Economist Brad DeLong selectively deleted comments from a recent post that were contrary to his thesis. The comments were not ad hominem or inflamatory, but fact-filled and constructive. They were contrary to DeLong's argument, however, so he hoped they would go down the memory hole.
The idea had to do with the recent piece by Bruce T. Lahn of the University of Chicago, who found a gene associated with brain size was found with very different frequencies in different populations, suggesting it was selected for, and thus evidence of some sort of evolutionary selection. As a modern American liberal, DeLong pooh-poohed this observation, noting that under certain situations selection for dominant genes would not matter very long. In the debate that followed, certain researchers made the point that although most genetic variation is within-race, that does not mean races are "not real". This is because even though there is large within-race variation (85%), the correlation of genes within a race are sufficiently different that a geneticist would have no problem differentiating a Swede from a Hutu, just as no regular person would have difficulty differentiating a Swede from a Hutu. The deleted comments were technical extensions of this argument. DeLong obviously considered this blasphemous, or at least inconvenient.
Such tactics (deleting factual arguments) represents a frustration in an inability to counter an argument. Among people who make their living mainly through words and arguments, it's hard to imagine a more pathetic tactic. I'm sure DeLong prides himself on not "burning books" and supports such classics as Lady Chatterly's Lover, so how does he justify removing calm arguments about technical issues on genetics? I imagine his moral conviction blinds him to such considerations, as he sees his goal of promoting equality justifying these types transgressions, sort of like suspending civil rights during a war (which I'm for, btw). The problem for him is the Hapmap is coming, and he better learn to deal with it because it is much easier to argue when the facts are on your side.
It seems probable he applies this methodology to other issues he also deems important, such as progressive taxation or government spending, and thus makes him more like a political spinner than truth-seeking academic.
The idea had to do with the recent piece by Bruce T. Lahn of the University of Chicago, who found a gene associated with brain size was found with very different frequencies in different populations, suggesting it was selected for, and thus evidence of some sort of evolutionary selection. As a modern American liberal, DeLong pooh-poohed this observation, noting that under certain situations selection for dominant genes would not matter very long. In the debate that followed, certain researchers made the point that although most genetic variation is within-race, that does not mean races are "not real". This is because even though there is large within-race variation (85%), the correlation of genes within a race are sufficiently different that a geneticist would have no problem differentiating a Swede from a Hutu, just as no regular person would have difficulty differentiating a Swede from a Hutu. The deleted comments were technical extensions of this argument. DeLong obviously considered this blasphemous, or at least inconvenient.
Such tactics (deleting factual arguments) represents a frustration in an inability to counter an argument. Among people who make their living mainly through words and arguments, it's hard to imagine a more pathetic tactic. I'm sure DeLong prides himself on not "burning books" and supports such classics as Lady Chatterly's Lover, so how does he justify removing calm arguments about technical issues on genetics? I imagine his moral conviction blinds him to such considerations, as he sees his goal of promoting equality justifying these types transgressions, sort of like suspending civil rights during a war (which I'm for, btw). The problem for him is the Hapmap is coming, and he better learn to deal with it because it is much easier to argue when the facts are on your side.
It seems probable he applies this methodology to other issues he also deems important, such as progressive taxation or government spending, and thus makes him more like a political spinner than truth-seeking academic.
HedgeFundGuy - am 2005-09-19 16:21
Brad DeLong (guest) meinte am 19. Sep, 17:08:
A Discussion
I'm trying to run a discussion on my website, not a food-fight. I'm going to keep trying...
Robert Schwartz (guest) antwortete am 19. Sep, 20:35:
DeLong
deLong has been deleting comments for the mere sin of dissagreeing with him for a long time. He did it to me a couple of years ago. I have not read his material since then.
abiola meinte am 20. Sep, 03:35:
Don't Buy the HapMap Hype
Don't be taken in by the relentless assertions by certain individuals that the HapMap project will magically, rapidly herald the dawn of a new era in which all sorts of "PC" notions will fall like so many ninepins in a bowling alley. The fact is that linkage disequilibrium isn't anywhere nearly as constant or predictable as population geneticists would like, especially for outbred groups in which LD is lower (e.g., most African populations), so quite a bit of sampling and study of groups outside the four selected for the project will still be required before anyone can confidently jump to conclusions about "races" (though I'm sure the likes of Sailer won't let that stop them). Furthermore, even on the assumption that such issues are sorted out, discovering that an interesting trait seems to be correlated with LD in some part of the genome or other, and conclusively demonstrating that variation at some particular gene or regulatory region is linked to a phenotypically varying trait, will still remain different achievements, with the former very much less significant than the latter (see, e.g. this and this paper by Joseph Terwilliger): there are very good reasons why the archives of journals like the American Journal of Human Genetics are replete with association studies whose exciting research findings have never been replicated, and these reasons aren't going to suddenly disappear once the HapMap appears.Oh, and as for the claim that the ability to partition humanity into the "races" Americans know says something profound about the underlying reality, you might want to take a look at this paper. Don't mistake an artifact of sampling for the reality on the ground: all those people between the Equator and the shores of Northern Africa are just as real as the populations they flank, even if for historical reasons they never show up in "racial" studies done in the United States.
HedgeFundGuy antwortete am 20. Sep, 18:04:
I think a lot of your argument is based on semantics, whether you assume one needs or hypothesizes a distinct classification to be meaningful. I don't believe things must be either-or to have names and classifications. Do mountains exist, given you can't precisely define when a hill becomes a mountain? Do tigers and lions exist, when ligers exist? Yes and yes.
johnnygenomic (guest) antwortete am 21. Sep, 02:39:
genes are racist!
discovering that an interesting trait seems to be correlated with LD in some part of the genome or other, and conclusively demonstrating that variation at some particular gene or regulatory region is linked to a phenotypically varying trait, will still remain different achievements, None of these arrogant scientists will ever figure out that humans are genetically different. We were all created from Adam's rib and evolution is a lie anyway. The Bible and Stephen Jay Gould told me so. It is not like a gene or regulatory region has ever been linked to an interesting, phenotypically varying trait anyway. FOXP2 does not exist.
Fred Scrooby (guest) antwortete am 5. Oct, 03:51:
Abiola's sophistry can "prove" anything doesn't exist
Oh, and as for the claim that the ability to partition [the rainbow] into the ['colors'] Americans know says something profound about the underlying reality, you might want to take a look at this paper. Don't mistake an artifact of sampling for the reality on the ground: all those [intermediate colors] between [red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet] are just as real as the [colors] they flank, even if for historical reasons they never show up in ['colors of the rainbow'] studies done in the United States.QED: There are no such things as colors. Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet don't exist.
simon (guest) meinte am 20. Sep, 04:58:
Truth
Outstanding post!!! It's great to see bloggers keep each other honest! I appreciate your efforts to spread the wrod.
Patrick R. Sullivan (guest) meinte am 20. Sep, 18:17:
'It seems probable he applies this methodology to other issues he also deems important, such as progressive taxation or government spending, and thus makes him more like a political spinner than truth-seeking academic.'Indeed he does. It's amusing reading his comments section when others are responding to comments that have been deleted.
cb (guest) antwortete am 22. Sep, 19:27:
He's preparing himself for Krugman's job when he retires
