Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Shea, Christopher. "The Nature-Nurture Debate, Redux." CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION January 9, 2009.
If sociologists ignore genes, will other academics — and the wider world — ignore sociology? Some in the discipline are telling their peers just that. With study after study finding that all sorts of personal characteristics are heritable — along with behaviors shaped by those characteristics — a see-no-gene perspective is obsolete.
Nor, these scholars argue, is it reasonable to concede that genes play some role but then to loftily assert that geneticists and the media overstate that role and to go on conducting studies as if genes did not exist. How, exactly, do genes shape human lives, interact with environmental forces, or get overpowered by those forces? "We do ourselves a disservice if we don't engage in those arguments," says Jason Schnittker, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. "If we stay on the ropes, people from a different perspective, with a more extreme view, will be making them." . . .
Read the rest here: http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i18/18b00601.htm.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Just counting the logical fallacies in this article would keep many of us busy for a very long time, so I'll go with the obvious.
ReplyDeleteShea imbeds an argument against his idea within his article. He presents evidence of genetic variation among all humans. If genetic variations shape individual behavior, then wouldn't there also be a range of genetic variations among persons of any race?
Anthropologists have identified over 100 races. Which level of analysis does he want to used? The U.S. uses skin color, but most countries find this ludicrous. Also, what do you do about multi racial persons such as myself who learned of African and Native American ancestry within that last 5 years?
Sociology (and, yes, socio-biology) can be enhanced by genetic research. Here are 3 ways tat sociology has traditionally viewed genetics:
1) Individuals are shaped by group dynamics, but also shape group dynamics. Genetics has a lot to say about individual behavior.
2) Diathesis stress model says that a person might have a genetic tendency (ex. toward depression), but social environment can trigger it (similar to diabetes).
3) Stern's Rubber Band Hypothesis says that a person's ability to reach genetic potential is affected by the environmental forces that stretch to a set limit (parallel to the length of the rubber band) or don't stretch it.
You can also look at social context. There are reasons why a bright, curious, aggressive person might become a terrific criminal or a corporate executive depending on a host of social factors. Oh, I forgot, there isn't necessarily a difference these days.