These are my comments on the first 49 minutes of Behavioral Genetics II, a 2010 lecture from Robert Sapolsky at Stanford.
Around 30 seconds in, the foxes thing is wrong. He says fox breeding shows evolution moving really fast. But it's not evolution of new traits, it's just adjusting the parameters for traits which evolved in the past. Dawkins made the same mistake. See:
The takeaway is the video lecturer and Dawkins are not philosophers and they routinely get things wrong when they stray into philosophy issues without realizing it. To understand knowledge creation correctly you have to study epistemology. Evolution itself is a theory of epistemology, and many people trying to talk about it don't even know what field it belongs to. The application of evolution to biology and genes is just one implication of the more general epistemological theory.
Also, regarding fox comparisons: humans are fundamentally different than animals because humans have intelligence software (universal knowledge creation software) and animals don't.
Around 12min, the lecturer talks about genetic markers. Note those are correlations. At 14min he says people carefully checked their statistics to decide how certain they were because things like terminating pregnancies was at stake. But no amount of statistics can ever turn correlations into causations. Before advising a single person to terminate pregnancy, you must have discussions, with arguments and criticism, that try to understand the causality. The video doesn't attempt to discuss how to do this well, or mention the necessity of it. Again this is running into a philosophical issue (how to have a productive debate to seek the truth) and these people aren't philosophers and don't know what they're doing (they don't even realize when they stray out of their field, into a different field they are bad at).
Around 21min the lecturer suggests that genes can control human behavior, with no awareness that memetic evolution and intelligent decision making are the dominant issues for human behavior. He brings up extrapolating from animal genes to humans, including in the case of behavior, without realizing this huge difference. (Extrapolations from animals like that can be reasonable guesses for non-behavior issues like hair color.)
So far the lecturer hasn't said a word about gene-environment interactions or about memes. But once memes existed, they evolved faster than genes and therefore outraced genes to meet lots of selection pressures and therefore there are memes instead of genes for lots of human behaviors.
At 24:15 he brags about how a paper was in a "very prestigious" journal. He's interested in social status instead of truth. The study he talks about is just a correlation study, so who cares? And he didn't name it and they didn't bother putting a citation for it in the YouTube description. Then he talks about a second study, and it's the same thing: he just summarizes the conclusions and expects people to accept these claims without any arguments that they are true. He's just completely ignoring the gene-environment interaction issue, and memes, and it makes what he's saying misleading and unproductive.
At 26min he talks about the amygdala having to do with fear and anxiety. He buys into the standard belief about specialized brain regions for different functions. That is contradicted by the universality view. How can such a disagreement be settled? By debate. David Deutsch, myself and others have debated anyone who was willing to have a serious discussion for many years. And we've sought out people and asked if they had any criticisms of our arguments. There is no one from the other side who is able to win this debate against us. This is partly because, again, they aren't philosophers and knowing how to judge ideas in a debate is a philosophy skill. They don't know how to argue well, which is why they've accepted the wrong ideas and are unwilling to deal with criticism.
Where's the "behavioral memetics" lecture? It's not on the playlist.
I have nothing against this particular lecturer. Everything he said is standard and normal. That doesn't prevent it from containing major errors, which are known, and which a lot of people don't want to hear about. I will debate this lecturer, or whoever else, in writing, with no time limits, in a serious, scholarly way. I will continue the discussion to a conclusion instead of giving up and trying to "agree to disagree" and refusing to answer further criticisms and questions. But he won't do it.
At 40min the lecturer brings up heritability. He correctly says that people misunderstand heritability. That's typical. Experts in the field often do know what "heritability" means (they defined "heritability" totally differently than the regular word so that it'd be easier to study), but then the media misreports all the heritability studies. A great source on heritability is Yet More on the Heritability and Malleability of IQ. It has important points that the lecture leaves out.
Around 46:45 the lecturer uses the word "explained" to mean "correlated with". That's so typical and bad.
Top 10 Replicated Findings from Behavioral Genetics
#13880 That is not a link, nor have you made any argument. If you did wish to debate something, you should pick one thing instead of ten to start with, and then make an introductory statement/argument.
#13881 no thanks.
#13881 ever heard of copy + paste?
alternatively if you right click on the selected text you can have it google it for you.
Why do you need help with such simple tasks?
Genome-wide association studies
Something I came across that sort of fits in this topic:
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have discovered numerous genetic variants associated with human behavioural traits. However, behavioural traits are subject to misreports and longitudinal changes (MLC) which can cause biases in GWAS and follow-up analyses. Here, we demonstrate that individuals with higher disease burden in the UK Biobank (n = 455,607) are more likely to misreport or reduce their alcohol consumption levels, and propose a correction procedure to mitigate the MLC-induced biases. The alcohol consumption GWAS signals removed by the MLC corrections are enriched in metabolic/cardiovascular traits. Almost all the previously reported negative estimates of genetic correlations between alcohol consumption and common diseases become positive/non-significant after the MLC corrections.
So they made some adjustments for some potential biases. They found that after their adjustments, the genetic correlations between alcohol consumption and common diseases become positive.
That means that the people who drink more alcohol tend to have more diseases.
Actually, does it mean that the genes that are correlated with those two things are correlated with each other? I’m having trouble wrapping my head around “genetic correlations between alcohol consumption and common diseases”. Do they mean there are correlations between how much alcohol you drink and having some genes, and there are correlations between getting common diseases and having some genes, and correlations between having those two sets of genes?
My tentative answer is yes, after looking at abstracts of some of the studies they cite:
There’s something I’m not understanding here. I can see why people would want to look at correlations between drinking alcohol and getting diseases. And I can see why people would want to look at correlations between drinking alcohol and having certain genes, or between getting certain diseases and having certain genes. But why look at “genetic correlations between alcohol consumption and common diseases”, if it’s what I think it is?
The Yahoo Groups link no longer works.
You can download the Fabric of Reality yahoo group discussions [here] (https://curi.us/ebooks). Search for the subject line “The Ancestor’s Tale” (and one “Genetic Evolution of Language?”). The first post is on 23 December 2009, by Keith Green.
Oops. Formatting error on my part on the link.