East Asian personality may stem from Ice Age Siberia 20000 yrs ago(davidsun.substack.com) |
East Asian personality may stem from Ice Age Siberia 20000 yrs ago(davidsun.substack.com) |
This is incredibly sad.
Good on him for sticking with his hypothesis far enough to research it thoroughly, write it up, and publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, and now that he has done that work, he might start to turn heads in a Ph.D program. But otherwise, rejection from Ph.D programs after applying with an idea and no credentials is a bit like saying "Based on my new theory of radiation-proof ultra-thin materials, I applied to NASA, ESA, and JAXA for a head researcher position but was unceremoniously rejected." Of course you were, mate. You have no demonstrable history in the field. They want to see at least a working spacesuit prototype first.
As they say, it's good to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brain falls out.
It's not controversial that some personality traits might have genetic roots. It's also not controversial that humans who evolved in different regions have slightly different genetics.
His research combines the two.
Note that genetic testing or evidence will be insufficient for proving the type of claim this paper is making because there are too many confounding factors which override biological similarities—that’s the whole issue with nature vs. nurture.
Can you provide a concrete example from the paper?
That’s the main part of the paper, and what follows is essentially a literature review, which is an inherently flawed way to prove a hypothesis.
A hypothesis is a testable claim, which can be independently verified if it is validated. There is no process in the paper, other than a review of other literature, to substantiate the paper’s new claims. So, this person is essentially doing science journalism, not science.
I think the two main problems are that they didn’t provide sufficient work for (b) or (c), but they’re laboring under the misconception that a background review of literature is enough. But instead a background review is used to justify the structure of measurements and analysis which usually follows in scientific papers. So, the claim is poorly substantiated.
This person could've spent a lot less time going down a rabbit hole with a couple introductory anthropology classes and by asking themselves if there were any societies with these same traits in a warm climate. It is poor scientific reasoning not to check for examples of this personality type in hot climates. Not exactly PhD material.
This is an obvious mischaracterization of the hypothesis, though.
The author says nothing about whether other cultures and groups share this egalitarian tendency.
Just that East Asians tend to share this tendency and that it must transcend cultural specifics such as Confucianism, by comparing East Asians to Inuits who predate Confucianism by at least 8000 years, and positing that cold environment adaptation was the driver.
Whether the paper’s data and analysis is PhD worthy is a different matter, but it’s an interesting hypothesis.
Which is doubly odd, because here that is more associated with upper-middle-classes. That cold stoicism that causes people to act 'gentlemanly' regardless of circumstance, or parents to pressure their children to be upwardly mobile, generals to describe an unwinnable position as "a bit of a pickle" etc. etc.
In Britain this is definitely seen as a class characteristic rather than a climatic one (we all live in a similarly temperate environment).
Cause it in individuals? Or select for it through evolution?
If the former, there's no genetic component here, and the effect should vanish as soon as you get somewhere warm.
If it's the latter, then it can't cause it in individuals who happen to work there over local-winter, right?
If it is genetically influenced psychology, it can still be a good predictor of performance in a short term job.
>West African populations have up to 19% "Ghost DNA", belonging to an extinct species their ancestors interbred with
>Southeast Asians have DNA of the extinct Denisovan species, as much as 3-5% in the aboriginal people of Papua New Guinea, Australia, the Philippines
>These aboriginals also have DNA belonging to a now extinct, but not yet discovered hominid species
I'm sure the implications of all these findings have not yet been discovered but it's exciting to see them explored
The author did themselves a disservice by not filtering some of the bitterness of their journey, because the opening story was fascinating and hints at something worth exploring.
The constructive criticism would be better served as a follow-up post.
However, the anti-"woke" part of this article seems so odd to me. Given all the wacky "science" from Nazi scientists that "research" differences between races leading to genocide, it seems completely logical to me that you jump through several hoops and make sure your research is really sound before you publish a paper that explores exactly that topic.
Your other point is that you wonder whether a paper review is going to protect against mass killing. I'd say yes, that's quite possible. Anyone can post almost anything they want on any kind of blog or 4chan sub or reddit sub, and that's fine. But scientific papers are what people quote as "truth", and publishers have some responsibility in making sure that what they publish is based in evidence. This is especially true when it concerns topics that have, historically, led to genocide.
One has to remember how many absolute crackpots institutions of higher learning have write in every year. Now that he's done the heavy lifting on his own, there's a paper that can be discussed, but no shame on any institution that saw a nobody in the field coming in with an idea likely to fail to hold any water that went "Yeah, we're going to invest zero resources into that."
Comparison to phrenology, for an unknown quantity, isn't absurd; it's kind of the status quo for universities getting solicitations from strangers. That channel of communication is where the perpetual motion machines, time cubes, and proposals to go find the resting place of Atlantis come from.
He was specifically told he was rejected for doing forbidden research. Sure he might have been rejected anyway even if he had been researching something else, but let's not overlook the reasons he was given.
Although I found his paper interesting, he handwaved Confucianism away as the explanation for East Asian personality traits.
No matter the origins of Confucianism, it was the Chinese state religion for almost two thousand years and heavily influenced Korea, Japan, Vietnam etc.
"The secret to my radiation-proof space suit was interspersing microscopic mercury-selenium pellets in the fabric of the suit with quantum properties that match the wavelength of ionizing radiation at a ~"
"Oh, you're using mercury. In fabric. That goes on human skin. Okay, now we really need to see a prototype. And your health trials."
Or, that's what he told us. Also, I've done my PhD and I don't think I've ever seen a graduate program telling a candidate why they were rejected. It is always the standard "There are more qualified candidates than we can accommodate and we could not accept everyone, I hope you understand."
...which makes me a little bit suspicious about the whole tale.
The leading journal Nature Human Behaviour recently made this practice official in an editorial effectively announcing that it will not publish studies that show the wrong kind of differences between human groups. [..] the National Institutes of Health now withholds access to an important database if it thinks a scientist’s research may wander into forbidden territory - https://www.city-journal.org/article/dont-even-go-there
Isn't the PhD program where you're supposed to generate the track record of research?
I don't think we can extrapolate from that data set alone.
There may be some specific ways in which Lamarckian genetics is correct, but given that trusting too much in it has already resulted in one crippling famine, it's fair to hit claims founded on it with a larger skepticism bat than theories based on Mendelian inheritance.
If you still suspect he's lying, his statements are corroborated [2] by Stuart J. Ritchie (has served as a lecturer at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience at King's College London) [3], who directly cites a rule:
Please note that these summary data should not be used for research into the genetics of intelligence, education, social outcomes such as income, or potentially sensitive behavioral traits such as alcohol or drug addictions.
And an e-mail from NIAGADS:
…the association of genetic data with any of these parameters can be stigmatizing to the individuals or groups of individuals in a particular study. Any type of stigmatization that could be associated with genetic data is contrary to NIH policy.
He links to the page containing the rule [4], but unfortunately the page has since changed ("This dataset is temporarily unavailable"), and archive.org doesn't have an old version. So it could be that two Ph.D.'s working in the field are both lying - as you observe, sources that report things you don't like are untrustworthy.
[1] https://cla.umn.edu/about/directory/profile/leex2293
[2] https://www.sciencefictions.org/p/nih-genetics
https://www.nature.com/nathumbehav/editorial-policies/ethics...
This is quite a long piece of text so I won't quote it - just read it. It does support the premise of that City Journal article in that NHB will not publish research which they deem to trespass on 'forbidden territory' regardless of the scientific validity of such research.
"Non-maleficence and beneficence are two fundamental principles in research ethics requiring the maximization of benefits and minimization of potential harms. These principles form a core part of general frameworks for the ethical conduct of research across the sciences and humanities (for example, The World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki; The Belmont Report; the International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans; Ethics in Social Science and Humanities)."
Which I see as more along the lines of the Hippocratic Oath rather than totalitarian thought crime. If this self-described neophyte didn't understand the risks for harm created by his research, that's his fault and not that of the PhD programs.
Editorial Policies
As part of the Nature Portfolio, the Nature Research journals follow common policies as detailed in the Nature Portfolio journals’ authors and referees policy pages, and we request that our authors and referees abide by all of them. Nature Portfolio journals take publication conduct seriously. We reserve the right to decline publication of a paper even after it has been accepted if it becomes apparent that there are serious problems with the scientific content or violations of our publishing policies. Particularly, we want to draw your attention to the following policies and guidelines.
I'd say they're very clear on what these are and what the consequences of violating these guidelines are. They assume their readers and potential authors understand what they mean as well. I think they are correct in their assumption that those who are interested in this publication understand both the meaning as well as the reach of these guidelines.
It is also clear from these guidelines that the City Journal article as well as the self-described neophyte (your words) were right when they said research into these areas is shunned no matter the validity of such research, that as far as this publication is concerned this is 'forbidden territory'.
> ...didn't understand the risks for harm created by his research, that's his fault and not that of the PhD programs.
No, that is an incorrect characterisation of the circumstances. There is no harm created by this research per se, what harm there might be is in the eyes of the editors of NHB in that this research enters a territory that they deem to be off-limits because it might produce outcomes that undermine the basic tenets of their world view. In reality this research and any outcomes it produces can be used both for good as well as for bad purposes just like nearly all research. The editors at NHB would rather not have to contend with research which undermines their basic tenets of all humans being identical - the 'tabula rasa' or '0% nature, 100% nurture' - so they want to keep it out of their publication (which in itself is their right although it undermines their credibility) as well as out of academic discourse (which is where they are wrong).
They do appear to be putting nature-based explanations under heightened scrutiny. Probably because attempts at those explanations in the past have proven not only wrong, but served as the foundation for extremely anti-human policy.
And if they don't want to be complicit in that, good on them. This isn't the only scientific field where that's the case. Go try to find the precise calculations necessary to get all of the chemistry and physics right to build a hydrogen bomb with a city-busting yield. Not a dirty bomb or enough tactical nuke to blow up a block or three, something more powerful than what was dropped in World War II. Let us know how that goes. Hint: What you will discover is that some constants used in the scientific community and published in widely circulated documents don't quite add up precisely right... And have different values if you can find documents from the United States and from the old Soviet Union.
And also, if you dig deeply enough in the States, eventually some very nice folks from the Department of Energy will show up and express some curiosity and excitement about your project, wondering how they can help. Because, the thing is, almost nobody is doing the kind of physics that requires those numbers to have extremely specific values, and the kind of equipment you have to buy or build to really investigate those numbers in detail is rare and unusual. Rare and unusual enough to show up on some very inexpensive tracking of who is purchasing it. So they just want to make sure that they help you get exactly. The. Right. Numbers.