tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959297.post2184845045045094339..comments2024-03-21T07:37:30.475-04:00Comments on Light reading: Standardized uterine replicatorsJenny Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02295436498255927522noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959297.post-51026202609511135432007-10-02T13:33:00.000-04:002007-10-02T13:33:00.000-04:00Thanks for the link...I hear you on the objection ...Thanks for the link...<BR/><BR/>I hear you on the objection at the end. I think in lots of parts, the tone of barely suppressed irritability (and of a person entering a conversation against his better judgment!) rather happily coexists with the laying-out of argument--here, not so much, partly because the narrowing-down of audience implied in that gesture is wholly at odds with the group that is actually likely to have read through to the end...Jenny Davidsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02295436498255927522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6959297.post-40964737794399378162007-10-02T11:40:00.000-04:002007-10-02T11:40:00.000-04:00I think the APA task force report does a reasonabl...I think the APA task force report does a reasonable job with laying out how to work the numbers: <A HREF="http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html" REL="nofollow">link</A><BR/>They don't characterize the heritability question as especially ill-formed.<BR/><BR/>I took exception to crshalizi's conflating at the end ("ask why it is so important to you that IQ be heritable and unchangeable"). He or she makes such a point that the two are distinguishable, and then effectively claims that anyone holding to heritability is not holding to malleability and rhetorically inquires as to motive. Struck me as a weak cheap-shot ending.Brent Bucknerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14754659334435107746noreply@blogger.com