Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘genetics’

Check out this TED talk from Jim Fallon.

My take: pretty dicey stuff to kinda just throw out there. Definitely needs a longer talk!

Probably not likely that you can “spot bad news” reliably in the family tree using these methods.  Also, by the mere suggestion of “bad news” you alter the course of things.

and is this something we actually want to do?  This is a question not only in murder and violence, but for all of genetic profiling.

Jim Fallon weighs in on the TED page in a comment:

I’m with my family right now on vacation in Cabo and they are asking me the same question; if I thought one of them had the requisite genetic, developmental, brain trauma, exposure to 3D violence and it began to show prodromally, that is before the pathological behavior would be expressed (especially in their teens), would I tell them? We have the same potential problem with Alzheimer’s disease. And they all say they want to know, but when I say everything is OK, they say “but how do we know you’re just not protecting us from the truth?” How do you get around THAT problem?


Read Full Post »

They’re at it again. Yes they are… As part of the Rube Goldberg contingent from Mythinformation Central. From the people that brought you “you’re fat because of your friends” you are now presented with: “your genes influence who will become friends.”

They set up the straw man: that it is an error to suggest people are a function of a “simple model for the metabolic, neural and Internet networks, and the same model is applied to human beings — that all parts of the network are identical and interchangeable”.

They never knock it down but extrapolate beyond the data with innuendo of their own PR. One can only imagine that Christakis and cronies will be doing collaborative work with Steven Pinker soon on the topology of the mind, call it science and write another book on the mind’s influences in support of Pinker’s postulate that the reason the Chief justice misquoted the oath of President Obama was a “blowback from Chief Justice Roberts’s habit of grammatical niggling Or was it a Freudian slip? Hmmm… Science, huh... How very canny for the Language Don Dr. Pinker to point that out as he knows so much about both people’s histories, relevant factors and ‘mindful’ homunculi like those “inherent characteristics that govern where we [as individuals] gravitate to in the social network.”

“A second implication is that the [current] study suggests that if we really want to understand how things [?what ‘things’?] diffuse in social networks, we need to take into account people’s locations in the social networks, which are due in part to their genes,” Christakis pontificated while showing no data or peer reviewed research.

Please see the Baloney Detection Kit submitted for consideration for those reading content from any media channel, including Buzz Creation or Mythinformation efforts by mainstream print media to get more subscribers and kooks to buy their fading printed words.

I am looking forward to more “sharper predictions” from the Christakis Mythinformation crew.

Read Full Post »

Check out this fun read on a genetic robots that “evolved” lying behavior.

Pretty remarkable, but not all that surprising, that it only took 50 generations to get complex communication based on selection by consequences in only 30 “genes”.

~R

Read Full Post »