Showing posts with label genetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label genetics. Show all posts

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Steven Pinker: Race is skin-deep

Race is, quite literally, skin-deep, but to the extent that perceivers generalize from external to internal differences, nature has duped them into thinking that race is important. The X-ray vision of the molecular geneticist reveals the unity of our species.

And so does the X-ray vision of the cognitive scientist. "Not speaking the same language" is a virtual synonym for incommensurability, but to a psycholinguist, it is a superficial difference. Knowing about the ubiquity of complex language across individuals and cultures and the single mental design underlying them all, no speech seems foreign to me, even when I cannot understand a word. The banter among New Guinean Highlanders in the film of their first contact with the rest of the world, the motions of a sign language interpreter, the prattle of little girls in a Tokyo playground - I imagine seeing through the rhythms to the structures underneath, and sense that we all have the same minds.


Pinker, Steven. (1994) "The Language Instinct." HarperCollins, New York. p. 430

Thursday, October 11, 2007

TEDTalks: "Uncertainty" Peter Donnelly (2005)

Peter Donnelly: How juries are fooled by statistics

Discusses probability theory in relation to genetics (ie. the patterning of G/A/T/C).
Human Genome Project - attempting to understand how differences make people susceptible to diseases.

Currently studying thousands of individuals with different diseases to look for genetic correlations.

Discusses the idea that if a person is tested as 'positive' with a disease then not only the accuracy of the test is in question, but also the frequency/proportion of the population with the disease. As a result, false positives can be frequent.

"We are not good at reasoning with uncertainty."
Errors are very frequently made in terms of grappling with statistics and arguments of (false) logic. In the early days of DNA profiling evidence was misrepresented, (ie. "the chance that this guy is innocent is one in 73,000,000" - was frequently incorrect).

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/67