Hello There, Guest!  
 Previous 1 2 3 4 5 9 Next   

[ODP] The Elusive X-Factor: A Critique of J. M. Kaplan’s Model of Race and IQ

#21
I see why I missed it. I looked down into the ref list until I hit a Flynn reference (the 2014 one). The 1980 one is located after some other refs, so they are not in perfect alphabetic order which I was assuming.

Here's how it looks like when I mark text to copy. The copying works fine, the trouble is only to mark the right text!


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
 Reply
#22
(2014-Aug-16, 19:37:38)Dalliard Wrote: I don't refer to your work because my article is not an exhaustive review of arguments in favor of hereditarianism, and I don't think your arguments are among the most important and convincing of the various lines of evidence that exist, certainly not in the US context.


Maybe mine are not the most important or convincing arguments out there but all the other arguments are indirect. My argument is probably the only one that brings direct evidence whereas the evidence you bring is indirect and has been presented in previous papers or books, thus your paper is not very original. For these reasons I cannot approve publication.
 Reply
#23
The point of the paper is not to present all the arguments for HH, only to show that clearly HH is testable. It is a commentary paper, remember. Mentioning the Piffer method is nice, but not necessary since admixture studies work too. Sibling admixture studies are probably the strongest possible design for testing HH.
 Reply
#24
Still I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned.
 Reply
#25
Well, there are lots of things that could be mentioned but aren't. The paper is already 40 pages. To disprove the claim that X theory is untestable, it is sufficient to present one way of testing X.
 Reply
#26
(2014-Aug-16, 19:44:48)Emil Wrote: I see why I missed it. I looked down into the ref list until I hit a Flynn reference (the 2014 one). The 1980 one is located after some other refs, so they are not in perfect alphabetic order which I was assuming.

Here's how it looks like when I mark text to copy. The copying works fine, the trouble is only to mark the right text!


I'll correct the alphabetic order.

I tested the copy-paste thing on two computers, but did not encounter that problem. It's due to some software incompatibility, but I cannot do anything about it.

(2014-Aug-16, 19:59:38)Duxide Wrote:
(2014-Aug-16, 19:37:38)Dalliard Wrote: I don't refer to your work because my article is not an exhaustive review of arguments in favor of hereditarianism, and I don't think your arguments are among the most important and convincing of the various lines of evidence that exist, certainly not in the US context.


Maybe mine are not the most important or convincing arguments out there but all the other arguments are indirect. My argument is probably the only one that brings direct evidence whereas the evidence you bring is indirect and has been presented in previous papers or books, thus your paper is not very original. For these reasons I cannot approve publication.


I am certainly not going to add a reference to your paper if it's a condition for publication. You're making a joke out of this journal by making such a demand.

Quite purposely, my case against Kaplan's model does not rely on newfangled arguments. It's a commentary that is mostly about explaining why Kaplan's model is a non-starter due to theoretical and empirical reasons that are well-established and uncontroversial. The test of the hereditarian model that I propose is also completely uncontroversial, widely used, and definitive, unlike your method.
 Reply
#27
That is strange because I can reproduce this on two different OS (win,linux) using different PDF readers.

In any case, it is not a critical issue. Just annoying.
 Reply
#28
(2014-Aug-16, 20:44:24)Dalliard Wrote: I am certainly not going to add a reference to your paper if it's a condition for publication. You're making a joke out of this journal by making such a demand.

Quite purposely, my case against Kaplan's model does not rely on newfangled arguments. It's a commentary that is mostly about explaining why Kaplan's model is a non-starter due to theoretical and empirical reasons that are well-established and uncontroversial.


I only requested you to cite my work because it explicitly addresses one of the issues raised by Kaplan, which your paper fails to consider: This is what he wrote: "But positing, without any evidence, systematic differences in hundreds or thousands of genes of small effects is surely no more plausible than positing multiple environmental differences with small effects! as noted above, we do know of some environmental differences between the populations that are verifiably associated with differences in performance on IQ tests and related measures; we know of no genes that are so-associated."

In order to counter Kaplan's argument, in my first post I had asked you to cite Ward et al's study which replicated Rietvald et al's 3 hits. This you didn't do. I had also asked you to cite my work, which again counter Kaplan's argument. This you didn't do.

If I am making a joke out of this journal it's simply because the review is open. I've met with so many unreasonable requests by reviewers but none could see them! You should be thankful that this journal is based on an open review system. Besides, I am not the journal. I think you're making a joke out of your paper by stubbornly refusing to address the most important argument in Kaplan's article. He's gonna laugh out loud.
 Reply
#29
(2014-Aug-16, 20:52:26)Duxide Wrote: I only requested you to cite my work because it explicitly addresses one of the issues raised by Kaplan, which your paper fails to consider: This is what he wrote: "But positing, without any evidence, systematic differences in hundreds or thousands of genes of small effects is surely no more plausible than positing multiple environmental differences with small effects! as noted above, we do know of some environmental differences between the populations that are verifiably associated with differences in performance on IQ tests and related measures; we know of no genes that are so-associated."

In order to counter Kaplan's argument, in my first post I had asked you to cite Ward et al's study which replicated Rietvald et al's 3 hits. This you didn't do. I had also asked you to cite my work, which again counter Kaplan's argument. This you didn't do.

If I am making a joke out of this journal it's simply because the review is open. I've met with so many unreasonable requests by reviewers but none could see them! You should be thankful that this journal is based on an open review system. Besides, I am not the journal. I think you're making a joke out of your paper by stubbornly refusing to address the most important argument in Kaplan's article. He's gonna laugh out loud.


As I wrote earlier, Kaplan could not have cited Ward et al., because that study was published after his paper. I can hardly fault Kaplan for his lack of clairvoyant abilities. Moreover, the three confirmed hits explain very very little of total variance, so they cannot be used to say anything about group differences -- unless you make all sorts of strong assumptions that may or may not be correct.

In my paper, I only use arguments and methods that I thoroughly understand myself, or at least ones that are widely accepted by relevant experts. Your method seems ok to me, but I readily admit that my understanding of population genetics is limited, so I cannot vouch for it. The fact that your method has not been reviewed and adopted by experts in the field means that I cannot accept it on authority, either.
 Reply
#30
You don't have to fault Kaplan for his lack of clarvoyant abilities. But it'd be good if you could show that his beliefs are outdated. You could state that although at the time of Kaplan's writing his statement that "we know of no genes that are associated with IQ or related measures" was true, today it's wrong. You don't have to cite my papers if you think they're not mainstream enough but at least cite Ward et al and Rietvald et al. After that I'll approve.
 Reply
 Previous 1 2 3 4 5 9 Next   
 
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)