Re: [xmca] epigenesis

That looks JUST right, Ed. I will order it and others might want to as well.
thanks.

At UCSD the local biosciences folks giving a seminar this quarter are not
genetic
reductionists and believe that they have superceded the nature-nurture
issue. At
least those giving a seminar I am attending. The early text from these folks
was
Elman et all, Innateness Reconsidered.
mike

On 10/25/07, Ed Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> Mike
>
> Is this helpful:
>
> http://teacher.shop.pbs.org/product/index.jsp?productId=2916431
>
> Ed
>
> >I am trying to get ahold of a recording of the program WGBH has it, but
> how
> >to purchase.All of this fits with what
> >my cultural biological colleagues are saying these days at ucsd. I have
> not
> >been able ot figure out how to purchase it
> >and make it available. Can someone out there in xmca land solve that
> >problem?
> >mike
> >
> >
> >wledge, still insufficient to answer your question. I think one of the
> >> effective causes at the psychological level , might have to do with
> the
> >> utopian futures genetics provides the "cult of eternal youth" ,
> likewsie a
> >> root metaphor of popular consumer culture. The promised developments
> of
> >> genetic technologies certainly have that Utopian dimension, better
> futures
> >> quality that makes of good ideology.
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Of course this epigenetic perspective is
> >> important, but it is far from new in
> >> developmental biology. I recall reading about it
> >> and citing it in my very first work on learning
> >> back in the 70s. It was new then in biology as
> >> well, articulated and developed especially by CH
> >> Waddington and adopted and applied by a wide
> >> variety of mavericks and more radical thinkers in
> >> the inter-disciplinary series of workshops known
> >> as the Serbelloni Symposia after the town in
> >> Italy where they were held. Stuart Kauffman,
> >> later well-known for his work on complex systems
> >> theory and evolution presented some of his early
> >> ideas about self-organization there and linked them to the epigenesis
> >> model.
> >>
> >> I recall saying to people back then that the
> >> implications bordered on neo-Larmarckian
> >> inheritance of acquired characteristics, which
> >> made a lot of people nervous, but few disagreed.
> >>
> >> So why is the model of gene-determinism so
> >> appealing, almost a religion today, both among
> >> molecular biologists and the lay public? Why has
> >> it been so easy for the media to spread this gospel?
> >>
> >> Does it perhaps have something to do with our
> >> cultural disinclination to accept responsibility
> >> for inequity? "It's not my fault. It's all in the
> >> genes. There's nothing I can (or need to) do about it." ??
> >>
> >> JAY.
> >>
> >> At 12:27 PM 10/25/2007, you wrote:
> > > >I echo Martin's comments on the epigenetic
> >> >system. It supports an assumption long shared by
> >> >people on this network about the unification of biology and culture.
> >> >
> >> >Vera
> >> >
> >> >Martin Packer wrote:
> >> >
> > > >>Fascinating PBS documentary a few weeks ago on the 'epigenetic'
> system -
> >> >>that environmental events during an individual's life, while they
> don't
> >> >>change the structure of the genome, have a direct impact on the
> >> expression
> >> >>of genes, and that these changes are passed down (via their effect
> on
> >> >>formation of eggs and sperm) to the next generation, and even to
> >> >>grandchildren. If my grandfather lived in a time of famine, my
> >> likelihood of
> >> >>developing diabetes is much increased. As David says, something can
> be
> >> >>heritable but not genetic (in origin). The inheritance of acquired
> >> >>characteristics, no less.
> >> >>Martin
> >> >>
> >> >>On 10/22/07 4:08 PM, "David Preiss" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Eirik,
> >> >>>
> >> >>>The Steve Connor comment you send us (second link below) tells
> >> >>>exactly why JW was not doing science at all. Particularly, why you
> >> >>>can't infer from an heritability ratio a conclusion about the
> >> >>>intelligence of people that works with you (as Watson say). On the
> >> >>>other hand, something can be statistically heritable and not
> genetic
> >> >>>at all. A nice explanation is in the Sternberg, Grigorenko and Kidd
> >> >>>paper I sent before.
> >> >>>David
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>David
> >> >>>
> >> >>>On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:16 PM, E. Knutsson wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>Amanda,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>JW's comment (http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/
> >> >>>> >>>article3075642.ece)
> >> >>>>concludes with this request: "[W]e as scientists, wherever we wish
> > > >>>>to place
> >> >>>>ourselves in this great debate, should take care in claiming what
> are
> >> >>>>unarguable truths without the support of evidence."
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Some of the other comments also seem to give a more balanced view:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article3070538.ece
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article3075640.ece
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>"Curtailing free debate is almost always a mistake. Allowing
> >> >>>>scientists and
> >> >>>>individuals to air their theories openly does not validate them.
> On
> >> >>>>the
> >> >>>>contrary it allows them to be refuted."
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Eirik
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>On 2007-10-21, at 01:26, Amanda Brovold wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>Just for the record, it sounds to me as if Watson has suggested
> he
> >> >>>>>may have
> >> >>>>>been misquoted. In the article linked to 3 messages below he
> >> >>>>>says: "I can
> >> >>>>>understand much of this reaction. For if I said what I was quoted
> as
> >> >>>>>saying, then I can only admit that I am bewildered by it. To
> >> >>>>>those who have
> >> >>>>>drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is
> >> >>>>>somehow
> >> >>>>>genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. This is
> >> >>>>>not what I
> >> >>>>>meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no
> >> >>>>>scientific basis
> >> >>>>>for such a belief." I am not sure why the first two sentences of
> >> >>>>>this quote
> >> >>>>>are generally left off when it is repeated. Such common
> >> >>>>>occurrences though
> >> >>>>>(even on this very list) lead me to believe it is plausible that
> >> >>>>>what Watson
> >> >>>>>said my not have been as appalling as what has been passed around
> >> >>>>>makes it
> >> >>>>>seem. I agree that it seems certain he has a view I very much
> >> >>>>>disagree with
> >> >>>>>and seems to be contradicted by the preponderance of evidence.
> >> >>>>>However, I
> >> >>>>>find un-thoughtful knee-jerk responses to such views to be at
> >> >>>>>least as
> >> >>>>>dangerous as the views themselves. I have heard people stress
> >> >>>>>that it is
> >> >>>>>important for academics to respond appropriately to events such
> as
> >> >>>>>these. I
> >> >>>>>very much agree, it is important for experts in the relevant
> >> >>>>>fields to
> >> >>>>>correct any misunderstandings that stories like this are likely
> to
> >> >>>>>perpetuate. It is also extremely important though for the academy
> to
> >> >>>>>remember that academic freedom is absolutely vital. As appalling
> > > >>>>>as views
> >> >>>>>expressed by one academic may be, the expression of controversial
> >> >>>>>view
> >> >>>>>points simply cannot be allowed to threaten the protections
> >> >>>>>necessary for
> >> >>>>>inquiry to be carried out.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>Something else to consider, phrased a different way, I feel
> >> >>>>>confident that
> >> >>>>>many people outraged by Watson's remarks would agree that in fact
> >> >>>>>there are
> >> >>>>>differences in the intelligences of different people, often
> >> >>>>>correlated with
> >> >>>>>differences in culture. These are not differences in terms of one
> >> >>>>>being
> >> >>>>>overall superior to another, but I do not think that reading is
> >> >>>>>forced by
> >> >>>>>the words that have been quoted without context, even if they are
> >> >>>>>accurate.
> >> >>>>>It is at least possible that Watson, as he now seems to claim,
> >> >>>>>really meant
> >> >>>>>to refer to differences without evaluating them. And isn't the
> >> >>>>>recognition
> >> >>>>>of the complexity of intelligence one of the things that makes
> >> >>>>>many of the
> >> >>>>>outraged so upset about IQ testing?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>-Amanda
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >> >>>>xmca mailing list
> >> >>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> >>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >> >>>
> >> >>>David Preiss, Ph.D.
> >> >>>Subdirector de Extensión y Comunicaciones
> >> >>>Escuela de Psicología
> >> >>>Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
> >> >>>Av Vicuña Mackenna 4860
> >> >>>Macul, Santiago
> >> >>>Chile
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Fono: 3544605
> >> >>>Fax: 3544844
> >> >>>e-mail: davidpreiss@uc.cl
> >> >>>web personal: http://web.mac.com/ddpreiss/
> >> >>>web institucional: http://www.epuc.cl/profesores/dpreiss
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> > > >>>_______________________________________________
> >> >>>xmca mailing list
> >> >>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> >>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >> >>
> >> >>_______________________________________________
> >> >>xmca mailing list
> >> >>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> >>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >---------------------------------
> >> >Vera P. John-Steiner
> >> >Department of Linguistics
> >> >Humanities Bldg. 526
> >> >University of New Mexico
> >> >Albuquerque, NM 87131
> >> >(505) 277-6353 or 277-4324
> >> >Internet: vygotsky@unm.edu
> >> >---------------------------------
> >> >
> >> >_______________________________________________
> >> >xmca mailing list
> >> >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Jay Lemke
> >> Professor
> >> University of Michigan
> >> School of Education
> >> 610 East University
> >> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> >>
> >> Tel. 734-763-9276
> >> Email. JayLemke@UMich.edu
> >> Website. www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> >>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> Do You Yahoo!?
> >> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> >> http://mail.yahoo.com
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> >_______________________________________________
> >xmca mailing list
> >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Fri Oct 26 09:07 PDT 2007