children, but the evidence seems to show that it is not so. I don’t really want to go there. And yes, Blumberg did attack Coyne, Dawkins and Pinker for giving too much credit to genes, ignoring the environmental influences. What is he talking about? Dawkins explains very clearly in his “Extended Phenotype” how these two interact, and Pinker is always very careful to point out that genes are not the only answer.

BTW, Coyne in his wonderful “Why Evolution is True,” concludes the topic on the evolution of human races by saying that it is probably the environment that is responsible for the different behaviours between races. How does that make him a person propagating a genetic determinism?

Well, I do think (or rather it feels to me as if) parents have influence over the personality of their children, but the evidence seems to show that it is not so. I don’t really want to go there. And yes, Blumberg did attack Coyne, Dawkins and Pinker for giving too much credit to genes, ignoring the environmental influences. What is he talking about? Dawkins explains very clearly in his “Extended Phenotype” how these two interact, and Pinker is always very careful to point out that genes are not the only answer.

BTW, Coyne in his wonderful “Why Evolution is True,” concludes the topic on the evolution of human races by saying that it is probably the environment that is responsible for the different behaviours between races. How does that make him a person propagating a genetic determinism?

Well back on track. My fault too, let’s forget about who attacked who. What factors would you say do have an influence over a child’s personality? And if any of these are non-genetic, then why can’t parents or anyone for that matter have an influence over children’s personality?
Aside from the fact that “personality” is barely a scientific term. Would you say raising children in different environments could have an effect on their development? (Development meaning “personality”, propensity for violence, or shyness, or outwardness etc…)
Like if I took a child and raised him in a pig sty, and beat him every day with rubber hose, do you think this would effect his development, and consequently his personality?

I didn’t care much for this interview mainly because I thought he attacked straw-man arguments of what other scientists believe.  I don’t believe that scientists believe in the “switch” version of genes anymore.  Yes, there are some genes which function as switches, but I’m sure most scientists (including the ones he rails against) believe that phenotype involves more than genes.  (To claim that they believe in the “one gene” theory of homosexuality seems highly doubtful.)  Even popular science books, like Matt Ridley’s book “Genome”, paint a much more complex picture than the “one gene” theory of everything.  I’m sure Ridley isn’t writing up explanations that Coyne and most scientists would disagree with.

What factors would you say do have an influence over a child’s personality?

The personality of a child is partly predetermined by his genes, about 50%, and the rest is due to the influence of his peers and a chance.

And if any of these are non-genetic, then why can’t parents or anyone for that matter have an influence over children’s personality?

Parents don’t, friends do. Why that is, is not so clear. I used to believe this was due to our ancestors living in hunter-gatherer societies, where kids as early as of the age of three were practically raised by their older siblings (mothers were busy taking care of the new infant). But I no longer believe that what had been the norm for even the majority of our past, necessarily applies to us. There has been enough time for natural selection to adjust our behaviour over the past ten thousand years or so.

The more logical explanation seems to be that kids in order to be able to compete against their parents, they need to be different. If you were a cherry, you would be better off being eaten by a bird and taken away from your parent tree, as opposed just falling down and trying to grow in the shadow of your parent tree. I know we are not cherry trees, but the analogy will make sense if only one realizes that a kingdom can have only one king, and your town can have only one “the best” doctor. Each new generation needs to compete against the older one. That’s probably one reason why we rebel against our parents. The second reason why the influence of the peers on the socialization of children wins over the one of the parents is probably simply because that those are the people that will matter the most in their life. Your wife will be from the same generation, and so will probably most of your friends.

Would you say raising children in different environments could have an effect on their development? (Development meaning “personality”, propensity for violence, or shyness, or outwardness etc…)

The identical twins studies seem to show that the environment plays very minimal role in shaping one’s personality.

Like if I took a child and raised him in a pig sty, and beat him every day with rubber hose, do you think this would effect his development, and consequently his personality?

Sure. You can always make things worse. You can make your child deaf or blind, but you can’t turn him into Mozart or Picasso.

What factors would you say do have an influence over a child’s personality?

The personality of a child is partly predetermined by his genes, about 50%, and the rest is due to the influence of his peers and a chance.

And if any of these are non-genetic, then why can’t parents or anyone for that matter have an influence over children’s personality?

Parents don’t, friends do. Why that is, is not so clear. I used to believe this was due to our ancestors living in hunter-gatherer societies, where kids as early as of the age of three were practically raised by their older siblings (mothers were busy taking care of the new infant). But I no longer believe that what had been the norm for even the majority of our past, necessarily applies to us. There has been enough time for natural selection to adjust our behaviour over the past ten thousand years or so.

Would you say raising children in different environments could have an effect on their development? (Development meaning “personality”, propensity for violence, or shyness, or outwardness etc…)

The identical twins studies seem to show that the environment plays very minimal role in shaping one’s personality.

Like if I took a child and raised him in a pig sty, and beat him every day with rubber hose, do you think this would effect his development, and consequently his personality?

Sure. You can always make things worse. You can make your child deaf or blind, but you can’t turn him into Mozart or Picasso.

I don’t know where you get these studies. But I’m sure there are “studies” that can “prove” the exact opposite of those studies.
What difference does it make what “kind” of person can influence development. The point is PEOPLE can influence development. And if different kinds of people have different types of influence in different scenarios, this is not relevant. People can influence development. Parents obviously can influence development-“personality” too.
You can always make things worse. You can always make things better. They can be made a little worse, or a little better. Or alot worse, or alot better.
I don’t know where you get these studies from, but you rely on them too much. Anyone can do a “study” to show anything they want.
It was just like that study you cited about rape. Proving that a large portion of people are turned on by rape, but people are afraid to act out there fantasies or whatever. That’s just BS.
First, the people were watching a porn video, not a an actual rape in progress!!!
Second, most people don’t rape because they automatically follow the rules of society. Period. You think the Police alone are out there preventing an army of rapists from committing horrible acts? Or Like you said, there’s an army of rapists out there, but there too cowardly to commit rape? Dude? Come-on!
Environment, and the people in that environment influence personality, development. So do genes.

I don’t know where you get these studies. But I’m sure there are “studies” that can “prove” the exact opposite of those studies.

If you know of any, I would be glad to hear about them.

What difference does it make what “kind” of person can influence development. The point is PEOPLE can influence development. And if different kinds of people have different types of influence in different scenarios, this is not relevant. People can influence development.

Yes, of course people can influence development. Again: IT IS NOT ALL IN THE GENES! What is interesting, however, is that even when identical twins are separated at birth, they will grow to have very similar personalities. It almost seems to me that we (our genes) get to choose the friends by whom we allow ourselves to be socialized.

Parents obviously can influence development-“personality” too.

No, they can’t. We can just keep repeating it, and whoever lasts longer wins. 

It was just like that study you cited about rape. Proving that a large portion of people are turned on by rape, but people are afraid to act out there fantasies or whatever. That’s just BS

Is that what I said? I hope not. People (or rather men) who get aroused at the sight of rape don’t rape in life not because they want to and are afraid of getting caught. They have evolved not wanting to rape because rape doesn’t pay off. They can still respond to the scene of a rape with an erection, but the instinct of knowing that they may end up in a jail or dead or simply not wanting to hurt a woman will prevent them from acting upon the initial desire.

I love the smell of Hungarian salami or smoked ham, but the moment I realize it’s a dead pig (which I find disgusting), I know I don’t want to eat it.

I don’t know where you get these studies. But I’m sure there are “studies” that can “prove” the exact opposite of those studies.

If you know of any, I would be glad to hear about them.

What difference does it make what “kind” of person can influence development. The point is PEOPLE can influence development. And if different kinds of people have different types of influence in different scenarios, this is not relevant. People can influence development.

Yes, of course people can influence development. Again: IT IS NOT ALL IN THE GENES! What is interesting, however, is that even when identical twins are separated at birth, they will grow to have very similar personalities. It almost seems to me that we (our genes) get to choose the friends by whom we allow ourselves to be socialized.

Parents obviously can influence development-“personality” too.

No, they can’t. We can just keep repeating it, and whoever lasts longer wins. 

It was just like that study you cited about rape. Proving that a large portion of people are turned on by rape, but people are afraid to act out there fantasies or whatever. That’s just BS

Is that what I said? I hope not. People (or rather men) who get aroused at the sight of rape don’t rape in life not because they want to and are afraid of getting caught. They have evolved not wanting to rape because rape doesn’t pay off. They can still respond to the scene of a rape with an erection, but the instinct of knowing that they may end up in a jail or dead or simply not wanting to hurt a woman will prevent them from acting upon the initial desire.

I love the smell of Hungarian salami or smoked ham, but the moment I realize it’s a dead pig (which I find disgusting), I know I don’t want to eat it.

Ok so let me get this straight all people can influence development of children-except parents! Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?
Edited to remove superfluous comments. Off topic.

“They respond to the scene of a rape with an erection”-you mean they had an erection already before they got there?

What I meant was the scene in the movie played to them by the researchers. I may respond to the rest of your post if you decide to change your tone and attitude.

“They respond to the scene of a rape with an erection”-you mean they had an erection already before they got there?

What I meant was the scene in the movie played to them by the researchers. I may respond to the rest of your post if you decide to change your tone and attitude.

Let’s just get back to the original topic if you wish. I have no excuse for my rude brashness.
We could debate the legitimacy of viewing a Porno movie as “reliable study methods”.
So. All people can influence development, except parents? How is this possible?
I knew a set of identical twins. 2 girls. One was very successful, and the other attempted suicide and is struggling with drugs and alcohol. And they grew up in the same environment-as far as I know. Maybe the one was abused. Very possible. Very Possible-or not.
If we took 2 twins, or any 2 people for that matter and placed them in very different environments, you don’t think that could have an effect on development? Each of the test subjects showing markedly different personality or dispositions.
Place one person in a crime ridden ghetto, the other in a Rich, clean, healthy, providing environment.
Place one child with happy, outgoing, parents- the other with depressed abusive, mean parents.
I think the studies which show this to not be an effector of development are those scientists whom Blumberg pointed out. The rigid Genotype, “switch” school. That’s just my 2 cents. I think there is a middle ground between the 2, just like he said.
I’m sorry George. I was an ass. It’s to be expected. I always enjoy reading your stuff. This aint meant to appease you.

VYAZMA,

As you know, personal anecdotes account for very little. Even in psychology the study groups have to be quite large—in the cases when they are small, one can often find those “exact opposites” that one may wish to find.

The majority of the twins (separated at birth) who were studied showed that their personality turned out to be very similar. You can also confirm these finding if you look at siblings, where they share only 50% of their genes, and adopted children who don’t share any genes but grow up surrounded by the same environment as the biological children. Your biological children will turn out more like you, than your adopted ones. The adopted kids will be in their character as close to you, as your neighbour’s children.

Also, there seems to exist some influence of the parents on their kids, but it will only last for a short period. Your adopted kids may do better in school as a direct result of your carrying nurture, but the moment they grow up this effect will quickly disappear and they will turn to be as successful as their biological parents.

And one more thing: don’t forget that in the case of the identical twins there is always the room for a chance to make them differ in their character. This would explain, for example, why two identical twins will not turn out to be gay in 100% of the cases. They share 100% of their genes and probably most of their friends and, of course, their parents. But the occurrence of homosexuality between two twin brothers is only about 50%. Interestingly, Cochran believes that homosexuality is caused by a pathogen. This would be the “chance” I originally said may influence our behaviour. One twin brother got infected with the germ, the other one did not.

Yeah George I can see that in the case of twins, the probability of similar personality traits being greater. I know genes play a large role in traits of all kinds.
I still don’t understand how you think parents can’t have an influence in children’s development-yet other people can. Surely you see this can’t be so. Even if you declare that some behavioral response is triggered in some kids to “rebel”, or differ from their parents, then this is still having an influence on the development. I don’t agree with that rebellious switch.(genetic switch)

I wasn’t terribly impressed either. He spent a lot of time attacking points of view that I don’t believe his targets held. It felt like he was trying to be overly pedantic about the assumptions people make for convenience sake. Yes it’s true that there’s no designer in evolution, but thinking about evolutionary adaptations in terms of design is probably one of the better mental models you can have.

As for his comments about Caster Semenya I’m surprised that no one else objected to them because I found them quite ironic.

He spent the entire interview accusing other scientists of being too simplistic in their view of evolution (and being on par with creationists?!?).

Then he looks at an extremely complicated issue like sex determination and athletics and reduces it to a simple issue of self-identification ignoring all of the surrounding medical issues!

It feels like he’s spending so much time looking at these outliers that he’s forgetting that they are outliers. No matter what deformation occurs he thinks it’s normal because it can occur.

Hi, POI-

I was disappointed with this interview. The exercise seemed to be one of straw man-ism in the interest of plugging a book. The straw man is a caricature of modern biology- the gene for alcoholism, gene for republicanism, etc. strain. Well, after the long searches for genes associated with schizophrenia, autism, alcoholism, etc., ending with tiny-effect variants or nothing at all, all real scientists are disabused of this notion, if they ever had it. The charicature might accurate about some of the lazier precincts of journalism “Gene for PMS Found!”, but certainly not about the scientists Mr. Blumberg actually targets. The point of all these gene studies is that variants (mutants) of gene X contribute to condition Y, but this connection is rarely 100%, so necessarily there are environmental and other gene interaction effects that contribute.

The sad part was that a much more interesting topic was left untouched, which is that freaks are developmental mutations that provide us with a similar power of insight into development that gene mutations do into genes. The primary position of genes in the story of evolution is quite secure- genes are the locus of mutation, even when they are expressed in mind-bogglingly complex ways to create the organism in continual interplay with its enviroment during development and throughout life (which is, then, the subject of variation and selection). Developmental pathways may mutate, but not in heritable fashion, unless a gene is involved first (excepting extremely rare issues). Nevertheless, accidents of development, whether caused by gene mutations, rare allele interations, chemical insults, malnutrition, or other enviromental issues, are all exceedingly informative about developmental pathways- which are robust, which are fragile, how it is that a mere ~25,000 genes can encode such a complex life form as us by way of repeated re-use of the same genes, extremely complex regulation, and other such issues in the the evo-devo field.

The issue of intersex developmental accidents is a great example. Clearly the genomic program is to generate males and females. Intersex variants, if they are infertile, which I guess is the case with the runner discussed in the show, are serious errors in terms of evolution. So the question is why such variants come up so often (if they do), after selection has had millions of years to optimize the developmental process of gender in mammals. I don’t have the answer, but that would have been an interesting question to ask Mr. Blumberg. Is there a deep complexity to the pathway that has blocked more definitive gender switching systems? Is there some positive value to having minor (fertile) forms of intersex variants in the population, much like the theory about homosexuality being a side-effect of extreme femininity being positively selected for? Are humans less sexually differentiated than other species, implying a higher rate of defective intersex variants? The questions are endless, and while development is fully integrated in the evolutionary story of modern biology, so are genes. And they ain’t magic.