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

 Remember My Information

Topics Filter?
 Teasers[email protected] Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
🔊 Listen RSS

Heritability estimates are slippery animals, but this recent PNAS paper is a great illustration of how they can be used to discipline theories of social network formation. The authors start by showing that three building blocks of social networks are heritable, namely the number of friends you have, the number of people who name you as a friend, and the likelihood that two of your friends are also friends. They then ask if existing theories of social network formation are consistent with empirical fact that a large share of individual variation in these buildling blocks is explained by individual characteristics. Perhaps not too surprisingly to readers of this blog, a model which allows individuals to differ ex ante does considerably better than models which make a blank slate assumption. The paper also fits in nicely in the tradition of behavior genetic work which emphasizes how people based on their inherited traits self-select into particular environments. Razib pointed out the other day that we can taxonomize traits into those whose genetic architecture we understand pretty well (skin coloration) and those that are still a puzzla (IQ). I am curious to see where the social network building blocks fit in. I have no doubt we will have the answer to this question very soon.

• Category: Science • Tags: Behavior Genetics 
🔊 Listen RSS

It is good news that the social scientists are finally starting to think seriously about genetic variation and social behavior. This latest Science paper by UCSD political scientists James Fowler and Darren Schreiber is a case in point. A key argument they make in the paper is that political scientists cannot ignore behavior genetics because genetic variation is so ubiquitous also in political “phenotypes”. (Of course, it was Alford, Funk and Hibbing who got the ball rolling, though Nick Martin had reported pretty much the same findings some twenty years earlier, but not in a political science journal). The paper then goes on to argue that an evolutionarily and biologically informed political science is the way of the future.

Sympathetic though I am to the behavior (and molecular) genetic work currently being undertaken by political scientists, I still think that it is unfortunate that it has no serious critics within the political science community. Evan Charney at Duke University has made some attempts to fill the void with a pretty standard attack on twin studies, but let us be charitable and say that he has not been particularly successful. The best argument against heritability estimates is not that they are wrong, but that they are not as structurally informative as is sometimes supposed. This is an argument that needs to be taken seriously. We can quibble about functional form and independence assumptions, the equal environment assumption, and the blatantly false assumption that all gene action is additive. In the end, it will not alter the fact that there is moderate genetic variation in virtually every trait you study.

The deeper question is this: what does it mean that a complex trait such as voting, the strength of partisanship, or attittudes toward abortion, say, are heritable, beyond the obvious but important implication that we can’t interpret parent-child associations in environmental terms? It seems like a stretch to expect that there are genes with a proximal relationship to voting behavior, though of course the indirect effects of the genome can be developed through genome-level influences on intelligence and personality which in turn, ultimately, affect voting. But what are these mechanisms? Unless we know what they are, can heritability estimates be used to discipline any of the political science models?

These are all fascinating questions and Fowler and colleagues are only beginning to uncover the answers. I anticipate that Fowler and his partners in crime will continue to leave a trail of evidence from which we can build an even stronger case for a political science which does not make assumptions that are at odds with stylized facts from behavior genetics. Or, for that matter, at odds with facts derived from any of the other scientific disciplines from which the “genopolitics” crowd draw inspiration.

• Category: Science 
🔊 Listen RSS

Here is a nice follow-up to the Herbert and Coates study on London floor traders where they study the profitability of traders and testosterone levels. In this new paper, “Testosterone and Financial Risk Preferences”, available on the website on one of the authors, a Harvard-led team of researchers report that men with higher T make more financially risky decisions. They are careful to note that it is merely an association. But it is a start. The slam dunk paper that remains to be written is one with exogenous administration of testosterone (and placebo). That would hopefully settle the causality issue (and might therefore excite the imaginations of some economists!). There are some interesting ideas in the manuscript about financial-risk taking as a form of male-male competition.

• Category: Economics, Science • Tags: Economics 
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution