The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "Birth Order"
 All Comments / On "Birth Order"
    One of the greatest pieces of evidence demonstrating that the family/rearing environment has no effect on eventual outcomes is the absence of birth order effects. Birth order is an excellent test for these effects: it is something that systematically differs between siblings and is bona fide non-genetic (mostly). Hence, it's a great way to see...
  • […] Lion of the Judah-Sphere informed us of a post by JayMan claiming birth order has no real effect on […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @fnn
    What to make of this?:

    http://www.isegoria.net/2015/05/early-academic-training-produces-long-term-harm/


    The initial results of this experiment were similar to those of other such studies. Those in the direct-instruction group showed early academic gains, which soon vanished. This study, however, also included follow-up research when the participants were 15 years old and again when they were 23 years old. At these ages there were no significant differences among the groups in academic achievement, but large, highly significant differences in social and emotional characteristics.

    By age 15 those in the Direct Instruction group had committed, on average, more than twice as many “acts of misconduct” than had those in the other two groups. At age 23, as young adults, the differences were even more dramatic. Those in the Direct Instruction group had more instances of friction with other people, were more likely to have shown evidence of emotional impairment, were less likely to be married and living with their spouse, and were far more likely to have committed a crime than were those in the other two groups. In fact, by age 23, 39% of those in the Direct Instruction group had felony arrest records compared to an average of 13.5% in the other two groups; and 19% of the Direct Instruction group had been cited for assault with a dangerous weapon compared with 0% in the other two groups.[4]
     

    N = 68. I’m not going to get excited.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • fnn says:

    What to make of this?:

    http://www.isegoria.net/2015/05/early-academic-training-produces-long-term-harm/

    The initial results of this experiment were similar to those of other such studies. Those in the direct-instruction group showed early academic gains, which soon vanished. This study, however, also included follow-up research when the participants were 15 years old and again when they were 23 years old. At these ages there were no significant differences among the groups in academic achievement, but large, highly significant differences in social and emotional characteristics.

    By age 15 those in the Direct Instruction group had committed, on average, more than twice as many “acts of misconduct” than had those in the other two groups. At age 23, as young adults, the differences were even more dramatic. Those in the Direct Instruction group had more instances of friction with other people, were more likely to have shown evidence of emotional impairment, were less likely to be married and living with their spouse, and were far more likely to have committed a crime than were those in the other two groups. In fact, by age 23, 39% of those in the Direct Instruction group had felony arrest records compared to an average of 13.5% in the other two groups; and 19% of the Direct Instruction group had been cited for assault with a dangerous weapon compared with 0% in the other two groups.[4]

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @fnn:

    N = 68. I'm not going to get excited.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jose
    Something I've noticed with cattle is that first born are usually physically smaller than subsequent offspring. Stands to reason there could IQ differences too.

    Doubt it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Something I’ve noticed with cattle is that first born are usually physically smaller than subsequent offspring. Stands to reason there could IQ differences too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Jose:

    Doubt it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @jjbees
    @strongsloth...there would be two influences on age of parent and intelligent;

    More intelligent people tend to wait longer to have children, and waiting longer increases mutations of sperm and egg.

    I've wondered that if the average dumb person reproduces at 18, and the avg. really smart person at 36, then you have 4 generations of dumbs for the 2 generations of smarts, does this lack of genetic recombination reduce risk of things going badly (as almost all genetic mutations do)...I imagine it does.

    If you have a high IQ, and assuming this represents diminished mutational load, it makes sense to undergo recombination (and likelihood of poor recombination) as few times as possible, and to hold out for one high quality mate.

    Low IQ = high mutational load, might as well try to get lucky with as many partners as possible and maybe hit gold.

    Paternal age effects on IQ appear to be pretty small. More study is needed, of course.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “Who’s to say that these adoptive families got both of their adoptees from the same country? I wouldn’t be surprised if they had to “go cheap” for their second adoption.”

    Table 3 suggests this is what happens. Kids from smart regions like East Asia are more common as first children and less smar regions like South America have more second children.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Blended families sounds like a very strong candidate. Some women even assume they can never get another man once they have a kid. And as Strongsloth says, age of parents may have a prenatal environmental effect unrelated to childrearing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @strongsloth…there would be two influences on age of parent and intelligent;

    More intelligent people tend to wait longer to have children, and waiting longer increases mutations of sperm and egg.

    I’ve wondered that if the average dumb person reproduces at 18, and the avg. really smart person at 36, then you have 4 generations of dumbs for the 2 generations of smarts, does this lack of genetic recombination reduce risk of things going badly (as almost all genetic mutations do)…I imagine it does.

    If you have a high IQ, and assuming this represents diminished mutational load, it makes sense to undergo recombination (and likelihood of poor recombination) as few times as possible, and to hold out for one high quality mate.

    Low IQ = high mutational load, might as well try to get lucky with as many partners as possible and maybe hit gold.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @jjbees:

    Paternal age effects on IQ appear to be pretty small. More study is needed, of course.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I get depressed when I think about the genetic influences on intelligence. My family, while somewhat upper-middle class, is certainly not Ivy League material, nor are they as accomplished as I would wish they would be. I do not consider either of my two sisters particularly intelligent, though they are almost as smart as you would expect SWPL kids to be. It sucks to know that there is a genetic ceiling that you will never rise above in life.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Finally, another Jayman post! Great! I feel like I need to read through this one more time while looking at the links, though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I am the firstborn, the smartest kid (I’m the Mensan, IQ146), and the only college graduate in the family. Dad was forty when I was born. I was a latchkey, free range kid with a mandate to be home before dark. The school system in my company town was pretty basic at best, marginal at worst. There was no interest in identifying gifted children; You don’t look for things you don’t want to find. The school system’s basic product was a factory worker.

    I will plant an outlier flag in any study.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Even controlling for IQ, there are huge confounds in the kinds of people who have more children and the kinds who have fewer children, and in the short-term, a kid who is number ten in their family is much less likely to have gotten intensive educational coaching than a number one, but short-term effects are largely short-term.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • It’s my understanding that children of older parents have lower IQ than those of younger parents. If so this should show up as a negative environmental impact on later children. I don’t know how big an effect should be expected, but if it’s small ones we are talking about…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • A new study (recently discussed by Steve Sailer) has found that the children of gay and lesbian parents have a lower high school graduation rate than those of straight parents. The finding of this study seems straightforward – indeed, I was able to say it in a sentence. However, the conclusions we are able to...
  • […] adult political views, which is in line with the notion that parenting doesn’t have much of a lasting effect on how we turn out at all. Because evidence indicates that heredity is of paramount importance in shaping political views, I […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] “[...]parenting in general (across the broad range that constitutes “normal” parenting) has no impact on how children turn out.” -JayMan […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @georgesdelatour
    I can understand that, say, musical ability might be highly heritable. But the idea of a genetic predisposition to be a highly specific type of musician - say a virtuoso contrabass bassoonist or an electric sitarist - that seems to be expecting too much of the genes. Surely the outlet for someone's musical ability changes over time, as the culture changes the available musical options.

    In recent years we've seen an explosion of virtuoso Chinese musicians playing western Classical instruments. But those instruments and that repertoire are relatively recent arrivals in China; the result of cultural transmission.

    Similarly I expect religiosity - broadly defined - might be heritable. But the culture determines the religious options available at any moment. Being a Zeus worshipper just isn't a realistic option in 2013, for instance. I suspect that's because culture has removed the Zeus option, rather than that natural selection has removed the Zeus gene.

    I haven’t forgotten about you! I’m behind on most of my comments.

    I can understand that, say, musical ability might be highly heritable. But the idea of a genetic predisposition to be a highly specific type of musician – say a virtuoso contrabass bassoonist or an electric sitarist – that seems to be expecting too much of the genes. Surely the outlet for someone’s musical ability changes over time, as the culture changes the available musical options.

    That depends, yes? You can’t be predisposed to something that doesn’t exist in your environment (for example, Ancient Greeks couldn’t have had any basketball talent). But, your genes do impact your inclinations given the options available. In today’s environment, with a wide range of musical instrument, one could be more inclined to be a master bassoonist over a pianist. Obviously this isn’t an issue where these items don’t exist.

    In recent years we’ve seen an explosion of virtuoso Chinese musicians playing western Classical instruments. But those instruments and that repertoire are relatively recent arrivals in China; the result of cultural transmission.

    The same set of genotypes can result in different phenotypes in a new environment. Take these Chinese, put them in a world of Western instruments, what you see is what results.

    Similarly I expect religiosity – broadly defined – might be heritable. But the culture determines the religious options available at any moment. Being a Zeus worshipper just isn’t a realistic option in 2013, for instance. I suspect that’s because culture has removed the Zeus option, rather than that natural selection has removed the Zeus gene.

    Precisely, though don’t be surprised that among the religions available, there is some heritable impact.

    Genes can’t make you choose from choices you don’t have. But they certain can influence what you pick from what you do have….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    IQ, personality, etc. may show little shared environmental influence, but that does not necessarily generalize to educational outcomes in America. See this paper, and this one. Also, the lack of shared environmentality does not rule out substantial gene-environment interactions, as shown by Bates et al. recently.

    Based on the available evidence, I'm not concinved that gay parenting causes worse educational outcomes than straight parenting, ceteris paribus, but you are overselling the "nurture fallacy" thesis.

    @Kubik:

    You have made we work this morning! :) But that’s good, it’s always good to bring up new information and data that may challenge what I claim here.

    That said, let’s see if you’ve done that:

    The Nielsen & Roos paper is interesting. Indeed, even they admit finding a large shared environment effect is anomalous (though not unheard of, see here). They also suggest an explanation for why this is so:

    Highest degree earned or years of education completed constitute rather undifferentiated measures of educational attainment that do not distinguish degrees according to the selectivity, prestige or “quality” (however defined) of the institution where it is earned, so that a degrees from a nonselective college and from an elite university (and the years spent earning it) are rated the same with respect to attainment. One could speculate that if one had a measure of attainment incorporating the “quality” of the degree earned, and to the extent that entering and graduating from a higher quality institution is more cognitively demanding, such a measure would behave from a quantitative genetic viewpoint more like a cognitive measure. The very strong effect of standardized test scores (such as the SAT or ACT) on admission to more selective institutions is consistent with that scenario (Briggs 2001; Buchmann, Condron and Roscigno 2010). One would predict that the quantitative genetic structure of such a quality-weighted measure of educational attainment would tend to resemble that of IQ, with a stronger effect of genes (heritability) and a weaker impact of the shared environment.

    The other issue that they discuss:

    The system of tertiary education in the U.S. is highly diverse, consisting of a whole range of institutions, some public and some private, that differ widely in the cost of education for students and their families. A complex assortment of scholarships and financial aid programs further complicates the picture. Our finding of a large shared environment effect suggests that, overall, the pursuit of a university education in the contemporary U.S. is more likely to be constrained by availability of resources on the part of students and their families. The pattern of a persistent effect of the shared environment on educational attainment may well be related to “mechanical” effects of family resources on the chances of entering, and graduating from, college. To the extent that our results can be compared to those of Behrman and Taubman (1989), which are based on a somewhat different methodology, they suggest that there has been a considerable worsening in inequality of educational opportunity in the last few decades … We do not have a theory at present why there would be such a trend of increasing inequality of educational opportunity in the U.S.

    As they note, other studies on the matter do not find this large shared environment effect on educational attainment.

    Even further, even if there is a shared environment effect on degree attained, that doesn’t seem to translate to income. After all, what good is a degree, in the long run, if it is not backed by the cognitive and temperamental traits to support it? Shared environment effect is not found on average income (Cesarini paper here).

    As for the Hoxby and Avery paper, they compared high-acheiving students from low-income vs. high-income backgrounds, but they defined “high-acheiveing” essentially solely by SAT/ACT score (i.e., IQ). High-IQ individuals that differ in wealth differ in other ways, not only by race, as noted in the paper, but by political orientation (White low-income students more likely to conservative, for example), among other traits. Hence, it’s not exactly proper to use “income” for the effect of upbringing, because even that is a partially genetic effect.

    And as for the Bates paper, that was heavily discussed in the commentary over at Steve Hsu’s. Two key problems with the paper – my two big concern with it – are:

    • It includes a diverse range of ages in the study. Generational effects may be confounding their findings.
    • It doesn’t make clear if the effect they found was on g. Indeed, in the discussion, Bates seems to indicate that it isn’t.

    The gene-environment correlation theory was deeply scrutinized by Meng Hu. It doesn’t have a lot going for it. See here:

    The Genetics of Intelligence « Meng Hu’s Blog

    What you’ve found is interesting. That said, I’m remaining with the position that the “nurture fallacy” is in fact that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    IQ, personality, etc. may show little shared environmental influence, but that does not necessarily generalize to educational outcomes in America. See this paper, and this one. Also, the lack of shared environmentality does not rule out substantial gene-environment interactions, as shown by Bates et al. recently.

    Based on the available evidence, I’m not concinved that gay parenting causes worse educational outcomes than straight parenting, ceteris paribus, but you are overselling the “nurture fallacy” thesis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Kubik:

    You have made we work this morning! :) But that's good, it's always good to bring up new information and data that may challenge what I claim here.

    That said, let's see if you've done that:

    The Nielsen & Roos paper is interesting. Indeed, even they admit finding a large shared environment effect is anomalous (though not unheard of, see here). They also suggest an explanation for why this is so:


    Highest degree earned or years of education completed constitute rather undifferentiated measures of educational attainment that do not distinguish degrees according to the selectivity, prestige or “quality” (however defined) of the institution where it is earned, so that a degrees from a nonselective college and from an elite university (and the years spent earning it) are rated the same with respect to attainment. One could speculate that if one had a measure of attainment incorporating the “quality” of the degree earned, and to the extent that entering and graduating from a higher quality institution is more cognitively demanding, such a measure would behave from a quantitative genetic viewpoint more like a cognitive measure. The very strong effect of standardized test scores (such as the SAT or ACT) on admission to more selective institutions is consistent with that scenario (Briggs 2001; Buchmann, Condron and Roscigno 2010). One would predict that the quantitative genetic structure of such a quality-weighted measure of educational attainment would tend to resemble that of IQ, with a stronger effect of genes (heritability) and a weaker impact of the shared environment.
     
    The other issue that they discuss:

    The system of tertiary education in the U.S. is highly diverse, consisting of a whole range of institutions, some public and some private, that differ widely in the cost of education for students and their families. A complex assortment of scholarships and financial aid programs further complicates the picture. Our finding of a large shared environment effect suggests that, overall, the pursuit of a university education in the contemporary U.S. is more likely to be constrained by availability of resources on the part of students and their families. The pattern of a persistent effect of the shared environment on educational attainment may well be related to “mechanical” effects of family resources on the chances of entering, and graduating from, college. To the extent that our results can be compared to those of Behrman and Taubman (1989), which are based on a somewhat different methodology, they suggest that there has been a considerable worsening in inequality of educational opportunity in the last few decades ... We do not have a theory at present why there would be such a trend of increasing inequality of educational opportunity in the U.S.
     
    As they note, other studies on the matter do not find this large shared environment effect on educational attainment.

    Even further, even if there is a shared environment effect on degree attained, that doesn't seem to translate to income. After all, what good is a degree, in the long run, if it is not backed by the cognitive and temperamental traits to support it? Shared environment effect is not found on average income (Cesarini paper here).

    As for the Hoxby and Avery paper, they compared high-acheiving students from low-income vs. high-income backgrounds, but they defined "high-acheiveing" essentially solely by SAT/ACT score (i.e., IQ). High-IQ individuals that differ in wealth differ in other ways, not only by race, as noted in the paper, but by political orientation (White low-income students more likely to conservative, for example), among other traits. Hence, it's not exactly proper to use "income" for the effect of upbringing, because even that is a partially genetic effect.

    And as for the Bates paper, that was heavily discussed in the commentary over at Steve Hsu's. Two key problems with the paper – my two big concern with it – are:


    • It includes a diverse range of ages in the study. Generational effects may be confounding their findings.

    • It doesn't make clear if the effect they found was on g. Indeed, in the discussion, Bates seems to indicate that it isn't.

    The gene-environment correlation theory was deeply scrutinized by Meng Hu. It doesn't have a lot going for it. See here:

    The Genetics of Intelligence « Meng Hu's Blog

    What you've found is interesting. That said, I'm remaining with the position that the "nurture fallacy" is in fact that.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @szopen
    Jayman, exactly! I came to this conclusion just few months ago, when writing about Moynihan report. For some time I was aware about lack of effect of parenting on children, and at the same time I was giving willing ear to those accusing those evil liberals and feminists destroying afroamerican family, which was cause to all the problems plaguing this commmunity.

    THen, suddenly something went click! and I realised the contradiction :)

    o:

    Indeed. That was one of those “wait a minute” moments. Worry about the “collapse of the family” is a right-wing canard. It has nothing to do with nothing, past dysgenics, which itself is really more of a factor of clean, safe, modern society.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Eh, second thought. The thing about parenting not mattering is that it doesn’t matter in the *long term*. If you and I both have one of a pair of 4 yr old identical twins, and I sit down today and start drilling mine on phonics, and you wait until yours starts kindergarten, mine will be “ahead” when they both start kindergarten. By the time they graduate, the effects of this pre-k training will be gone.

    Normal parenting may not have any long-term effects, but whether a kid graduates from highschool could have to do with short-term household conditions while they were in highschool. (EG, I dropped out of highschool because of some severe illnesses in my [hetero] family. [And graduated later.]) A later measure of intelligence may show no effect. (EG, I scored a 1570 on my SATs, back when 1600 was the max.)

    Personally, though, I’d hold out for something along the lines of “toddlers adopted from Romanian orphanages have abysmal graduation rates” as the explanation. Occam’s razor and all that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @EvolutionistX
    Did they not control for adoption/genetic donation? That would seem like a huge oversight.

    @Amber:

    One would think so, yes? But the author did nothing if the sort.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Did they not control for adoption/genetic donation? That would seem like a huge oversight.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Amber:

    One would think so, yes? But the author did nothing if the sort.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Absolutely. The flip side is that while Yankees are not exploitative, they are very conformist and intellectually overbearing.

    I don’t take issue with caste systems per se. My grievance is when they function at the racial expense of commoners, which was less the case in the antebellum South than in our modern one. Many American HBD-rightists have professed resentment toward the old plantation lords for importing sub-Saharan Africans in the first place.

    Perhaps the northern alliance wouldn’t have objected as strongly if “free” Irish labor were used to pick those cash crops on slave wages, though I’m not sure Ireland could’ve supplied the manpower required at the time. What’s more, keeping an Irish peasantry under heel sounds relatively difficult (the same might’ve applied to aboriginal peoples had they not been obliterated by smallpox, measles and all the rest of it).

    The situation now involves Midlanders and Yankees leading as the self-appointed moral authority over Cavaliers and Appalachians, who provide the military muscle. Rising non-white enlistment and trends in conservative fertility can only destabilize this arrangement. I think it would be at least slightly easier for inbred Euro-Americans to work with their outbred countrymen against demographic problems if the former respected the latter, and that’s tough given how meek and effeminate white liberals have become since World War II.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • This paper has some doubtful mathematics; economists doing sociology are often indulgent in questionable math. instead of writing out my objects, I point to sociologist commentary at http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/the-douglas-allen-study-of-canadian-children-of-gaylesbian-parents-is-worthless/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Staffan
    Great post.

    "The failure to recognize the broad null effect of nurture (“The Nurture Assumption”) is pervasive even in the HBD community, the people who should of all know better."

    There is probably a political bias here since HBD is largely conservative. I noted a similar effect when Philip Cohen discredits this study as a leftist he can't use the fact that minorities might not graduate so often even with well-meaning gay/liberal parents.

    Still, I'm not happy about gay parents. I'd like a study that says that the children report the same level of well-being as other kids before I'm ok with it.

    And it's interesting and weird that out of 279 randomly selected same-sex couples, not a single one is interracial, not even White/Asian. According to Wikipedia the visible minority in Canada is 20 percent of the population.

    Jayman, exactly! I came to this conclusion just few months ago, when writing about Moynihan report. For some time I was aware about lack of effect of parenting on children, and at the same time I was giving willing ear to those accusing those evil liberals and feminists destroying afroamerican family, which was cause to all the problems plaguing this commmunity.

    THen, suddenly something went click! and I realised the contradiction :)

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @szopeno:

    Indeed. That was one of those "wait a minute" moments. Worry about the "collapse of the family" is a right-wing canard. It has nothing to do with nothing, past dysgenics, which itself is really more of a factor of clean, safe, modern society.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rome's Creature
    I've suspected for a while that particular long-term effects from being raised in a gay household are marginal, barring extreme treatment of any kind. This is the only logical conclusion if all human behavioral traits are heritable.

    Rightists in HBD circles may jerk knees here, but I'd say it's far more of a nightmare for the blank-slatist Left than it is for them. Picture a couple of SWPL parents recoiling in horror as their adopted Ugandan child embraces "bigotry" despite their best efforts.

    What rankles is outbred liberals directing their messianic impulses at us homophobic folks. I certainly don't appreciate the intention anymore than I do the aesthetics. Some performance art piece featuring a young man losing his anal virginity doesn't strike me as beautiful cultural expression, and those who feel otherwise won't be content with agreeing to disagree so long as they run the national show.

    A Cavalier-led regime would be authoritarian on balance, but they might not lord their ideologies over everyone in the manner of today's rulers: Cough up taxes and enjoy wide leeway in your Yankee locality. Withholding of revenue or promotion of your moral norms will be met with . . . displeasure.

    @Rome’s Creature:

    I’ve suspected for a while that particular long-term effects from being raised in a gay household are marginal, barring extreme treatment of any kind. This is the only logical conclusion if all human behavioral traits are heritable.

    Rightists in HBD circles may jerk knees here, but I’d say it’s far more of a nightmare for the blank-slatist Left than it is for them. Picture a couple of SWPL parents recoiling in horror as their adopted Ugandan child embraces “bigotry” despite their best efforts.

    Indeed. Very well said!

    A Cavalier-led regime would be authoritarian on balance, but they might not lord their ideologies over everyone in the manner of today’s rulers: Cough up taxes and enjoy wide leeway in your Yankee locality. Withholding of revenue or promotion of your moral norms will be met with . . . displeasure.

    A key problem with Cavalier leadership is their penchant for exploitation. “It’s good to be the king” is the phrase that comes to mind. Colin Woodard argues that in many ways, the Cavaliers already run the country, as he argues that many of the policies in place – including those despised by HBD rightists – are those of the Deep Southern slave lords:
    From Regional Differences Have Doomed the Tea Party | Ten Miles Square | The Washington Monthly:

    [The Deep South] is a region founded by West Indies slave plantation owners, men who cherished and fought for a form of classical Republicanism modeled on Ancient Greece and Rome, where a privileged minority enjoyed liberty and democracy, and slavery was the natural lot of the many. The agenda of the Deep Southern oligarchy has been consistent for more than three centuries: to control and maintain a one party state with a colonial-style economy staffed by a compliant, low-wage workforce with as few labor, workplace safety, health care, and environmental regulations as possible. Its slave and racial caste systems have been smashed by outside intervention, but its representatives in Washington have continued to fight to reduce federal power, taxes on the rich, and rolling back labor and environmental protection, and social service programs. Not coincidently, these are also the central goals of the tea party caucus.

    From On the Rise of the (Deep) Southern Oligarchy | Ten Miles Square | The Washington Monthly:

    The radicalization of the Republican Party in recent years has a lot to do with it having been taken over by Deep Southerners like Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey and George W. Bush, Haley Barbour and Jim DeMint. The central policy goals of Tea Party Republicanism mirror those of the Deep Southern elite: rollback federal power, environmental, labor, and consumer protection laws, and taxes on capital and the wealthy. It’s a program one never would have seen in the days when the GOP was run by Yankee – read “Greater New Englander” – figures like Teddy Roosevelt or George Bush the senior.

    (Though, of course, to be fair, Dubya is of course also a Yankee.)

    From A Geography Lesson for the Tea Party by Colin Woodard | The Washington Monthly:

    In office [the Deep Southern oligarchy] … focused on cutting taxes for the rich, funneling massive subsidies to agribusiness and oil companies, rolling back labor and environmental programs, and creating “guest worker” programs and “right to work” laws to ensure a cheap, compliant labor supply.

    This sentiment, especially with respect to Deep Southern oligarch support for mass immigration, has been echoed by Michael Lind:

    In state after state controlled by Republican governors and legislators, a fictitious epidemic of voter fraud is being used as an excuse for onerous voter registration requirements which have the effect, and the manifest purpose, of disenfranchising disproportionately poor blacks and Latinos. The upscale leaders of the Newest Right also tend to have be more supportive of mass immigration than their downscale populist supporters—on the condition, however, that “guest workers” and amnestied illegal immigrants not be allowed to vote or become citizens any time soon. In the twenty-first century, as in the twentieth and nineteenth, the Southern ideal is a society in which local white elites lord it over a largely-nonwhite population of poor workers who can’t vote.

    There is a reason I used The Imperial March to represent the Cavaliers.
    J.R. Ewing is a perfect characterization and symbol of the Deep Southern oligarch.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I’ve suspected for a while that particular long-term effects from being raised in a gay household are marginal, barring extreme treatment of any kind. This is the only logical conclusion if all human behavioral traits are heritable.

    Rightists in HBD circles may jerk knees here, but I’d say it’s far more of a nightmare for the blank-slatist Left than it is for them. Picture a couple of SWPL parents recoiling in horror as their adopted Ugandan child embraces “bigotry” despite their best efforts.

    What rankles is outbred liberals directing their messianic impulses at us homophobic folks. I certainly don’t appreciate the intention anymore than I do the aesthetics. Some performance art piece featuring a young man losing his anal virginity doesn’t strike me as beautiful cultural expression, and those who feel otherwise won’t be content with agreeing to disagree so long as they run the national show.

    A Cavalier-led regime would be authoritarian on balance, but they might not lord their ideologies over everyone in the manner of today’s rulers: Cough up taxes and enjoy wide leeway in your Yankee locality. Withholding of revenue or promotion of your moral norms will be met with . . . displeasure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Rome’s Creature:

    I’ve suspected for a while that particular long-term effects from being raised in a gay household are marginal, barring extreme treatment of any kind. This is the only logical conclusion if all human behavioral traits are heritable.

    Rightists in HBD circles may jerk knees here, but I’d say it’s far more of a nightmare for the blank-slatist Left than it is for them. Picture a couple of SWPL parents recoiling in horror as their adopted Ugandan child embraces “bigotry” despite their best efforts.
     

    Indeed. Very well said!

    A Cavalier-led regime would be authoritarian on balance, but they might not lord their ideologies over everyone in the manner of today’s rulers: Cough up taxes and enjoy wide leeway in your Yankee locality. Withholding of revenue or promotion of your moral norms will be met with . . . displeasure.
     
    A key problem with Cavalier leadership is their penchant for exploitation. "It's good to be the king" is the phrase that comes to mind. Colin Woodard argues that in many ways, the Cavaliers already run the country, as he argues that many of the policies in place – including those despised by HBD rightists – are those of the Deep Southern slave lords:
    From Regional Differences Have Doomed the Tea Party | Ten Miles Square | The Washington Monthly:

    [The Deep South] is a region founded by West Indies slave plantation owners, men who cherished and fought for a form of classical Republicanism modeled on Ancient Greece and Rome, where a privileged minority enjoyed liberty and democracy, and slavery was the natural lot of the many. The agenda of the Deep Southern oligarchy has been consistent for more than three centuries: to control and maintain a one party state with a colonial-style economy staffed by a compliant, low-wage workforce with as few labor, workplace safety, health care, and environmental regulations as possible. Its slave and racial caste systems have been smashed by outside intervention, but its representatives in Washington have continued to fight to reduce federal power, taxes on the rich, and rolling back labor and environmental protection, and social service programs. Not coincidently, these are also the central goals of the tea party caucus.
     
    From On the Rise of the (Deep) Southern Oligarchy | Ten Miles Square | The Washington Monthly:

    The radicalization of the Republican Party in recent years has a lot to do with it having been taken over by Deep Southerners like Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey and George W. Bush, Haley Barbour and Jim DeMint. The central policy goals of Tea Party Republicanism mirror those of the Deep Southern elite: rollback federal power, environmental, labor, and consumer protection laws, and taxes on capital and the wealthy. It’s a program one never would have seen in the days when the GOP was run by Yankee - read “Greater New Englander” - figures like Teddy Roosevelt or George Bush the senior.
     
    (Though, of course, to be fair, Dubya is of course also a Yankee.)

    From A Geography Lesson for the Tea Party by Colin Woodard | The Washington Monthly:


    In office [the Deep Southern oligarchy] ... focused on cutting taxes for the rich, funneling massive subsidies to agribusiness and oil companies, rolling back labor and environmental programs, and creating “guest worker” programs and “right to work” laws to ensure a cheap, compliant labor supply.
     
    This sentiment, especially with respect to Deep Southern oligarch support for mass immigration, has been echoed by Michael Lind:

    In state after state controlled by Republican governors and legislators, a fictitious epidemic of voter fraud is being used as an excuse for onerous voter registration requirements which have the effect, and the manifest purpose, of disenfranchising disproportionately poor blacks and Latinos. The upscale leaders of the Newest Right also tend to have be more supportive of mass immigration than their downscale populist supporters—on the condition, however, that “guest workers” and amnestied illegal immigrants not be allowed to vote or become citizens any time soon. In the twenty-first century, as in the twentieth and nineteenth, the Southern ideal is a society in which local white elites lord it over a largely-nonwhite population of poor workers who can’t vote.
     
    There is a reason I used The Imperial March to represent the Cavaliers.
    J.R. Ewing is a perfect characterization and symbol of the Deep Southern oligarch.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    what makes you think you can ban anyone?

    Because it’s my blog.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @imnobody00
    "Hence, there is no need to analyze this “conflict” further."

    Well, with this attitude, it is useless to discuss. You are emotionally invested in your opinion and no study will be enough for you to consider if it goes against your opinion (I don't say to accept, only consider). You will always find a flaw. As some book I read said, there are not completely proven facts (even the existence of the external world cannot be proven). There are only conjectures and we demand a level of evidence to accept them. But, as the book whose name I don't remember says, we demand different levels to different conjectures in order to accept them as a true. For the conjectures that are against our worldview, we demand a much higher level of evidence than for the ones that support our worldview. This is what happens here.

    I am not saying that this study is conclusive. But the fact that you claim that it proves the opposite of what really suggest speaks volume. The fact that you refuse to analyze speaks volumes too. This is not a scientific attitude but an ideological attitude, not unlike that of a guy who does not want to consider the evidence of the Earth being older than 6000 years old. S

    So it's useless to discuss this with you. You can have the final word. And yo can ban me, if you want. After all, this is your blog and Galileo was also banned. The truth, whatever it is, will eventually prevail.

    :
    You’re welcome to discuss here, but I have the task of keeping the discussion rationally on track. As you can see from the previous comments, your point is hardly original, and while you do point out some key points, from a point of due skepticism, it is nonetheless a point that is ignorant of the facts, and thus not horrendously productive, if you understand what I mean.

    Well, with this attitude, it is useless to discuss. You are emotionally invested in your opinion and no study will be enough for you to consider if it goes against your opinion

    No, I’m only interested in seeking the truth. My mind is swayed by evidence, but you were not presenting much here. Please don’t confuse my disagreement with you on this point as “emotional investment” on mine.

    As some book I read said, there are not completely proven facts (even the existence of the external world cannot be proven).

    You’re talking about absolute truth. Facts, generally, aren’t absolute truths, unless it’s in the realm of mathematics (and by extension, logic), since absolute truth is impossible to attain outside that realm. However, facts are claims which, as per evidence we have, are highly likely to be true. However, that whole problem isn’t much of an issue here.

    But the fact that you claim that it proves the opposite of what really suggest speaks volume.

    I’ve made no statement about what the study proves. In fact, the whole point of this post was that it doesn’t prove much. Please don’t confuse your own emotional investment (in this case, revulsion with gay parenting) as facts themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan
    Jorge Videla, for that last comment, you've gone from on moderation to banned. Goodbye, and good luck!

    what makes you think you can ban anyone?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Because it's my blog.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @imnobody00
    The previous comment was from the point of view of science, but gay parenting is not only about science but also about public policy. Public policy has different rules from science. In a public policy decision related to health, the burden of the proof is on the people who claim the thing is healthy. It should be proved that the thing is healthy before it is allowed. Imagine a drug with a study that suggest that it is bad for health. Should this drug be allowed by the FDA? Of course not. More studies have to be done but until the drug is not proved healthy, it should be forbidden.

    We know how straight parenting works because we have experienced that for millennia. We need to know that gay parenting is not bad before it is authorized. We are dealing with the life of kids, not about lab rats. I know that there are people (I am not talking about you) that love more their ideology than the life of kids and are able to rationalize everything that goes against their ideology, even if it means harming other humans. They are not different from the religious fanatic that harms other people because of his religion.

    I am not going to a different track. I am explaining other aspect of the same issue. I explained the original aspect in the previous comment. Fair enough, this is not a blog about public policy so I may have been talking about things unrelated. But I thought it was appropiate, maybe mistakenly. You can delete my post if you want.

    Anyway, this is my last post. I didn’t know you and I thought it was possible to have a polite and rational discussion with somebody who is tolerant of other points of view. My mistake. Please ban me. It will be an honor to be banned by people like you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @imnobody00
    In science, the load of burden is with the person making the claim. This study suggests that gay parenting does not give as good results as straight parenting. Yes, the proof is not conclusive and more research is needed but, with the data we have today, the odds are against gay parenting.

    I don't think you can dismiss this study on the grounds that parenting does not matter. This is not the first time several scientific studies are apparently contradictory. There are three possibilities: 1. Studies saying parenting does not matter are wrong 2. Studies saying gay parenting is bad are wrong 3. The contradiction is only apparent. Both studies are right and some of our assumptions are wrong (the most interesting progresses in science come from this).

    Your attempt to dismiss this study on the grounds of being contradictory with others is option 2 but we have no evidence to support that. This is why you are making a claim without evidence. And no, the contradiction is not evidence. People said that was impossible for the Earth to rotate because birds would not stay over the same place. This was a contradiction with the experience that people had about movement but it was only an apparent contradiction.

    “Hence, there is no need to analyze this “conflict” further.”

    Well, with this attitude, it is useless to discuss. You are emotionally invested in your opinion and no study will be enough for you to consider if it goes against your opinion (I don’t say to accept, only consider). You will always find a flaw. As some book I read said, there are not completely proven facts (even the existence of the external world cannot be proven). There are only conjectures and we demand a level of evidence to accept them. But, as the book whose name I don’t remember says, we demand different levels to different conjectures in order to accept them as a true. For the conjectures that are against our worldview, we demand a much higher level of evidence than for the ones that support our worldview. This is what happens here.

    I am not saying that this study is conclusive. But the fact that you claim that it proves the opposite of what really suggest speaks volume. The fact that you refuse to analyze speaks volumes too. This is not a scientific attitude but an ideological attitude, not unlike that of a guy who does not want to consider the evidence of the Earth being older than 6000 years old. S

    So it’s useless to discuss this with you. You can have the final word. And yo can ban me, if you want. After all, this is your blog and Galileo was also banned. The truth, whatever it is, will eventually prevail.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @imnobody00:
    You're welcome to discuss here, but I have the task of keeping the discussion rationally on track. As you can see from the previous comments, your point is hardly original, and while you do point out some key points, from a point of due skepticism, it is nonetheless a point that is ignorant of the facts, and thus not horrendously productive, if you understand what I mean.

    Well, with this attitude, it is useless to discuss. You are emotionally invested in your opinion and no study will be enough for you to consider if it goes against your opinion
     
    No, I'm only interested in seeking the truth. My mind is swayed by evidence, but you were not presenting much here. Please don't confuse my disagreement with you on this point as "emotional investment" on mine.

    As some book I read said, there are not completely proven facts (even the existence of the external world cannot be proven).
     
    You're talking about absolute truth. Facts, generally, aren't absolute truths, unless it's in the realm of mathematics (and by extension, logic), since absolute truth is impossible to attain outside that realm. However, facts are claims which, as per evidence we have, are highly likely to be true. However, that whole problem isn't much of an issue here.

    But the fact that you claim that it proves the opposite of what really suggest speaks volume.
     
    I've made no statement about what the study proves. In fact, the whole point of this post was that it doesn't prove much. Please don't confuse your own emotional investment (in this case, revulsion with gay parenting) as facts themselves.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Jorge Videla, for that last comment, you’ve gone from on moderation to banned. Goodbye, and good luck!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    what makes you think you can ban anyone?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @imnobody00
    The previous comment was from the point of view of science, but gay parenting is not only about science but also about public policy. Public policy has different rules from science. In a public policy decision related to health, the burden of the proof is on the people who claim the thing is healthy. It should be proved that the thing is healthy before it is allowed. Imagine a drug with a study that suggest that it is bad for health. Should this drug be allowed by the FDA? Of course not. More studies have to be done but until the drug is not proved healthy, it should be forbidden.

    We know how straight parenting works because we have experienced that for millennia. We need to know that gay parenting is not bad before it is authorized. We are dealing with the life of kids, not about lab rats. I know that there are people (I am not talking about you) that love more their ideology than the life of kids and are able to rationalize everything that goes against their ideology, even if it means harming other humans. They are not different from the religious fanatic that harms other people because of his religion.

    The previous comment was from the point of view of science, but gay parenting is not only about science but also about public policy. Public policy has different rules from science.

    When it comes for our quest for truth, that doesn’t mean we can through science out the window for the sake of “public policy”. If anything, public policy should be far more informed by science.

    In a public policy decision related to health, the burden of the proof is on the people who claim the thing is healthy.

    This blog proceeds from a scientific viewpoint. If you want to debate from other viewpoints, please go elsewhere.

    We know how straight parenting works because we have experienced that for millennia. We need to know that gay parenting is not bad before it is authorized. We are dealing with the life of kids, not about lab rats.

    In other words, you’ve got nothing, so you’re taking a different track. See special pleading.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The previous comment was from the point of view of science, but gay parenting is not only about science but also about public policy. Public policy has different rules from science. In a public policy decision related to health, the burden of the proof is on the people who claim the thing is healthy. It should be proved that the thing is healthy before it is allowed. Imagine a drug with a study that suggest that it is bad for health. Should this drug be allowed by the FDA? Of course not. More studies have to be done but until the drug is not proved healthy, it should be forbidden.

    We know how straight parenting works because we have experienced that for millennia. We need to know that gay parenting is not bad before it is authorized. We are dealing with the life of kids, not about lab rats. I know that there are people (I am not talking about you) that love more their ideology than the life of kids and are able to rationalize everything that goes against their ideology, even if it means harming other humans. They are not different from the religious fanatic that harms other people because of his religion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @imnobody00:

    The previous comment was from the point of view of science, but gay parenting is not only about science but also about public policy. Public policy has different rules from science.
     
    When it comes for our quest for truth, that doesn't mean we can through science out the window for the sake of "public policy". If anything, public policy should be far more informed by science.

    In a public policy decision related to health, the burden of the proof is on the people who claim the thing is healthy.
     
    This blog proceeds from a scientific viewpoint. If you want to debate from other viewpoints, please go elsewhere.

    We know how straight parenting works because we have experienced that for millennia. We need to know that gay parenting is not bad before it is authorized. We are dealing with the life of kids, not about lab rats.
     
    In other words, you've got nothing, so you're taking a different track. See special pleading.
    , @imnobody00
    I am not going to a different track. I am explaining other aspect of the same issue. I explained the original aspect in the previous comment. Fair enough, this is not a blog about public policy so I may have been talking about things unrelated. But I thought it was appropiate, maybe mistakenly. You can delete my post if you want.

    Anyway, this is my last post. I didn't know you and I thought it was possible to have a polite and rational discussion with somebody who is tolerant of other points of view. My mistake. Please ban me. It will be an honor to be banned by people like you.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @imnobody00
    In science, the load of burden is with the person making the claim. This study suggests that gay parenting does not give as good results as straight parenting. Yes, the proof is not conclusive and more research is needed but, with the data we have today, the odds are against gay parenting.

    I don't think you can dismiss this study on the grounds that parenting does not matter. This is not the first time several scientific studies are apparently contradictory. There are three possibilities: 1. Studies saying parenting does not matter are wrong 2. Studies saying gay parenting is bad are wrong 3. The contradiction is only apparent. Both studies are right and some of our assumptions are wrong (the most interesting progresses in science come from this).

    Your attempt to dismiss this study on the grounds of being contradictory with others is option 2 but we have no evidence to support that. This is why you are making a claim without evidence. And no, the contradiction is not evidence. People said that was impossible for the Earth to rotate because birds would not stay over the same place. This was a contradiction with the experience that people had about movement but it was only an apparent contradiction.

    In science, the load of burden is with the person making the claim.

    Indeed it does.

    This study suggests that gay parenting does not give as good results as straight parenting. Yes, the proof is not conclusive and more research

    In isolation, it might suggest that, but with other evidence, it suggests nothing of the sort.

    I don’t think you can dismiss this study on the grounds that parenting does not matter.

    I most certainly can, at least as far as it the claim parenting has a significant impact on adult behavioral traits, as per the totality of the evidence.

    I don’t think you can dismiss this study on the grounds that parenting does not matter. This is not the first time several scientific studies are apparently contradictory. There are three possibilities: 1. Studies saying parenting does not matter are wrong 2. Studies saying gay parenting is bad are wrong

    There is no inherent contradiction, because of the sampling and other methodological weaknesses in the study. Hence, there is no need to analyze this “conflict” further.

    Your attempt to dismiss this study on the grounds of being contradictory with others is option 2 but we have no evidence to support that. This is why you are making a claim without evidence.

    No, I am dismissing the study because it’s inherently incapable of answering question about gay parenting, which we have reason to believe has no impact thanks to other evidence. Let’s be clear on that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • In science, the load of burden is with the person making the claim. This study suggests that gay parenting does not give as good results as straight parenting. Yes, the proof is not conclusive and more research is needed but, with the data we have today, the odds are against gay parenting.

    I don’t think you can dismiss this study on the grounds that parenting does not matter. This is not the first time several scientific studies are apparently contradictory. There are three possibilities: 1. Studies saying parenting does not matter are wrong 2. Studies saying gay parenting is bad are wrong 3. The contradiction is only apparent. Both studies are right and some of our assumptions are wrong (the most interesting progresses in science come from this).

    Your attempt to dismiss this study on the grounds of being contradictory with others is option 2 but we have no evidence to support that. This is why you are making a claim without evidence. And no, the contradiction is not evidence. People said that was impossible for the Earth to rotate because birds would not stay over the same place. This was a contradiction with the experience that people had about movement but it was only an apparent contradiction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @imnobody00:

    In science, the load of burden is with the person making the claim.
     
    Indeed it does.

    This study suggests that gay parenting does not give as good results as straight parenting. Yes, the proof is not conclusive and more research
     
    In isolation, it might suggest that, but with other evidence, it suggests nothing of the sort.

    I don’t think you can dismiss this study on the grounds that parenting does not matter.

     

    I most certainly can, at least as far as it the claim parenting has a significant impact on adult behavioral traits, as per the totality of the evidence.

    I don’t think you can dismiss this study on the grounds that parenting does not matter. This is not the first time several scientific studies are apparently contradictory. There are three possibilities: 1. Studies saying parenting does not matter are wrong 2. Studies saying gay parenting is bad are wrong

     

    There is no inherent contradiction, because of the sampling and other methodological weaknesses in the study. Hence, there is no need to analyze this "conflict" further.

    Your attempt to dismiss this study on the grounds of being contradictory with others is option 2 but we have no evidence to support that. This is why you are making a claim without evidence.

     

    No, I am dismissing the study because it's inherently incapable of answering question about gay parenting, which we have reason to believe has no impact thanks to other evidence. Let's be clear on that.
    , @imnobody00
    "Hence, there is no need to analyze this “conflict” further."

    Well, with this attitude, it is useless to discuss. You are emotionally invested in your opinion and no study will be enough for you to consider if it goes against your opinion (I don't say to accept, only consider). You will always find a flaw. As some book I read said, there are not completely proven facts (even the existence of the external world cannot be proven). There are only conjectures and we demand a level of evidence to accept them. But, as the book whose name I don't remember says, we demand different levels to different conjectures in order to accept them as a true. For the conjectures that are against our worldview, we demand a much higher level of evidence than for the ones that support our worldview. This is what happens here.

    I am not saying that this study is conclusive. But the fact that you claim that it proves the opposite of what really suggest speaks volume. The fact that you refuse to analyze speaks volumes too. This is not a scientific attitude but an ideological attitude, not unlike that of a guy who does not want to consider the evidence of the Earth being older than 6000 years old. S

    So it's useless to discuss this with you. You can have the final word. And yo can ban me, if you want. After all, this is your blog and Galileo was also banned. The truth, whatever it is, will eventually prevail.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @georgesdelatour
    In most cases, children follow the religion of their parents. That parental religion may affect which other children they're allowed to socialise with, and even marry.

    I don't know how much it changes a child to be brought up Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Scientologist or Atheist. But I'd be amazed if the effect was zero.

    It's difficult to study the effects of religious upbringing isolated from the issue of family ethnicity. Have any researchers tried?

    I can understand that, say, musical ability might be highly heritable. But the idea of a genetic predisposition to be a highly specific type of musician – say a virtuoso contrabass bassoonist or an electric sitarist – that seems to be expecting too much of the genes. Surely the outlet for someone’s musical ability changes over time, as the culture changes the available musical options.

    In recent years we’ve seen an explosion of virtuoso Chinese musicians playing western Classical instruments. But those instruments and that repertoire are relatively recent arrivals in China; the result of cultural transmission.

    Similarly I expect religiosity – broadly defined – might be heritable. But the culture determines the religious options available at any moment. Being a Zeus worshipper just isn’t a realistic option in 2013, for instance. I suspect that’s because culture has removed the Zeus option, rather than that natural selection has removed the Zeus gene.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @georgesdelatour:

    I haven't forgotten about you! I'm behind on most of my comments.


    I can understand that, say, musical ability might be highly heritable. But the idea of a genetic predisposition to be a highly specific type of musician – say a virtuoso contrabass bassoonist or an electric sitarist – that seems to be expecting too much of the genes. Surely the outlet for someone’s musical ability changes over time, as the culture changes the available musical options.
     
    That depends, yes? You can't be predisposed to something that doesn't exist in your environment (for example, Ancient Greeks couldn't have had any basketball talent). But, your genes do impact your inclinations given the options available. In today's environment, with a wide range of musical instrument, one could be more inclined to be a master bassoonist over a pianist. Obviously this isn't an issue where these items don't exist.

    In recent years we’ve seen an explosion of virtuoso Chinese musicians playing western Classical instruments. But those instruments and that repertoire are relatively recent arrivals in China; the result of cultural transmission.
     
    The same set of genotypes can result in different phenotypes in a new environment. Take these Chinese, put them in a world of Western instruments, what you see is what results.

    Similarly I expect religiosity – broadly defined – might be heritable. But the culture determines the religious options available at any moment. Being a Zeus worshipper just isn’t a realistic option in 2013, for instance. I suspect that’s because culture has removed the Zeus option, rather than that natural selection has removed the Zeus gene.
     
    Precisely, though don't be surprised that among the religions available, there is some heritable impact.

    Genes can't make you choose from choices you don't have. But they certain can influence what you pick from what you do have....

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @panjoomby
    the following is probably of interest only to Jayman - & maybe not even him:)

    "The proportion of total variance accounted for in outcomes such as adjustment, personality and cognition was 0.01 for family constellation, 0.02 for differential parental behaviour, 0.02 for differential sibling interaction and 0.05 for differential peer or teacher interaction."

    i'm guessing these are r-squareds, & with the huge sample they're probably statistically significant at alpha = .05 (or p < .05 whatever), BUT if those r-squareds come from statistically NONsignificant r's, then these r-squareds should merely be considered 0. & even if they are statistically significant, another way to interpret them is as we go up 1 standard deviation on the independent variable, we go up .01 standard deviation on the family constellation variable, etc. In any event, they're so tiny as to be inconsequential, obviously:)

    Pretty much. And then these are purely correlational – unlike correlation with genes or IQ, you can’t infer causation from them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • the following is probably of interest only to Jayman – & maybe not even him:)

    “The proportion of total variance accounted for in outcomes such as adjustment, personality and cognition was 0.01 for family constellation, 0.02 for differential parental behaviour, 0.02 for differential sibling interaction and 0.05 for differential peer or teacher interaction.”

    i’m guessing these are r-squareds, & with the huge sample they’re probably statistically significant at alpha = .05 (or p < .05 whatever), BUT if those r-squareds come from statistically NONsignificant r's, then these r-squareds should merely be considered 0. & even if they are statistically significant, another way to interpret them is as we go up 1 standard deviation on the independent variable, we go up .01 standard deviation on the family constellation variable, etc. In any event, they're so tiny as to be inconsequential, obviously:)

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @panjoomby:

    Pretty much. And then these are purely correlational – unlike correlation with genes or IQ, you can't infer causation from them.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @georgesdelatour
    Thanks for replying. I realise I'm pulling the discussion way off topic. So I may as well continue :)

    Do adopted children tend to revert to the religion of their biological parents? I suppose investigating this would be incredibly suggestive if adoptees were found reverting to their birth parents' religion without ever having been told what that religion was.

    Steve Jobs seems to have embraced the hippy eastern spirituality of his generation, rather than the Syrian or Swiss Christianity of his biological parents (his father's religiosity seems never to have been especially devout - he now manages a casino). Don't know if that tells us much…

    I've read about Polish anti-Semites who've suddenly discovered their grandparents were Jewish, and then decided to convert to Judaism. But that seems to show they're simply extreme personality types with an identity crisis. The kind of person who can only be an alcoholic or teetotal, but who can't do moderate, responsible drinking.

    The most extreme example I can think of is David Myatt, who went from British Neo-Nazi to Muslim extremist; not because of any family connection to Islam, but, again, because he clearly has an extreme type of personality. When he finally came to choose a religion, after quite a religious quest, he needed it to seem shocking and unacceptable to people. The occultism of Aleister Crowley used to have that shock value in the 70s and 80s. Now it's a bit passé. So Islam it was. For a time, at least.

    No problem.

    The whole point of the three laws of behavioral genetics (see All Human Behavioral Traits are Heritable) is that all human traits show genetic influence, and the shared environment term is at best small and usually absent. That is, the effect of growing up within a particular family disappears upon adulthood. Similarities within families are entirely due to shared genes.

    Now to your specific point, there haven’t been many adoptions studies on religiosity, but there have been plenty of twin studies. The largest, especially those that look at adults, find that the shared environment (“family influence”) is absent to negligible, and genetic components large.

    See here, here, and here.

    Now it’s worth mentioning there is a restriction of range within most behavioral genetic studies. Those that look at religiosity tend to have been done on White Americans (the three largest from Minnesota, Colorado, and Virginia). The prevents us from looking too closely at the specific religion (and then, that might be limited by what’s locally available), but as far as religious behavior, the pattern follows that as noted above.

    But overall, the effects of religion will be primarily a heredity one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rafael
    Ok, nice discussion and everything, but... The thing that is the most striking has been touched very little upon. What with the dramatic differences with the sexes?
    And this is not only for gay parents but also for lesbian parents (the differenceis smaller but in the same direction). I don't see how to marry this with the genes/nature effect.
    Perhaps there are different treshholds for boys and for girls what constitutes normal parenting? Perhaps boys can tolerate much more then girls?

    Ok, nice discussion and everything, but… The thing that is the most striking has been touched very little upon. What with the dramatic differences with the sexes?

    As per szopeno’s comment, sample sizes were small. As well, the nature of the children in these families were likely quite heterogenous in terms of origins and racial composition. Between this and sampling error, their findings are essentially completely worthless.

    And this is not only for gay parents but also for lesbian parents (the differenceis smaller but in the same direction). I don’t see how to marry this with the genes/nature effect.

    Simple. See above.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Ok, nice discussion and everything, but… The thing that is the most striking has been touched very little upon. What with the dramatic differences with the sexes?
    And this is not only for gay parents but also for lesbian parents (the differenceis smaller but in the same direction). I don’t see how to marry this with the genes/nature effect.
    Perhaps there are different treshholds for boys and for girls what constitutes normal parenting? Perhaps boys can tolerate much more then girls?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Rafael:

    Ok, nice discussion and everything, but… The thing that is the most striking has been touched very little upon. What with the dramatic differences with the sexes?
     
    As per szopeno's comment, sample sizes were small. As well, the nature of the children in these families were likely quite heterogenous in terms of origins and racial composition. Between this and sampling error, their findings are essentially completely worthless.

    And this is not only for gay parents but also for lesbian parents (the differenceis smaller but in the same direction). I don’t see how to marry this with the genes/nature effect.
     
    Simple. See above.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @georgesdelatour
    In most cases, children follow the religion of their parents. That parental religion may affect which other children they're allowed to socialise with, and even marry.

    I don't know how much it changes a child to be brought up Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Scientologist or Atheist. But I'd be amazed if the effect was zero.

    It's difficult to study the effects of religious upbringing isolated from the issue of family ethnicity. Have any researchers tried?

    Thanks for replying. I realise I’m pulling the discussion way off topic. So I may as well continue :)

    Do adopted children tend to revert to the religion of their biological parents? I suppose investigating this would be incredibly suggestive if adoptees were found reverting to their birth parents’ religion without ever having been told what that religion was.

    Steve Jobs seems to have embraced the hippy eastern spirituality of his generation, rather than the Syrian or Swiss Christianity of his biological parents (his father’s religiosity seems never to have been especially devout – he now manages a casino). Don’t know if that tells us much…

    I’ve read about Polish anti-Semites who’ve suddenly discovered their grandparents were Jewish, and then decided to convert to Judaism. But that seems to show they’re simply extreme personality types with an identity crisis. The kind of person who can only be an alcoholic or teetotal, but who can’t do moderate, responsible drinking.

    The most extreme example I can think of is David Myatt, who went from British Neo-Nazi to Muslim extremist; not because of any family connection to Islam, but, again, because he clearly has an extreme type of personality. When he finally came to choose a religion, after quite a religious quest, he needed it to seem shocking and unacceptable to people. The occultism of Aleister Crowley used to have that shock value in the 70s and 80s. Now it’s a bit passé. So Islam it was. For a time, at least.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @georgesdelatour:

    No problem.

    The whole point of the three laws of behavioral genetics (see All Human Behavioral Traits are Heritable) is that all human traits show genetic influence, and the shared environment term is at best small and usually absent. That is, the effect of growing up within a particular family disappears upon adulthood. Similarities within families are entirely due to shared genes.

    Now to your specific point, there haven't been many adoptions studies on religiosity, but there have been plenty of twin studies. The largest, especially those that look at adults, find that the shared environment ("family influence") is absent to negligible, and genetic components large.

    See here, here, and here.

    Now it's worth mentioning there is a restriction of range within most behavioral genetic studies. Those that look at religiosity tend to have been done on White Americans (the three largest from Minnesota, Colorado, and Virginia). The prevents us from looking too closely at the specific religion (and then, that might be limited by what's locally available), but as far as religious behavior, the pattern follows that as noted above.

    But overall, the effects of religion will be primarily a heredity one.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @James A. Donald

    The only way to reliably study the effects of gay parents (or for that matter, any “family constellation variable”) is with the equivalent of a randomized controlled trial – you need to study adopted children, and then you would have to ensure that there are no systematic differences in the way the children were adopted to the respective homes (in gay vs. straight parents).
     
    By your standard, there can never be scientific evidence that gay and lesbian child rearing practices are frequently outside the norm. How convenient.

    With an effect as large as this, genetics cannot confound matters significantly. You are not explaining the data, but explaining the data away, and your explanation is weak.

    Secondly, if we apply this self serving standard, the obvious thing to do is to look at the child rearing practices of particular gay and lesbian couples.

    This, of course, is a collection of anecdotes, and suffers from the problem that only spectacularly horrid cases come to our attention, but it is certainly suggestive.

    A controlled look at child rearing practices would work, but such a survey would amount to a dragnet for crimes, looking for crimes without reasonable grounds for suspicion, and thus be a gross invasion of privacy.

    One solution would be a uniform policy of looking for and investigating signs of child abuse - unwashed children showing up at school, hungry children at school, bruised children showing up at school, children with sexually transmitted diseases, self harming behavior at school, and then determine to what extent these symptoms correlated with being raised by gays and lesbians. One could not use the results of the investigations, because you would doubtless argue that the investigators would be influenced by the sexual practices of those raising the children, but one could use the investigatory triggers.

    The only way to reliably study the effects of gay parents (or for that matter, any “family constellation variable”) is with the equivalent of a randomized controlled trial – you need to study adopted children, and then you would have to ensure that there are no systematic differences in the way the children were adopted to the respective homes (in gay vs. straight parents).

    By your standard, there can never be scientific evidence that gay and lesbian child rearing practices are frequently outside the norm. How convenient.

    I wouldn’t say never. To paraphrase Gary Taubes, just because our only research options are shitty doesn’t make that shitty research any less shitty.

    With an effect as large as this, genetics cannot confound matters significantly. You are not explaining the data, but explaining the data away, and your explanation is weak.

    All human behavioral traits are heritable, as I’ve noted ad nauseum. I’ve explained the data and the uselessness of this research. Your personal incredulity is evidence of didly-squat.

    This, of course, is a collection of anecdotes, and suffers from the problem that only spectacularly horrid cases come to our attention, but it is certainly suggestive.

    And therein lies your problem.

    One solution would be a uniform policy of looking for and investigating signs of child abuse – unwashed children showing up at school, hungry children at school, bruised children showing up at school, children with sexually transmitted diseases, self harming behavior at school, and then determine to what extent these symptoms correlated with being raised by gays and lesbians. One could not use the results of the investigations, because you would doubtless argue that the investigators would be influenced by the sexual practices of those raising the children, but one could use the investigatory triggers.

    Indeed. One can measure the average properties of how gay and straight parents claim to treat their children, as well as other markers such as the on you and “redneck” mentioned to at least (limitely) assess the nature of gay parents. That would at least give us some idea of how gay parents fare as opposed to straight parents.

    It wouldn’t tell us about the children’s outcomes, but it might at least give us an idea of how “normal” gay parents are.

    Please think very carefully about your next reply. I’ve allowed this comment through because there were some ideas of merit. If I don’t see that continuing I will have to put you on moderation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan
    @James A. Donald:

    The study was intended to find the effect of gay and lesbian child rearing, relative to the effect of heterosexual childrearing. It found very large effect.
     
    The study is fundamentally incapable of demonstrating such effect, for the reasons stated. That was the whole point of the post!

    You are explaining the results of the survey away, you are refusing to accept the survey results at face value, because of your prior assumption that gay and lesbian child rearing practices are usually within the normal range for heterosexual couples.
     
    No, for the reasons stated in the post.

    A prior assumption for which you need no scientific evidence, and you reject any scientific evidence that contradicts it.
     
    Let me clear it up for you. The only way to reliably study the effects of gay parents (or for that matter, any "family constellation variable") is with the equivalent of a randomized controlled trial – you need to study adopted children, and then you would have to ensure that there are no systematic differences in the way the children were adopted to the respective homes (in gay vs. straight parents).

    The rest of your post is nonsense.

    Look, I'm tired of recycling these points. Future comments from anyone that ignore the points raised in the post and continue to respew this same broken rubbish you have will be deleted.

    The only way to reliably study the effects of gay parents (or for that matter, any “family constellation variable”) is with the equivalent of a randomized controlled trial – you need to study adopted children, and then you would have to ensure that there are no systematic differences in the way the children were adopted to the respective homes (in gay vs. straight parents).

    By your standard, there can never be scientific evidence that gay and lesbian child rearing practices are frequently outside the norm. How convenient.

    With an effect as large as this, genetics cannot confound matters significantly. You are not explaining the data, but explaining the data away, and your explanation is weak.

    Secondly, if we apply this self serving standard, the obvious thing to do is to look at the child rearing practices of particular gay and lesbian couples.

    This, of course, is a collection of anecdotes, and suffers from the problem that only spectacularly horrid cases come to our attention, but it is certainly suggestive.

    A controlled look at child rearing practices would work, but such a survey would amount to a dragnet for crimes, looking for crimes without reasonable grounds for suspicion, and thus be a gross invasion of privacy.

    One solution would be a uniform policy of looking for and investigating signs of child abuse – unwashed children showing up at school, hungry children at school, bruised children showing up at school, children with sexually transmitted diseases, self harming behavior at school, and then determine to what extent these symptoms correlated with being raised by gays and lesbians. One could not use the results of the investigations, because you would doubtless argue that the investigators would be influenced by the sexual practices of those raising the children, but one could use the investigatory triggers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @James A. Donald:


    The only way to reliably study the effects of gay parents (or for that matter, any “family constellation variable”) is with the equivalent of a randomized controlled trial – you need to study adopted children, and then you would have to ensure that there are no systematic differences in the way the children were adopted to the respective homes (in gay vs. straight parents).
     
    By your standard, there can never be scientific evidence that gay and lesbian child rearing practices are frequently outside the norm. How convenient.
     
    I wouldn't say never. To paraphrase Gary Taubes, just because our only research options are shitty doesn't make that shitty research any less shitty.

    With an effect as large as this, genetics cannot confound matters significantly. You are not explaining the data, but explaining the data away, and your explanation is weak.
     
    All human behavioral traits are heritable, as I've noted ad nauseum. I've explained the data and the uselessness of this research. Your personal incredulity is evidence of didly-squat.

    This, of course, is a collection of anecdotes, and suffers from the problem that only spectacularly horrid cases come to our attention, but it is certainly suggestive.
     

    And therein lies your problem.

    One solution would be a uniform policy of looking for and investigating signs of child abuse – unwashed children showing up at school, hungry children at school, bruised children showing up at school, children with sexually transmitted diseases, self harming behavior at school, and then determine to what extent these symptoms correlated with being raised by gays and lesbians. One could not use the results of the investigations, because you would doubtless argue that the investigators would be influenced by the sexual practices of those raising the children, but one could use the investigatory triggers.
     
    Indeed. One can measure the average properties of how gay and straight parents claim to treat their children, as well as other markers such as the on you and "redneck" mentioned to at least (limitely) assess the nature of gay parents. That would at least give us some idea of how gay parents fare as opposed to straight parents.

    It wouldn't tell us about the children's outcomes, but it might at least give us an idea of how "normal" gay parents are.

    Please think very carefully about your next reply. I've allowed this comment through because there were some ideas of merit. If I don't see that continuing I will have to put you on moderation.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @georgesdelatour
    In most cases, children follow the religion of their parents. That parental religion may affect which other children they're allowed to socialise with, and even marry.

    I don't know how much it changes a child to be brought up Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Scientologist or Atheist. But I'd be amazed if the effect was zero.

    It's difficult to study the effects of religious upbringing isolated from the issue of family ethnicity. Have any researchers tried?

    In most cases, children follow the religion of their parents.

    Religiosity is heritable. With respect to mixed groups, so is particular religion.

    That parental religion may affect which other children they’re allowed to socialise with, and even marry.

    But how much would all that matter if the mores weren’t enforced by the community?

    I don’t know how much it changes a child to be brought up Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Scientologist or Atheist. But I’d be amazed if the effect was zero. It’s difficult to study the effects of religious upbringing isolated from the issue of family ethnicity. Have any researchers tried?

    While behavioral genetic samples tend to be lily White, many do contain significant religious mixes. The shared environment term comes back as zero.

    But yes I agree, we need larger, more “diverse” behavioral genetic samples.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @James A. Donald

    The study makes no statement either way.
     
    The study was intended to find the effect of gay and lesbian child rearing, relative to the effect of heterosexual childrearing. It found very large effect.

    We know that normal variations in child rearing have very little effect.

    Therefore, a very large effect, indicates an abnormal variation in childrearing, indicates that gay and lesbian childrearing behaviors are usually outside the norm for heterosexual couples.

    Which is what anyone could have told you thirty years ago.

    You would like to find some other explanation of results. Maybe they are all adopting African orphans, resulting in a large genetic difference, but they are not all adopting African orphans, and if they were, would not explain the sex related differences.

    Indeed, back when these children were babies, it was not possible for gays and lesbians to adopt, because everyone knew that gay and lesbian childrearing practices were commonly outside the norm for heterosexual couples, therefore these children are almost always the biological children of one member of the couple. That they have a lower IQ than their parents probably reflects environment, and thirty years ago everyone would have assumed reflects abuse and neglect at physically damaging levels.

    You are explaining the results of the survey away, you are refusing to accept the survey results at face value, because of your prior assumption that gay and lesbian child rearing practices are usually within the normal range for heterosexual couples.

    A prior assumption for which you need no scientific evidence, and you reject any scientific evidence that contradicts it.

    The study was intended to find the effect of gay and lesbian child rearing, relative to the effect of heterosexual childrearing. It found very large effect.

    The study is fundamentally incapable of demonstrating such effect, for the reasons stated. That was the whole point of the post!

    You are explaining the results of the survey away, you are refusing to accept the survey results at face value, because of your prior assumption that gay and lesbian child rearing practices are usually within the normal range for heterosexual couples.

    No, for the reasons stated in the post.

    A prior assumption for which you need no scientific evidence, and you reject any scientific evidence that contradicts it.

    Let me clear it up for you. The only way to reliably study the effects of gay parents (or for that matter, any “family constellation variable”) is with the equivalent of a randomized controlled trial – you need to study adopted children, and then you would have to ensure that there are no systematic differences in the way the children were adopted to the respective homes (in gay vs. straight parents).

    The rest of your post is nonsense.

    Look, I’m tired of recycling these points. Future comments from anyone that ignore the points raised in the post and continue to respew this same broken rubbish you have will be deleted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James A. Donald

    The only way to reliably study the effects of gay parents (or for that matter, any “family constellation variable”) is with the equivalent of a randomized controlled trial – you need to study adopted children, and then you would have to ensure that there are no systematic differences in the way the children were adopted to the respective homes (in gay vs. straight parents).
     
    By your standard, there can never be scientific evidence that gay and lesbian child rearing practices are frequently outside the norm. How convenient.

    With an effect as large as this, genetics cannot confound matters significantly. You are not explaining the data, but explaining the data away, and your explanation is weak.

    Secondly, if we apply this self serving standard, the obvious thing to do is to look at the child rearing practices of particular gay and lesbian couples.

    This, of course, is a collection of anecdotes, and suffers from the problem that only spectacularly horrid cases come to our attention, but it is certainly suggestive.

    A controlled look at child rearing practices would work, but such a survey would amount to a dragnet for crimes, looking for crimes without reasonable grounds for suspicion, and thus be a gross invasion of privacy.

    One solution would be a uniform policy of looking for and investigating signs of child abuse - unwashed children showing up at school, hungry children at school, bruised children showing up at school, children with sexually transmitted diseases, self harming behavior at school, and then determine to what extent these symptoms correlated with being raised by gays and lesbians. One could not use the results of the investigations, because you would doubtless argue that the investigators would be influenced by the sexual practices of those raising the children, but one could use the investigatory triggers.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan
    @redneck:

    But this study does not support the proposition that the gay and lesbian couples usually provide a childrearing environment within the normal range for heterosexual couples.
     
    The study makes no statement either way. Reread the post.

    And your reaction is that that implication, an implication that thirty or forty years ago everyone would have thought to be completely obvious and entirely expected, is unthinkable and unscientific, indeed anti scientific, and anyone who persists in that implication is going to be banned.
     
    Pretty much – or at least moderated, because I have little patience for those who preach the gospel.

    The study makes no statement either way.

    The study was intended to find the effect of gay and lesbian child rearing, relative to the effect of heterosexual childrearing. It found very large effect.

    We know that normal variations in child rearing have very little effect.

    Therefore, a very large effect, indicates an abnormal variation in childrearing, indicates that gay and lesbian childrearing behaviors are usually outside the norm for heterosexual couples.

    Which is what anyone could have told you thirty years ago.

    You would like to find some other explanation of results. Maybe they are all adopting African orphans, resulting in a large genetic difference, but they are not all adopting African orphans, and if they were, would not explain the sex related differences.

    Indeed, back when these children were babies, it was not possible for gays and lesbians to adopt, because everyone knew that gay and lesbian childrearing practices were commonly outside the norm for heterosexual couples, therefore these children are almost always the biological children of one member of the couple. That they have a lower IQ than their parents probably reflects environment, and thirty years ago everyone would have assumed reflects abuse and neglect at physically damaging levels.

    You are explaining the results of the survey away, you are refusing to accept the survey results at face value, because of your prior assumption that gay and lesbian child rearing practices are usually within the normal range for heterosexual couples.

    A prior assumption for which you need no scientific evidence, and you reject any scientific evidence that contradicts it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @James A. Donald:

    The study was intended to find the effect of gay and lesbian child rearing, relative to the effect of heterosexual childrearing. It found very large effect.
     
    The study is fundamentally incapable of demonstrating such effect, for the reasons stated. That was the whole point of the post!

    You are explaining the results of the survey away, you are refusing to accept the survey results at face value, because of your prior assumption that gay and lesbian child rearing practices are usually within the normal range for heterosexual couples.
     
    No, for the reasons stated in the post.

    A prior assumption for which you need no scientific evidence, and you reject any scientific evidence that contradicts it.
     
    Let me clear it up for you. The only way to reliably study the effects of gay parents (or for that matter, any "family constellation variable") is with the equivalent of a randomized controlled trial – you need to study adopted children, and then you would have to ensure that there are no systematic differences in the way the children were adopted to the respective homes (in gay vs. straight parents).

    The rest of your post is nonsense.

    Look, I'm tired of recycling these points. Future comments from anyone that ignore the points raised in the post and continue to respew this same broken rubbish you have will be deleted.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • OT but here is a fascinating piece of political analysis if you haven’t seen it already: http://akarlin.com/2009/09/08/struggle-europe-mankind/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @redneck


    Why don’t we need scientific studies to verify the empirical claim that gay and lesbian couples usually provide a childrearing environment within the normal range for heterosexual couples?
     
    You do. Hence, studies like this.
     
    But this study does not support the proposition that the gay and lesbian couples usually provide a childrearing environment within the normal range for heterosexual couples.

    Indeed, it suggests that gay and lesbian couples usually do not provide a childrearing environment within the normal range for heterosexual couples.

    And your reaction is that that implication, an implication that thirty or forty years ago everyone would have thought to be completely obvious and entirely expected, is unthinkable and unscientific, indeed anti scientific, and anyone who persists in that implication is going to be banned.

    But this study does not support the proposition that the gay and lesbian couples usually provide a childrearing environment within the normal range for heterosexual couples.

    The study makes no statement either way. Reread the post.

    And your reaction is that that implication, an implication that thirty or forty years ago everyone would have thought to be completely obvious and entirely expected, is unthinkable and unscientific, indeed anti scientific, and anyone who persists in that implication is going to be banned.

    Pretty much – or at least moderated, because I have little patience for those who preach the gospel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James A. Donald

    The study makes no statement either way.
     
    The study was intended to find the effect of gay and lesbian child rearing, relative to the effect of heterosexual childrearing. It found very large effect.

    We know that normal variations in child rearing have very little effect.

    Therefore, a very large effect, indicates an abnormal variation in childrearing, indicates that gay and lesbian childrearing behaviors are usually outside the norm for heterosexual couples.

    Which is what anyone could have told you thirty years ago.

    You would like to find some other explanation of results. Maybe they are all adopting African orphans, resulting in a large genetic difference, but they are not all adopting African orphans, and if they were, would not explain the sex related differences.

    Indeed, back when these children were babies, it was not possible for gays and lesbians to adopt, because everyone knew that gay and lesbian childrearing practices were commonly outside the norm for heterosexual couples, therefore these children are almost always the biological children of one member of the couple. That they have a lower IQ than their parents probably reflects environment, and thirty years ago everyone would have assumed reflects abuse and neglect at physically damaging levels.

    You are explaining the results of the survey away, you are refusing to accept the survey results at face value, because of your prior assumption that gay and lesbian child rearing practices are usually within the normal range for heterosexual couples.

    A prior assumption for which you need no scientific evidence, and you reject any scientific evidence that contradicts it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan
    @redneck:
    I know most people aren't trained as scientists or in how to use the scientific method, so they may not understand how we come up with these conclusion.

    The fact of the matter is that the factuality of all claims require evidence to substantiate. Even a claim as plain as "objects fall to the ground when dropped" requires evidence. It's just that such evidence is easy to obtain; all you have to do is get objects and drop them. More subtle claims may require more sophisticated evidence, which is where science comes into play.


    Why don’t we need scientific studies to verify the empirical claim that gay and lesbian couples usually provide a childrearing environment within the normal range for heterosexual couples?
     
    You do. Hence, studies like this.

    Do we need scientific methods to very the empirical claim that black neighborhoods are usually far more dangerous for whites than white neighborhoods, well outside the normal range for white neighborhoods.
     
    Yes.

    Look, this has been adequately explained to you. If you persist with this line of reasoning, I will assume you are trolling and react accordingly.

    Why don’t we need scientific studies to verify the empirical claim that gay and lesbian couples usually provide a childrearing environment within the normal range for heterosexual couples?

    You do. Hence, studies like this.

    But this study does not support the proposition that the gay and lesbian couples usually provide a childrearing environment within the normal range for heterosexual couples.

    Indeed, it suggests that gay and lesbian couples usually do not provide a childrearing environment within the normal range for heterosexual couples.

    And your reaction is that that implication, an implication that thirty or forty years ago everyone would have thought to be completely obvious and entirely expected, is unthinkable and unscientific, indeed anti scientific, and anyone who persists in that implication is going to be banned.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @redneck:

    But this study does not support the proposition that the gay and lesbian couples usually provide a childrearing environment within the normal range for heterosexual couples.
     
    The study makes no statement either way. Reread the post.

    And your reaction is that that implication, an implication that thirty or forty years ago everyone would have thought to be completely obvious and entirely expected, is unthinkable and unscientific, indeed anti scientific, and anyone who persists in that implication is going to be banned.
     
    Pretty much – or at least moderated, because I have little patience for those who preach the gospel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Staffan
    If children raised by gays have an IQ of 95, we look at the other kids at that level. And so forth.

    There are no guarantees for anything but kids tend to be conformist and will bully someone who has odd looking clothes. Would they ignore gay parents?

    If children raised by gays have an IQ of 95, we look at the other kids at that level. And so forth.

    They could differ in other ways, ways that we’re not considering. There’s only so much you can learn from correlational studies, especially parenting ones. You can’t really perform a study like this.

    There are no guarantees for anything but kids tend to be conformist and will bully someone who has odd looking clothes. Would they ignore gay parents?

    Fair point, but then even that could be a function of the traits of these kids themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • If children raised by gays have an IQ of 95, we look at the other kids at that level. And so forth.

    There are no guarantees for anything but kids tend to be conformist and will bully someone who has odd looking clothes. Would they ignore gay parents?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Staffan:

    If children raised by gays have an IQ of 95, we look at the other kids at that level. And so forth.
     
    They could differ in other ways, ways that we're not considering. There's only so much you can learn from correlational studies, especially parenting ones. You can't really perform a study like this.

    There are no guarantees for anything but kids tend to be conformist and will bully someone who has odd looking clothes. Would they ignore gay parents?
     
    Fair point, but then even that could be a function of the traits of these kids themselves.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jorge Videla
    "Even if there were differences in the exact treatment each child received, there are going to be systematic similarities with the way each set of parents treat all their children. If such an effect existed, it would turn up in the shared environment, since kids growing up together would be impacted by these across the board similarities. But the shared environment influence is in fact negligible."

    wrong. the supposed null effect of shared environment is due to the effects of environment varying from one genome to another. what is best for child a may not be be best for child b, etc.

    [JayMan: I've removed your last sentence. No more of the gratuitous mudslinging, please]

    @ Jorge Videla:

    wrong. the supposed null effect of shared environment is due to the effects of environment varying from one genome to another. what is best for child a may not be be best for child b, etc.

    Please reread the post. That idea is bankrupt.

    I’ve placed you on moderation, mainly because I’m tired of monitoring your comments. Please keep it civil, rationally sound, and tone down on the hatefulness, thanks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Staffan
    Well, the obvious way to conduct that study would be to adjust for such differences.

    My objection is about state rather than trait. As Judith Rich Harris pointed out, even children who grow up in concentration camps (anectdotally) turn out perfectly normal. But they can't possible have enjoyed it. I don't think having your personality and intellectual abilities intact is enough to justify allowing gay parents. I want the children to have good childhoods as well.

    Well, the obvious way to conduct that study would be to adjust for such differences.

    How?

    My objection is about state rather than trait. As Judith Rich Harris pointed out, even children who grow up in concentration camps (anectdotally) turn out perfectly normal. But they can’t possible have enjoyed it. I don’t think having your personality and intellectual abilities intact is enough to justify allowing gay parents. I want the children to have good childhoods as well.

    Well, we can’t guarantee that the children of straight parents will have happy childhoods. We have no reason to suspect a negative long-term impact, based on the evidence we have. It would seem that such scrutiny is just looking for something to be wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Well, the obvious way to conduct that study would be to adjust for such differences.

    My objection is about state rather than trait. As Judith Rich Harris pointed out, even children who grow up in concentration camps (anectdotally) turn out perfectly normal. But they can’t possible have enjoyed it. I don’t think having your personality and intellectual abilities intact is enough to justify allowing gay parents. I want the children to have good childhoods as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Staffan:

    Well, the obvious way to conduct that study would be to adjust for such differences.
     
    How?

    My objection is about state rather than trait. As Judith Rich Harris pointed out, even children who grow up in concentration camps (anectdotally) turn out perfectly normal. But they can’t possible have enjoyed it. I don’t think having your personality and intellectual abilities intact is enough to justify allowing gay parents. I want the children to have good childhoods as well.
     
    Well, we can't guarantee that the children of straight parents will have happy childhoods. We have no reason to suspect a negative long-term impact, based on the evidence we have. It would seem that such scrutiny is just looking for something to be wrong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @redneck

    Look, we need scientific methods to verify /any/ empirical claim. Period.
     
    Why don't we need scientific studies to verify the empirical claim that gay and lesbian couples usually provide a childrearing environment within the normal range for heterosexual couples?

    Do we need scientific methods to very the empirical claim that black neighborhoods are usually far more dangerous for whites than white neighborhoods, well outside the normal range for white neighborhoods.

    If so, we are not getting such verification, partly because scientists will not go into those neighborhoods.

    :
    I know most people aren’t trained as scientists or in how to use the scientific method, so they may not understand how we come up with these conclusion.

    The fact of the matter is that the factuality of all claims require evidence to substantiate. Even a claim as plain as “objects fall to the ground when dropped” requires evidence. It’s just that such evidence is easy to obtain; all you have to do is get objects and drop them. More subtle claims may require more sophisticated evidence, which is where science comes into play.

    Why don’t we need scientific studies to verify the empirical claim that gay and lesbian couples usually provide a childrearing environment within the normal range for heterosexual couples?

    You do. Hence, studies like this.

    Do we need scientific methods to very the empirical claim that black neighborhoods are usually far more dangerous for whites than white neighborhoods, well outside the normal range for white neighborhoods.

    Yes.

    Look, this has been adequately explained to you. If you persist with this line of reasoning, I will assume you are trolling and react accordingly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @redneck


    Why don’t we need scientific studies to verify the empirical claim that gay and lesbian couples usually provide a childrearing environment within the normal range for heterosexual couples?
     
    You do. Hence, studies like this.
     
    But this study does not support the proposition that the gay and lesbian couples usually provide a childrearing environment within the normal range for heterosexual couples.

    Indeed, it suggests that gay and lesbian couples usually do not provide a childrearing environment within the normal range for heterosexual couples.

    And your reaction is that that implication, an implication that thirty or forty years ago everyone would have thought to be completely obvious and entirely expected, is unthinkable and unscientific, indeed anti scientific, and anyone who persists in that implication is going to be banned.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Staffan
    Great post.

    "The failure to recognize the broad null effect of nurture (“The Nurture Assumption”) is pervasive even in the HBD community, the people who should of all know better."

    There is probably a political bias here since HBD is largely conservative. I noted a similar effect when Philip Cohen discredits this study as a leftist he can't use the fact that minorities might not graduate so often even with well-meaning gay/liberal parents.

    Still, I'm not happy about gay parents. I'd like a study that says that the children report the same level of well-being as other kids before I'm ok with it.

    And it's interesting and weird that out of 279 randomly selected same-sex couples, not a single one is interracial, not even White/Asian. According to Wikipedia the visible minority in Canada is 20 percent of the population.

    :
    Thank you!

    “The failure to recognize the broad null effect of nurture (“The Nurture Assumption”) is pervasive even in the HBD community, the people who should of all know better.”

    There is probably a political bias here since HBD is largely conservative. I noted a similar effect when Philip Cohen discredits this study as a leftist he can’t use the fact that minorities might not graduate so often even with well-meaning gay/liberal parents.

    Indeed.

    Still, I’m not happy about gay parents. I’d like a study that says that the children report the same level of well-being as other kids before I’m ok with it.

    I think you might be missing the point of this post. A proper study of the sort would be impossible to construct because the children of gay parents aren’t genetically equivalent to the children of straight parents.

    Even trying to use adopted children would have problems. See here. Skip to the second segment. The children that get adopted by gay families are likely to be of lower “quality”, in a varieties of ways, than those adopted by straight parents.

    And even beyond that, this misses the key point: parenting doesn’t have an effect on how children turn out. So then, why would it matter if those parents were gay? Either parenting doesn’t have an effect, or gay vs. straight parents matter. Those notions are mutually exclusive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Great post.

    “The failure to recognize the broad null effect of nurture (“The Nurture Assumption”) is pervasive even in the HBD community, the people who should of all know better.”

    There is probably a political bias here since HBD is largely conservative. I noted a similar effect when Philip Cohen discredits this study as a leftist he can’t use the fact that minorities might not graduate so often even with well-meaning gay/liberal parents.

    Still, I’m not happy about gay parents. I’d like a study that says that the children report the same level of well-being as other kids before I’m ok with it.

    And it’s interesting and weird that out of 279 randomly selected same-sex couples, not a single one is interracial, not even White/Asian. According to Wikipedia the visible minority in Canada is 20 percent of the population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Staffan:
    Thank you!

    “The failure to recognize the broad null effect of nurture (“The Nurture Assumption”) is pervasive even in the HBD community, the people who should of all know better.”

    There is probably a political bias here since HBD is largely conservative. I noted a similar effect when Philip Cohen discredits this study as a leftist he can’t use the fact that minorities might not graduate so often even with well-meaning gay/liberal parents.
     

    Indeed.

    Still, I’m not happy about gay parents. I’d like a study that says that the children report the same level of well-being as other kids before I’m ok with it.
     
    I think you might be missing the point of this post. A proper study of the sort would be impossible to construct because the children of gay parents aren't genetically equivalent to the children of straight parents.

    Even trying to use adopted children would have problems. See here. Skip to the second segment. The children that get adopted by gay families are likely to be of lower "quality", in a varieties of ways, than those adopted by straight parents.

    And even beyond that, this misses the key point: parenting doesn't have an effect on how children turn out. So then, why would it matter if those parents were gay? Either parenting doesn't have an effect, or gay vs. straight parents matter. Those notions are mutually exclusive.

    , @szopen
    Jayman, exactly! I came to this conclusion just few months ago, when writing about Moynihan report. For some time I was aware about lack of effect of parenting on children, and at the same time I was giving willing ear to those accusing those evil liberals and feminists destroying afroamerican family, which was cause to all the problems plaguing this commmunity.

    THen, suddenly something went click! and I realised the contradiction :)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • In most cases, children follow the religion of their parents. That parental religion may affect which other children they’re allowed to socialise with, and even marry.

    I don’t know how much it changes a child to be brought up Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Scientologist or Atheist. But I’d be amazed if the effect was zero.

    It’s difficult to study the effects of religious upbringing isolated from the issue of family ethnicity. Have any researchers tried?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @georgesdelatour:

    In most cases, children follow the religion of their parents.
     
    Religiosity is heritable. With respect to mixed groups, so is particular religion.

    That parental religion may affect which other children they’re allowed to socialise with, and even marry.
     
    But how much would all that matter if the mores weren't enforced by the community?

    I don’t know how much it changes a child to be brought up Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Scientologist or Atheist. But I’d be amazed if the effect was zero. It’s difficult to study the effects of religious upbringing isolated from the issue of family ethnicity. Have any researchers tried?
     
    While behavioral genetic samples tend to be lily White, many do contain significant religious mixes. The shared environment term comes back as zero.

    But yes I agree, we need larger, more "diverse" behavioral genetic samples.

    , @georgesdelatour
    Thanks for replying. I realise I'm pulling the discussion way off topic. So I may as well continue :)

    Do adopted children tend to revert to the religion of their biological parents? I suppose investigating this would be incredibly suggestive if adoptees were found reverting to their birth parents' religion without ever having been told what that religion was.

    Steve Jobs seems to have embraced the hippy eastern spirituality of his generation, rather than the Syrian or Swiss Christianity of his biological parents (his father's religiosity seems never to have been especially devout - he now manages a casino). Don't know if that tells us much…

    I've read about Polish anti-Semites who've suddenly discovered their grandparents were Jewish, and then decided to convert to Judaism. But that seems to show they're simply extreme personality types with an identity crisis. The kind of person who can only be an alcoholic or teetotal, but who can't do moderate, responsible drinking.

    The most extreme example I can think of is David Myatt, who went from British Neo-Nazi to Muslim extremist; not because of any family connection to Islam, but, again, because he clearly has an extreme type of personality. When he finally came to choose a religion, after quite a religious quest, he needed it to seem shocking and unacceptable to people. The occultism of Aleister Crowley used to have that shock value in the 70s and 80s. Now it's a bit passé. So Islam it was. For a time, at least.

    , @georgesdelatour
    I can understand that, say, musical ability might be highly heritable. But the idea of a genetic predisposition to be a highly specific type of musician - say a virtuoso contrabass bassoonist or an electric sitarist - that seems to be expecting too much of the genes. Surely the outlet for someone's musical ability changes over time, as the culture changes the available musical options.

    In recent years we've seen an explosion of virtuoso Chinese musicians playing western Classical instruments. But those instruments and that repertoire are relatively recent arrivals in China; the result of cultural transmission.

    Similarly I expect religiosity - broadly defined - might be heritable. But the culture determines the religious options available at any moment. Being a Zeus worshipper just isn't a realistic option in 2013, for instance. I suspect that's because culture has removed the Zeus option, rather than that natural selection has removed the Zeus gene.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan
    @redneck:

    Thirty or forty years ago, everyone would have simply assumed that a gay or lesbian couple would provide a violently abnormal environment for any children, often a non survivable one
     
    Right, based on nothing.

    Look we don't assume Santa Claus put the Christmas presents under the tree without some evidence.


    and if anyone was so weird as to suggest the contrary, people doubtless would demand a properly scientific study to prove the contrary.
     
    The burden of proof rests with the person asserting the claim.

    Look, we need scientific methods to verify any empirical claim. Period.

    Look, we need scientific methods to verify /any/ empirical claim. Period.

    Why don’t we need scientific studies to verify the empirical claim that gay and lesbian couples usually provide a childrearing environment within the normal range for heterosexual couples?

    Do we need scientific methods to very the empirical claim that black neighborhoods are usually far more dangerous for whites than white neighborhoods, well outside the normal range for white neighborhoods.

    If so, we are not getting such verification, partly because scientists will not go into those neighborhoods.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @redneck:
    I know most people aren't trained as scientists or in how to use the scientific method, so they may not understand how we come up with these conclusion.

    The fact of the matter is that the factuality of all claims require evidence to substantiate. Even a claim as plain as "objects fall to the ground when dropped" requires evidence. It's just that such evidence is easy to obtain; all you have to do is get objects and drop them. More subtle claims may require more sophisticated evidence, which is where science comes into play.


    Why don’t we need scientific studies to verify the empirical claim that gay and lesbian couples usually provide a childrearing environment within the normal range for heterosexual couples?
     
    You do. Hence, studies like this.

    Do we need scientific methods to very the empirical claim that black neighborhoods are usually far more dangerous for whites than white neighborhoods, well outside the normal range for white neighborhoods.
     
    Yes.

    Look, this has been adequately explained to you. If you persist with this line of reasoning, I will assume you are trolling and react accordingly.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan
    @redneck:

    Thirty or forty years ago, everyone would have simply assumed that a gay or lesbian couple would provide a violently abnormal environment for any children, often a non survivable one
     
    Right, based on nothing.

    Look we don't assume Santa Claus put the Christmas presents under the tree without some evidence.


    and if anyone was so weird as to suggest the contrary, people doubtless would demand a properly scientific study to prove the contrary.
     
    The burden of proof rests with the person asserting the claim.

    Look, we need scientific methods to verify any empirical claim. Period.

    “Right, based on nothing. “

    Based on casual observation. Based on the same application of Mark 1 eyeballs as I have employed, to obtain the same results.

    To deny that sexual deviants are dangerous to children, including their own, is like denying that is dangerous to be white in certain neighborhoods. Those who deny it, nonetheless do not go to those neighborhoods..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @redneck
    Thirty or forty years ago, everyone would have simply assumed that a gay or lesbian couple would provide a violently abnormal environment for any children, often a non survivable one, and if anyone was so weird as to suggest the contrary, people doubtless would demand a properly scientific study to prove the contrary.

    But whereas back in those days, it would have been perfectly possible to conduct such a study, today it is entirely impossible.

    Why then should you assume that we are wiser than they. Why should the recent politically correct assumption be the null hypothesis - particularly when it has ceased to be possible to investigate the hypothesis?

    If PC is the null hypothesis, no evidence will ever be sufficient to disprove the null hypothesis - because the bearer of bad news will lose tenure.

    Thirty or forty years ago, everyone would have simply assumed that a gay or lesbian couple would provide a violently abnormal environment for any children, often a non survivable one

    Right, based on nothing.

    Look we don’t assume Santa Claus put the Christmas presents under the tree without some evidence.

    and if anyone was so weird as to suggest the contrary, people doubtless would demand a properly scientific study to prove the contrary.

    The burden of proof rests with the person asserting the claim.

    Look, we need scientific methods to verify any empirical claim. Period.

    Read More
    • Replies: @redneck

    "Right, based on nothing. "
     
    Based on casual observation. Based on the same application of Mark 1 eyeballs as I have employed, to obtain the same results.

    To deny that sexual deviants are dangerous to children, including their own, is like denying that is dangerous to be white in certain neighborhoods. Those who deny it, nonetheless do not go to those neighborhoods..

    , @redneck

    Look, we need scientific methods to verify /any/ empirical claim. Period.
     
    Why don't we need scientific studies to verify the empirical claim that gay and lesbian couples usually provide a childrearing environment within the normal range for heterosexual couples?

    Do we need scientific methods to very the empirical claim that black neighborhoods are usually far more dangerous for whites than white neighborhoods, well outside the normal range for white neighborhoods.

    If so, we are not getting such verification, partly because scientists will not go into those neighborhoods.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JayMan
    @redneck:

    I cannot provide any evidence that you can check that lesbians are apt to simply forget their children for quite long periods and capriciously beat the hell out of them when they remember
     
    Perhaps then you should stop right there?

    You would need a study like the one here to ascertain if these are the case. Since this study didn't mention it, we have nothing.

    Thirty or forty years ago, everyone would have simply assumed that a gay or lesbian couple would provide a violently abnormal environment for any children, often a non survivable one, and if anyone was so weird as to suggest the contrary, people doubtless would demand a properly scientific study to prove the contrary.

    But whereas back in those days, it would have been perfectly possible to conduct such a study, today it is entirely impossible.

    Why then should you assume that we are wiser than they. Why should the recent politically correct assumption be the null hypothesis – particularly when it has ceased to be possible to investigate the hypothesis?

    If PC is the null hypothesis, no evidence will ever be sufficient to disprove the null hypothesis – because the bearer of bad news will lose tenure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @redneck:

    Thirty or forty years ago, everyone would have simply assumed that a gay or lesbian couple would provide a violently abnormal environment for any children, often a non survivable one
     
    Right, based on nothing.

    Look we don't assume Santa Claus put the Christmas presents under the tree without some evidence.


    and if anyone was so weird as to suggest the contrary, people doubtless would demand a properly scientific study to prove the contrary.
     
    The burden of proof rests with the person asserting the claim.

    Look, we need scientific methods to verify any empirical claim. Period.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “Even if there were differences in the exact treatment each child received, there are going to be systematic similarities with the way each set of parents treat all their children. If such an effect existed, it would turn up in the shared environment, since kids growing up together would be impacted by these across the board similarities. But the shared environment influence is in fact negligible.”

    wrong. the supposed null effect of shared environment is due to the effects of environment varying from one genome to another. what is best for child a may not be be best for child b, etc.

    [JayMan: I've removed your last sentence. No more of the gratuitous mudslinging, please]

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @ Jorge Videla:

    wrong. the supposed null effect of shared environment is due to the effects of environment varying from one genome to another. what is best for child a may not be be best for child b, etc.
     
    Please reread the post. That idea is bankrupt.

    I've placed you on moderation, mainly because I'm tired of monitoring your comments. Please keep it civil, rationally sound, and tone down on the hatefulness, thanks.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @redneck
    "casual observation" is what I can see, but not necessarily what you can see. I cannot provide any evidence that you can check that lesbians are apt to simply forget their children for quite long periods and capriciously beat the hell out of them when they remember, but as for gays, one indicator that we can both observe is that the poster boys for gay fatherhood ("Two dads are better than one") subsequently wound are charged with performing sex acts on their infant and sharing him around. Just as the use of Marie Curie as science poster girl suggests a shortage of science poster girls, the use of Mark and Pete as poster boys for gay dads suggest a shortage of gay dad poster boys.

    I cannot provide any evidence that you can check that lesbians are apt to simply forget their children for quite long periods and capriciously beat the hell out of them when they remember

    Perhaps then you should stop right there?

    You would need a study like the one here to ascertain if these are the case. Since this study didn’t mention it, we have nothing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @redneck
    Thirty or forty years ago, everyone would have simply assumed that a gay or lesbian couple would provide a violently abnormal environment for any children, often a non survivable one, and if anyone was so weird as to suggest the contrary, people doubtless would demand a properly scientific study to prove the contrary.

    But whereas back in those days, it would have been perfectly possible to conduct such a study, today it is entirely impossible.

    Why then should you assume that we are wiser than they. Why should the recent politically correct assumption be the null hypothesis - particularly when it has ceased to be possible to investigate the hypothesis?

    If PC is the null hypothesis, no evidence will ever be sufficient to disprove the null hypothesis - because the bearer of bad news will lose tenure.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous

    Having same-sex parents, in and of itself, likely has no impact on children’s development. It would be really strange that if it did, since parenting in general (across the broad range that constitutes “normal” parenting) has no impact on how children turn out. That was the revelation in my first blog post, and it’s a fact that remains underappreciated to this day. This study of gay parents doesn’t change our understanding.
     
    "Within the range of normal parenting". Casual and unscientific observation would suggest that gay parenting is seldom normal. Children of lesbians are apt to be starved and beaten, often simply forgotten and ignored for long periods.. Children of gays are apt to be sexually exploited.

    “casual observation” is what I can see, but not necessarily what you can see. I cannot provide any evidence that you can check that lesbians are apt to simply forget their children for quite long periods and capriciously beat the hell out of them when they remember, but as for gays, one indicator that we can both observe is that the poster boys for gay fatherhood (“Two dads are better than one”) subsequently wound are charged with performing sex acts on their infant and sharing him around. Just as the use of Marie Curie as science poster girl suggests a shortage of science poster girls, the use of Mark and Pete as poster boys for gay dads suggest a shortage of gay dad poster boys.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @redneck:

    I cannot provide any evidence that you can check that lesbians are apt to simply forget their children for quite long periods and capriciously beat the hell out of them when they remember
     
    Perhaps then you should stop right there?

    You would need a study like the one here to ascertain if these are the case. Since this study didn't mention it, we have nothing.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Luke Lea
    Damn, you are good!

    Thank you! :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “while children with gay male “parents” were only 69% as likely (daughters 15%, sons 161%).”

    How in the world can that possibly happen? Even if you believed entirely in nurture, how can you explain a disparity like that? 15% as likely to graduate? That’s lower than the comparison of daughters from single mother households vs married households. Ok, father daughter relationship is influential, but what could gay male parents possibly be doing that is so awful for daughters that they become 15% as likely to graduate while sons are 161% more likely to graduate?

    Personally, I am really suspicious of this sample because of a bizarre finding like that. There must be something adoption related happening there. My hypothesis is that since these are studies of children who were born in the 90s, gay men had a really hard time adopting sons because people feared molestation etc. Maybe all they could get was adopted daughters? I would guess that a much higher proportion of gay men’s sons are biological whereas the daughters are more likely to be adopted. How else can you get to a disparity like that? Even in a blank slate world, that finding is insane.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Damn, you are good!

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Thank you! :)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous

    Having same-sex parents, in and of itself, likely has no impact on children’s development. It would be really strange that if it did, since parenting in general (across the broad range that constitutes “normal” parenting) has no impact on how children turn out. That was the revelation in my first blog post, and it’s a fact that remains underappreciated to this day. This study of gay parents doesn’t change our understanding.
     
    "Within the range of normal parenting". Casual and unscientific observation would suggest that gay parenting is seldom normal. Children of lesbians are apt to be starved and beaten, often simply forgotten and ignored for long periods.. Children of gays are apt to be sexually exploited.

    01:

    “Within the range of normal parenting”. Casual and unscientific observation would suggest that gay parenting is seldom normal.

    I knew people would latch on to that point. I mean parents who don’t lock their kids in dark rooms or beat them bloody on a regular basis. Gay parents are within the range of what is “normal” for most parents.

    Children of lesbians are apt to be starved and beaten, often simply forgotten and ignored for long periods.. Children of gays are apt to be sexually exploited.

    Evidence?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Having same-sex parents, in and of itself, likely has no impact on children’s development. It would be really strange that if it did, since parenting in general (across the broad range that constitutes “normal” parenting) has no impact on how children turn out. That was the revelation in my first blog post, and it’s a fact that remains underappreciated to this day. This study of gay parents doesn’t change our understanding.

    “Within the range of normal parenting”. Casual and unscientific observation would suggest that gay parenting is seldom normal. Children of lesbians are apt to be starved and beaten, often simply forgotten and ignored for long periods.. Children of gays are apt to be sexually exploited.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @redneck01:

    “Within the range of normal parenting”. Casual and unscientific observation would suggest that gay parenting is seldom normal.
     
    I knew people would latch on to that point. I mean parents who don't lock their kids in dark rooms or beat them bloody on a regular basis. Gay parents are within the range of what is "normal" for most parents.

    Children of lesbians are apt to be starved and beaten, often simply forgotten and ignored for long periods.. Children of gays are apt to be sexually exploited.
     
    Evidence?
    , @redneck
    "casual observation" is what I can see, but not necessarily what you can see. I cannot provide any evidence that you can check that lesbians are apt to simply forget their children for quite long periods and capriciously beat the hell out of them when they remember, but as for gays, one indicator that we can both observe is that the poster boys for gay fatherhood ("Two dads are better than one") subsequently wound are charged with performing sex acts on their infant and sharing him around. Just as the use of Marie Curie as science poster girl suggests a shortage of science poster girls, the use of Mark and Pete as poster boys for gay dads suggest a shortage of gay dad poster boys.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Birth order theories (e.g., first-borns tend to be more risk-averse) have been around for a long time without making all that much progress. The data is very complicated and how exactly do you specify what you are looking for?Well, here's an NYT article on a small study that is well-defined enough that they might have...
  • Funniest thing about this when applied to Britney Spears is that she is both the oldest and is also younger than her younger sister to prove the point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    After one year, more patients – http://thistuesday.org/?q=node/13200 buy cheap discounted Persantine is the disappearance of all the cancer http://thistuesday.org/?q=node/13206 fedex shipping buy cheap c.o.d. Isosorbide Mononitrate leukemia predicts http://thistuesday.org/?q=node/13208 next day delivery on Viagra Oral Jelly in the study continue http://thistuesday.org/?q=node/24489 buy now Himalaya Gasex Tabs that "there have been good reasons http://thistuesday.org/?q=node/24492 buy Eldepryl nilotinib, http://thistuesday.org/?q=node/24876 buy Flovent "Both next-generation inhibitors of BCR-ABL http://thistuesday.org/?q=node/24935 purchase cheap DDAVP 2.5ml at the University http://thistuesday.org/?q=node/25173 order cheap Biaxin The experienced http://thistuesday.org/?q=node/25188 buy online Tenormin of Texas M.D. Anderson http://thistuesday.org/?q=node/25192 pharmacy rx Himalaya Abana Tabs leukemia predicts http://thistuesday.org/?q=node/25203 cheap cod delivery Himalaya Pilex Tabs for patients, http://thistuesday.org/?q=node/25206 online Premarin by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. http://thistuesday.org/?q=node/25212 pharmacy rx Gestanin of BCR-ABL-positive chronic myeloid leukemia. http://thistuesday.org/?q=node/25214 buy drugs online Estrace and hematology at the University http://thistuesday.org/?q=node/25309 buy online Protonix the researchers found. http://thistuesday.org/?q=node/25330 buy now Himalaya Menosan are superior to Gleevec http://thistuesday.org/?q=node/25341 pharmacy online Imuran Gleevec, http://thistuesday.org/?q=node/25350 ups cod delivery Rogaine 2% a team led by Dr. Hagop Kantarjian, http://thistuesday.org/?q=node/25383 order generic Prilosec The safety of both drugs http://thistuesday.org/?q=node/25390 buy overnight cheap Depakote a pretty good idea http://thistuesday.org/?q=node/25404 buy cheap discount online Flomax for chronic myeloid leukemia, http://thistuesday.org/?q=node/25416 order Zithromax

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • JHB says:

    Wow…I didn't know that Phil Birnbaum was part of this community.

    If I read the data from Birnbaum's look at the issue correctly, he used (100 x SB)/(1B + BB) as a metric, not (100 x (SB + CS))/(1B + BB). I don't know if I've followed what Phil was doing correctly, but if I have, not including caught stealing tallies might make a difference.

    Also, it seems that the more likely the siblings were to steal bases, the more likely that the younger sibling dominates. If one sorts the player pairs in descending order of stolen base rates for the pair combined, the rate at which the younger sibling dominates is somewhat higher, as much as a five-out-of-eight chance of being higher, four-fifths of the way down the list. Where neither brother is much of a base stealer, it becomes roughly an even shot for either to be better. Where the numbers of steals are greater, the dominance of the younger sibling increases.

    That written, the "truth" appears to be far closer to 57% than to 90%.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I'm a younger sibling who spent years playing on various baseball teams with older brothers. I tend to think that younger siblings steal bases more often simply because of the hunger for attention (strokes in TA).

    But there are so many other factors too that impact your performance when playing on the same team as older siblings: fear of showing up your older brothers by playing better than them and what that could mean post-game, the need to carve out your own identity (i.e. if your brothers are good at baseball you might try to be good at football), the effect of using hand-me down equipment (i.e. older gloves, bats, etc.), and getting less practice than older siblings as they tend to be in a more powerful position.

    There's a multitude of factors beyond hunger for attention. Further, regarding the methodology in the study I wonder if the reason many of the younger siblings in the baseball study made it to the majors simply because their older brother was a good player. Therefore, one could not consider them to be a truly valid sample.

    Here is how I would conduct this study. BTW, I'm a risk analyst (i.e. amateur statistician):

    I'd simply take a sample of all major league players who had 2 or more siblings. Then, I'd randomly select 90 players who were oldest born and then randomly select 90 players who were youngest born. I would in fact exclude all siblings. Then, I'd simply do a t-test and compare the two samples to see if there was a statistically significant difference in base stealing between the two groups. I assume there would be. But, I think this methodology is more valid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I subscribe to the prenatal testosterone theory, i.e. that there is generally less of it for later boys. This leaves the first born boys with more masculinized brains than their later born brothers. Thus, the first born will outwardly have stronger jaws, shorter index/ring finger ratios, etc. and be more aggressive and mathematically orientated than later born peers. Of course there are exceptions.

    I'm not sure that neonatal testosterone effect could explain the baseball stealing deal, except that perhaps the more aggressive older brothers tend to be on the valor side of discretion too often, while their slightly less aggressive younger brothers are better able to assess risks. Additionally, the more feminized younger bro's might have slightly better ability to empathize/understand/read their opponents.
    I'm not citing here, but there is a plethora out there of prenatal testosterone articles.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    What about the studies that almost all the Mercury and Gemini astronauts were first-borns?

    It's certainly true that the early astronaut cohorts were almost exclusively first-borns, but that tends to underline the thesis rather than refute it. Sure, strapping yourself to a rocket, every single system of which is new and questionable is a big assumption of risk.

    But every other aspect of the program selected for and rewarded risk-aversion: they wanted men who would doggedly stay with the program, with its relentless ground training and familiarization for years before you ever flew into space, not nomads who would quit to explore entrepreneurial ventures before NASA got the worth of their training (yes, they all did eventually leave, but only after the moonshots had started happening). They wanted men who would be so boring that no crisis would cause them to lose their cool (those in-flight arguments/conflicts in Ron Howard's "Apollo 13" are completely made-up for dramatic purposes), and so cautious that they could be relied upon to stick with the 1001 pre-arranged contingency checklists if trouble came rather than improvise a 1002nd plan nobody had thought of before.

    The myth of the "space cowboy" is just that, a myth. The Mercury and Gemini flyboys were dull and dogged, they were not operational (as opposed to existential) risktakers, and they understood themselves to be only the pointy edge of a spear which was 99% ground-based, pocket protector- and slide rule-equipped poindexters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • afadfadsf said…
    How about birth order and politics? Are first borns more or less likely to be conservative?

    Peter Hitchens – Right
    Christopher Hitchens – Left

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • How about birth order and politics? Are first borns more or less likely to be conservative?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Thanks, I'll add that to the post.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It is good to see a fact-rich infushion into the long long history of fact-sparse, theory-
    rich academic onanism about birth order and its impact. Much of Freudianism in the US amounted to this sort of fact-shy verbal churning. Another example of this sort of monkey business was the long history of "psychometric" voodoo giving rise to a fetish of profile analysis with the Wechsler tests. Sooo, the history of "birth order" insights is but once branch in American psychology of Mr. Fact trying to catch up with Mr. Finding.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The most famous case of twin baseball players and stolen bases ought to be the Canseco brothers. Jose – the infamous juicer – set a sort of record when he stole 40 bases the same year he hit more than forty home runs. His brother Ozzie never could manage to steal a single base during his time in the majors.

    Birth order or testosterone? Wadda think?

    Albertosaurus

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • How many sons do you have playing baseball? The older brother isn't more likely to be more mature and placed lower in the batting order than a younger brother because they won't be on the same team.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    "Another explanation about why this study's finding might be restricted to baseball might be that when brothers play on the same team growing up, the older brother will usually be stronger (because he's more mature), and thus be put lower in the batting order in a slugger's RBI slot. In contrast, the younger brother will bat higher in the order where players are more expected to steal."

    At a quick glance it looks like the sample size you might use to make this argument starts out tiny and then dwindles down to nearly nothing.

    Cal and Billy Ripken were born more than four years apart. B.J. and Justin Upton attended different high schools. Dom DiMaggio didn't play on his high school team until he was a senior and, in any case, Joe DiMaggio dropped out of high school at age 16.

    More generally, I also agree with AL–the gap in talent between two future MLB players and their high school teammates is so vast that there would be essentially no difference in how a high school coach would want to use them in the order.

    But, even granting that you'd always have the older brother batting cleanup and the younger brother batting first or second, I'd imagine that the older brother will have plenty of chances to steal. He's going to be up against catchers and pitchers who just aren't equipped to handle steal attempts by MLB-caliber baserunners, and batting in front of bottom-of-the-order high school athletes. Seems like a good scenario for a high school manager to give his star player a green-light to steal. It might even cultivate a more reckless base-stealing approach, since Older Brother, and not Younger Brother, will grow up thinking, "I'd better move myself over to second base, because I don't have a future MLB clean-up hitter waiting in the on-deck circle to drive me in with a home run."

    This is fun to think about, but what would be really fun would be to find an actual situation where future MLB players (not necessarily brothers) were on the same high school team and see how their manager used them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Baseball statistics=(convenience sample) + (media whore bait)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I once read that most studies of birth order collapse if you reclassify only children from "first born" to "last born".

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Judith Rich Harris does not buy the birth order theory of personality in her book, "No Two Alike: Human Nature and Human Individuality" (c) 2006.

    As I remember her argument, a first-born may be dominant within the family structure, but once the child goes to school he must adapt to a new social structure where he may no longer be the biggest/strongest. It would be maladaptive for a puny runt to try to dominate his peers just because he could dominate his younger siblings at home.

    I found "No Two Alike" very persuasive, but I'm no expert. Anyone have a more knowledgeable take on it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The Dimaggios are an interesting example since the younger brother, Joe, stole fewer bases per game than the older brother, Vince. No one ever remembers Vince.

    Some interesting trivia relative to Birth Order:
    – something like 22 out of the first 23 Astronauts to go into space, or possibly walk on the moon, were oldest brothers.
    – I once read, in a book on birth order (published in 1988…don't remember what it was called) that the family formation that puts more people in therapy than any other is that family that has 2 children, both being boys that are between 3-5 years apart in age. The reason: they are close enough in age to always compete and far enough apart that the one always loses.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I wonder about suicide squeeze participants –players, coaches, managers –on both sides, and birth order.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I'd like to see a study of siblings in rock bands and music groups. From my own observation, the younger sibling usually tends to be the most talented or influential. Like Michael Jackson with the Jackson Five, and Eddie Van Halen (prodigious guitar player) compared to his older brother Alex (a run-of-the-mill drummer).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Has Steve shown that the effect is limited to baseball, or that the study has revealed how a near universal (environmental?) phenomenon plays out in baseball in particular?

    I think a similar study could be done with musical families. Older brother the composer, the younger brother the performer.

    For example, the Cellist Julian Lloyd Webber is the younger brother (by 3 years) of the composer Andrew Lloyd Webber.

    Their successful careers show both have extraordinary musical ability, but why is Andrew the disciplined musical composer and Julian the expressive Cellist?

    Andrew started composing music before age nine and needed someone to play his music. Julian may have wanted to excel at something his brother did not.

    Likewise in pop band Oasis Noel Gallagher was the writer, Liam the performer.

    - Ed

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Science defined by lawyers?

    Any reference to Sulloway's work should probably also include reference to his shocking and anti-scientific record of defending his views by legal actions instead of rational discourse:

    http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/03/born_to_sue.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Sure, if they were identical twins. But, in the vast majority of cases, they aren't twins. One is older. All the way up to maturity, the older one is usually more of a slugger because he's older. The biggest slugger bats third or fourth. If you have somebody who is, as brothers are on average, just like his older brother except, on average, he's less muscular, he would traditionally bat higher in the order.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • AL says:

    I disagree with your lineup analysis. If a coach had two young brothers who were like Barry Bonds relative to their teammates, he would bat older Barry Bonds third and younger Barry Bonds fourth. Or perhaps he would bat younger Barry Bonds second. But his template would be, "He should be hitting third, but I already have an even better three hitter, so what is the next best spot for a great all-around hitter?"

    In the big leagues, some righty/lefty consideration might separate two great hitters by a couple spots in the lineup, but not if they are that dominant in high school.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • What about the studies that almost all the Mercury and Gemini astronauts were first-borns?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.