RSS
A few days ago a reader asked for a basic definition of terms which might allow for easier digestion of some of my posts. An easy answer would be to buy Principles of Population Genetics. But barring that what are the basic terms that readers think are useful? For example, it seems likely that allele, haplotype, and selective sweep, would be the sort of basic vocabulary that would help in understanding the posts. On the other hand the coalescent less so, since it doesn’t come up explicitly very often.
In other news, I recently purchased Wakely’s Coalescent Theory: An Introduction and Roff’s Modeling Evolution: An Introduction to Numerical Methods. I also am receiving a review copy of Nessa Carey’s Junk DNA: A Journey Through the Dark Matter of the Genome. Mildly skeptical of the title, though titles aren’t often under the author’s control. This seems to have been what happened with Pat Shipman’s The Invaders: How Humans and Their Dogs Drove Neanderthals to Extinction, which is far less about our canine companions than you’d think. One major issue is that many classic texts don’t include extensive treatment of genomics, which is pretty essential to understanding many of the more science oriented posts here.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Having purchased said Principles of Population Genetics on the strength of your recommandation, I can attest it makes a lot of terminology and automatic assumptions clearer.
I have been reading Ian Morris’ latest book, Foragers, Farmers, and Fossil Fuels: How Human Values Evolve. I got through the main part of his arguments, which Razib might find interesting, since Morris makes some of the same points that Razib has in that the relative freedom offered by fossil fuel-using societies has allowed people to revive some of the mores more common in foraging societies that were suppressed by farming. On the other hand, the book has some problems, mostly caused by vagueness as to what “values” refers to, or ought to refer to. Morris, taking up an avowedly functionalist point of view, doesn’t seem to allow that there might be conflict between what people feel to be right and what they actually must do in order to survive. The problems surrounding the word “values” comes up in some of the rebuttals by the other authors, which I am currently reading, although the rebuttals don’t offer too much value, in my opinion.
Anyway, it is a very interesting book and I have a lot more thoughts on it than can be summarized here. It’d be nice if some people here looked into it.
bought it
awesome!
Hi Razib,
I’m a college student who is currently studying biology with the intention of becoming a population genetics.
I just have a few questions:
1. Are you going to write a post on the importance of population genetics to society one of these days? I’m just curious because a lot of people tell me they don’t think population genetics has any benefits to society or health and criticize my decision to study it.
2. My favorite posts on your blog are those that deal with the genetics of race/ethnicity. However, I am curious about what you think of this paper by Alan Templeton: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/
3. Is it really true that most of the genetic variation in humans is within a population as opposed to between populations?
Thanks
genomics without population genetics is poor. try to make sense of how valid imputation is without knowing something about pop gen.
2. My favorite posts on your blog are those that deal with the genetics of race/ethnicity. However, I am curious about what you think of this paper by Alan Templeton: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/
a semantic argument. though the point that most humans are not treelike is an important one, makes us think more deeply about what 'races' are and what they mean. google jerry coyne and race for something close to my current take.
3. Is it really true that most of the genetic variation in humans is within a population as opposed to between populations?
on the whole genome level, in general, yes.Replies: @Jim W
It's more that it's often accompanied by the small-minded, categorical, Platonic, argument-stopping and fallacious conclusion, often accompanied by a "sigh", that therefore there can be no such thing as grouping of genetically-based traits across populations.
A footnote, RK, We need a footnote!.
In short, what’s with the asterisk?
In short, what's with the asterisk?Replies: @Razib Khan
lol. i must have switched drafts and forgotten what i was going to put there. will remove.
I'm a college student who is currently studying biology with the intention of becoming a population genetics.
I just have a few questions:
1. Are you going to write a post on the importance of population genetics to society one of these days? I'm just curious because a lot of people tell me they don't think population genetics has any benefits to society or health and criticize my decision to study it.
2. My favorite posts on your blog are those that deal with the genetics of race/ethnicity. However, I am curious about what you think of this paper by Alan Templeton: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/
3. Is it really true that most of the genetic variation in humans is within a population as opposed to between populations?
ThanksReplies: @Razib Khan, @Jim W
1. Are you going to write a post on the importance of population genetics to society one of these days? I’m just curious because a lot of people tell me they don’t think population genetics has any benefits to society or health and criticize my decision to study it.
genomics without population genetics is poor. try to make sense of how valid imputation is without knowing something about pop gen.
2. My favorite posts on your blog are those that deal with the genetics of race/ethnicity. However, I am curious about what you think of this paper by Alan Templeton: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/
a semantic argument. though the point that most humans are not treelike is an important one, makes us think more deeply about what ‘races’ are and what they mean. google jerry coyne and race for something close to my current take.
3. Is it really true that most of the genetic variation in humans is within a population as opposed to between populations?
on the whole genome level, in general, yes.
Broadly speaking, it seems that findings of genetic differences are given more weight as opposed to psychometric differences, perhaps because they seem more concrete. This seems backwards at present, with population genetics more in its infancy than psychometrics.
I am reading Jensen's book on 'g' (based on Rhazib's goodreads rating), and it's very good so far. He seems like a really good researcher, presenting a nice history in the field, with lots of math justifying the use of a single factor 'g' for IQ.
I don't think most people realize how solid psychometric results are that are based on things like reaction times. For example, there is newer research where, by looking at reaction times in combination with an attention manipulation (by simply varying the size of a visual stimulus) they get correlation with 'g' above r=.7, and this is for a simple sensory discrimination task. No "thinking" is even involved.Replies: @Yudi, @Razib Khan
I could use a primer on the term ” linkage disequilibrium”
Plus genotype, phenotype, haplogroup…we could scratch around and come up with a very long list of terms it would be useful to define for someone who is interested in pop gen and genealogical stuff, but honestly – the simplest thing is when someone is reading a piece and comes across a term he doesn’t understand, Wikipedia generally has an adequate and comprehensible definition. For someone coming to science that is new to him, to at least some extent, he has to accept that he needs to read himself into the science, at least at a basic level.
Even now I find myself going back and re-reading definitions to remind myself of meaning, because of my late entry – read On the Origin of Species when I was 12 years old, then nothing, zilch, zero until 13 years ago. I had no interest in Biology at all until this started.
genomics without population genetics is poor. try to make sense of how valid imputation is without knowing something about pop gen.
2. My favorite posts on your blog are those that deal with the genetics of race/ethnicity. However, I am curious about what you think of this paper by Alan Templeton: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/
a semantic argument. though the point that most humans are not treelike is an important one, makes us think more deeply about what 'races' are and what they mean. google jerry coyne and race for something close to my current take.
3. Is it really true that most of the genetic variation in humans is within a population as opposed to between populations?
on the whole genome level, in general, yes.Replies: @Jim W
I like most of what Jerry Coyne writes in his race post, except he seems completely unaware of psychometric research about racial differences in IQ.
Broadly speaking, it seems that findings of genetic differences are given more weight as opposed to psychometric differences, perhaps because they seem more concrete. This seems backwards at present, with population genetics more in its infancy than psychometrics.
I am reading Jensen’s book on ‘g’ (based on Rhazib’s goodreads rating), and it’s very good so far. He seems like a really good researcher, presenting a nice history in the field, with lots of math justifying the use of a single factor ‘g’ for IQ.
I don’t think most people realize how solid psychometric results are that are based on things like reaction times. For example, there is newer research where, by looking at reaction times in combination with an attention manipulation (by simply varying the size of a visual stimulus) they get correlation with ‘g’ above r=.7, and this is for a simple sensory discrimination task. No “thinking” is even involved.
As for books on IQ, I learned of a good one from James Thompson's site: Human Intelligence by Earl Hunt. It's a good overview of both the tests themselves, the latest psychometrics research, and what real-life traits the tests correlate with. It's newer than Jensen's book and more cautious in its conclusions, but still a very good introduction to the field.Replies: @Jim W
don't agree with this. they both arose in the early 20th century (and to some extent francis galton influenced both).
I don’t think most people realize how solid psychometric results are that are based on things like reaction times
most people are totally ignorant of psychometrics. agreed.
I'm a college student who is currently studying biology with the intention of becoming a population genetics.
I just have a few questions:
1. Are you going to write a post on the importance of population genetics to society one of these days? I'm just curious because a lot of people tell me they don't think population genetics has any benefits to society or health and criticize my decision to study it.
2. My favorite posts on your blog are those that deal with the genetics of race/ethnicity. However, I am curious about what you think of this paper by Alan Templeton: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/
3. Is it really true that most of the genetic variation in humans is within a population as opposed to between populations?
ThanksReplies: @Razib Khan, @Jim W
My problem with the whole “there’s no such thing as race” dogma, is not with the details of the arguments: how tree-like, how much differentiation, over what spans of time, etc.
It’s more that it’s often accompanied by the small-minded, categorical, Platonic, argument-stopping and fallacious conclusion, often accompanied by a “sigh”, that therefore there can be no such thing as grouping of genetically-based traits across populations.
Broadly speaking, it seems that findings of genetic differences are given more weight as opposed to psychometric differences, perhaps because they seem more concrete. This seems backwards at present, with population genetics more in its infancy than psychometrics.
I am reading Jensen's book on 'g' (based on Rhazib's goodreads rating), and it's very good so far. He seems like a really good researcher, presenting a nice history in the field, with lots of math justifying the use of a single factor 'g' for IQ.
I don't think most people realize how solid psychometric results are that are based on things like reaction times. For example, there is newer research where, by looking at reaction times in combination with an attention manipulation (by simply varying the size of a visual stimulus) they get correlation with 'g' above r=.7, and this is for a simple sensory discrimination task. No "thinking" is even involved.Replies: @Yudi, @Razib Khan
I too am a member of the Razib Khan Book Club!
As for books on IQ, I learned of a good one from James Thompson’s site: Human Intelligence by Earl Hunt. It’s a good overview of both the tests themselves, the latest psychometrics research, and what real-life traits the tests correlate with. It’s newer than Jensen’s book and more cautious in its conclusions, but still a very good introduction to the field.
Other good ones I've ready recently: What hath God Wrought, and Before the Dawn.
Thanks for the tip about the Human Intelligence book. I've recently become a fan of Thompson's site, and need to learn more about this subject...I'm getting into research on predicting and tracking learning with EEG analysis.
Razib, what do you put the over-under at that the Saudis will lose when they invade Yemen?
As for books on IQ, I learned of a good one from James Thompson's site: Human Intelligence by Earl Hunt. It's a good overview of both the tests themselves, the latest psychometrics research, and what real-life traits the tests correlate with. It's newer than Jensen's book and more cautious in its conclusions, but still a very good introduction to the field.Replies: @Jim W
Yes, I agree. It’s great having someone else to research books for me 🙂
Other good ones I’ve ready recently: What hath God Wrought, and Before the Dawn.
Thanks for the tip about the Human Intelligence book. I’ve recently become a fan of Thompson’s site, and need to learn more about this subject…I’m getting into research on predicting and tracking learning with EEG analysis.
End of endogamy thanks to tests and tech? Recent chatter.
‘Saudi in drive to curb endogamy’
http://www.emirates247.com/news/region/saudi-in-drive-to-curb-endogamy-2015-01-15-1.576665
“Suleiman said he conducted a survey in 2004 showing endogamy in Saudi Arabia was around 53 per cent, adding that it has now increased to 67 per cent.”
‘Saudi Arabia: Genetic tests lead to 165,000 break-ups’
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-32050313
@Razib how do you manage to remember all the details and arguments of so many books? I don’t read as many books but I struggle to retain most of what I read. I’m not alone (http://www.paulgraham.com/know.html). I have an impeccable memory when I set out to memorize things but I don’t read books with the intention of memorizing their arguments.
Do you take notes? Do you reread books? If so how often? Do you test yourself?
do not take notes. re-read sometimes, but rarely. almost never more than twice. i can't think of a book i've read more than twice right now in a front-to-back fashion. no, don't test myself.
i forget plenty. but i read a fair amount, and i'm thinking about stuff a lot when i'm not reading. also, i read in clusters of books on particular topics, so it forms networks of information. though not sure i do recall more, i have a good memory too.
Broadly speaking, it seems that findings of genetic differences are given more weight as opposed to psychometric differences, perhaps because they seem more concrete. This seems backwards at present, with population genetics more in its infancy than psychometrics.
I am reading Jensen's book on 'g' (based on Rhazib's goodreads rating), and it's very good so far. He seems like a really good researcher, presenting a nice history in the field, with lots of math justifying the use of a single factor 'g' for IQ.
I don't think most people realize how solid psychometric results are that are based on things like reaction times. For example, there is newer research where, by looking at reaction times in combination with an attention manipulation (by simply varying the size of a visual stimulus) they get correlation with 'g' above r=.7, and this is for a simple sensory discrimination task. No "thinking" is even involved.Replies: @Yudi, @Razib Khan
This seems backwards at present, with population genetics more in its infancy than psychometrics.
don’t agree with this. they both arose in the early 20th century (and to some extent francis galton influenced both).
I don’t think most people realize how solid psychometric results are that are based on things like reaction times
most people are totally ignorant of psychometrics. agreed.
Do you take notes? Do you reread books? If so how often? Do you test yourself?
do not take notes. re-read sometimes, but rarely. almost never more than twice. i can’t think of a book i’ve read more than twice right now in a front-to-back fashion. no, don’t test myself.
i forget plenty. but i read a fair amount, and i’m thinking about stuff a lot when i’m not reading. also, i read in clusters of books on particular topics, so it forms networks of information. though not sure i do recall more, i have a good memory too.