Skip to main content

Home/ XD3102 - Gender Studies/ Group items tagged Socialization

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Weiye Loh

The Meaning of Same-Sex Marriage - NYTimes.com - 0 views

opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/...marriage-meaning-and-equality

Marriage Homosexuality Philosophy Morality

shared by Weiye Loh on 27 May 12 - No Cached
  • Weiye Loh on 27 May 12
     
    Admittedly, allowing same-sex couples to marry will change the social meaning of marriage (it will no longer be part of this social meaning that every marriage is the union of a man and a woman); and for marriage to bring these intangible benefits, it needs to have a relatively stable and well-understood social meaning. However, there is no evidence that the introduction of same-sex marriage will change any other elements of this social meaning. Moreover, this social meaning has already changed radically over the years. Marriage used to be generally understood as an unequal partnership, with the wife being subordinated to her husband, whereas now - at least in law and in most of mainstream culture - marriage is viewed as a partnership of equals. In general, the social meaning of marriage must change whenever such changes are necessary to avoid injustice; so this social meaning must now be changed so that it no longer excludes the participation of same-sex couples. There is a lesson here for moral and political philosophy. In much of political philosophy, social institutions are conceived legalistically, as rules for the distribution of tangible benefits and burdens (such as money, health care, employment opportunities, and the like). Yet social institutions also have social meanings, which enable them to create important intangible benefits as well. Such institutions matter, not just because they are a mechanism for distributing tangible benefits and burdens, but because they create opportunities for meaningful human lives within society.
Weiye Loh

Pink accused of failing the smell test « Yawning Bread on Wordpress - 0 views

yawningbread.wordpress.com/...used-of-failing-the-smell-test

Race Inequality Activism Representation Homosexuality Discrimination

shared by Weiye Loh on 22 Jun 11 - No Cached
  • Alfian’s critique may well be spot on. But the implicit assumption behind such a view — that any social movement aimed at objective A must first satisfy the nose test for objective B — is highly problematic. Does one expect an animal rights group to satisfy class-equality standards among all its members, volunteers and supporters? Does one demand that an anti-abortion campaign lean over backwards to ensure gender equality?
  • He is not demanding that Pink Dot should be different, at least not in so many words. As he has written, “I don’t deny or dismiss how meaningful [Pink Dot] might be to some people. It’s just that it has a different meaning for me,” and that was why he chose not to attend this year. Nor was he stopping others from attending either. Nuanced differently is another criticism of his — that Pink Dot “comes across as anxious to colonise and co-opt all the streams that exist out there.”
  • A social movement ultimately hinges on one key issue. The supporters it attracts subscribe to the core idea, but beyond that, may not agree on anything else. Nor is participation usually made conditional upon subscription to additional beliefs. There is no test for eligibility outside of the movement’s key aim, and people self-select when they join. It should hardly be surprising therefore that on other issues, participants bring with them their (differing) biases. Or that they tend to come from certain social strata. To expect a gay-affirmative movement to meet purity standards by other yardsticks — racial views, religious representativeness, age profile, etc — is plain unrealistic.
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • Where an indictment can be made is when a movement applies tests for exclusion unrelated to its key aim. Does a gay movement deliberately exclude people of a certain ethnicity from participation?
  • But if one says that they were negligent in not making efforts to ensure purity in all other regards, or in purging itself of the various biases that its participants bring in, I would say, that’s just not fair. It’s too tall an order and it’s not what the movement is about. Why should they expend precious energy and resources on that? Don’t forget, people didn’t join to have their minds about ethnicity, religion or vegetarianism changed. They joined to promote the primary cause.
  • It’s almost inevitable that social movements do not attract a representative cross-section of the population. Social aims are embedded  in certain worldviews and a movement’s supporters would disproportionately be drawn from among those who already subscribe to that worldview.
  • I am concerned that some readers will take what I said above about how some Singaporeans are influenced by Western liberal philosophies, to then assert that they are somehow less authentic than Singaporeans more acculturated to ‘traditional’ Asian worldviews. As an extension of this, there will be some people who will then assert that homosexuality and the equal treatment of gay people is an ‘imported’ idea and therefore invalid. This is to completely miss my statement that ideas do not have skin colours. A ‘traditional’ Asian worldview is not any more authentic to us because of the colour of our skin than a liberal worldview. If the idea doesn’t suit us, it doesn’t suit us. If an idea invented by someone else works better for us, or strikes us as more advanced, rational, compassionate or just, it would be a form of essentialist thinking to stop ourselves from embracing it. Being gay-affirmative and having a liberal agenda is no more natural or unnatural than the opposite.
  • Actually, it’s not just Pink Dot. Look around at most civil society, non-profit groups that serve a wider cause (as opposed to clan associations or temple groups) and what you see is the same: Lots of English-speaking middle-class Chinese and Indians.
  • one group that is way over-represented are the White Singaporeans — who are Permanent Residents if not citizens, but who see Singapore as their second home. The primary denominator is not ethnicity, it’s social class.
  • And for liberal causes, the other chief denominator is the English language and Western acculturisation.
  • This unbalanced (if you will) mix inevitably brings with it the attitudes (and neglect) of social groups that constitute it; their strengths and their weaknesses too. Is that necessarily a bad thing? It depends. One could argue that precisely because they are drawn disproportionately from the privileged sections of society, they punch above their weight. On the other hand, it can be unfortunate in that there can be an unintended marginalisation of those that do not quite fit the same social profile and who feel crowded out by the majority of the participants. Furthermore, every attempt by the movement to broaden its base is also seen as an attempt to co-opt and colonise other streams that might otherwise share the same social aim, but spring from different social groups. In other words, all these tensions are understandable. Moreover, they can be found in every social movement. The important measure is whether they beget change. From the looks of it, Pink Dot is on its way.
  • Weiye Loh on 22 Jun 11
     
    Writing on Facebook, playwright and poet Alfian Sa'at said of the gay-affirmative event Pink Dot, "like so many things in Singapore, [it] has ended up reproducing the power structures that it should aim to challenge." He was referring to the way Pink Dot has written all over it the social ascendancy of the English-speaking ethnic-Chinese middle class. He reported a comment from a friend: "Pink Dot is as much a celebration of the LGBT community to love as it is a display of the self-love of Chinese, middle-class, English-educated liberals. What is inclusive in the term 'LGBT' is problematised by the fact that what is supposed to stand for the queer community in Singapore is almost exclusively 'CMEL'!"
Weiye Loh

Bernie Sanders Is a Social Democrat, Not a Democratic Socialist - The Atlantic - 0 views

www.theatlantic.com/...471630

Democracy Socialism United States Capitalism State

shared by Weiye Loh on 02 Mar 16 - No Cached
  • Weiye Loh on 02 Mar 16
     
    As someone who grew up under socialism and is still, barely, in his 30s, I hope to relate a few ideas to the young people who are "feeling the Bern." First, Sanders is not a socialist, but a social democrat. Second, the United States does not have a strictly capitalist economy, but a mixed one. As such, it combines a high level of private ownership of capital and the means of production with relatively onerous regulation and taxation. Third, to the extent that what anti-capitalist Sanders supporters really want is a Scandinavian-style social democracy, with its high level of wealth redistribution and income equality, they should consider that even some of the most socially democratic countries on earth are, in one crucial way, more capitalist than the United States.
Weiye Loh

What Gender Is Science? » Contexts - 0 views

contexts.org/...what-gender-is-science

Gender Gender Equality Gender Stereotype Science Discrimination

shared by Weiye Loh on 05 Jul 11 - No Cached
  • In labor markets, one well-known cause of sex segregation is discrimination, which can occur openly and directly or through more subtle, systemic processes
  • Sociologists and economists have documented this cognitive bias and “statistical discrimination” through diverse experiments. It turns out that people’s beliefs about men’s and women’s different natures lead them to assess task performance accordingly, even in the absence of any actual performance differences.
  • But discrimination isn’t the whole story. It’s well-established that girls and young women often avoid mathematically-intensive fields in favor of pursuits regarded as more human-centered. Analyses of gender-differentiated choices are controversial among scholars because this line of inquiry seems to divert attention away from structural and cultural causes of inequalities in pay and status.
  • ...21 more annotations...
  • Acknowledging gender-differentiated educational and career preferences, though, doesn’t “blame the victim” unless preferences and choices are considered in isolation from the social contexts in which they emerge.
  • Female representation in science programs is weakest in the Netherlands and strongest in Iran, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, and Oman, where science is disproportionately female. Although the Netherlands has long been considered a gender-traditional society in the European context, most people would still be intrigued to learn that women’s representation among science graduates is nearly 50 percentage points lower there than in many Muslim countries.
  • “Science” is a big, heterogeneous category, and life science, physical science, mathematics, and computing are fields with very different gender compositions. For example, women made up 60 percent of American biology graduates , but only about 19 percent of computing graduates, in 2008, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics. But even when fields are defined more precisely, countries differ in some unexpected ways. A case in point is computer science in Malaysia and the U.S. While American computer scientists are depicted as male hackers and geeks, computer science in Malaysia is deemed well-suited for women because it’s seen as theoretical (not physical) and it takes place almost exclusively in offices (thought to be woman-friendly spaces).
  • Between 2005 and 2008, countries with the most male-dominated engineering programs include the world’s leading industrial democracies (Japan, Switzerland, Germany, and the U.S.) along with some of the same oil-rich Middle Eastern countries in which women are so well-represented among science graduates (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates).
  • While the vast majority of Americans today believe women should have equal social and legal rights, they also believe men and women are very different, and they believe innate differences cause them to freely choose distinctly masculine or feminine life paths. For instance, women and men are expected to choose careers that allow them to utilize their hard-wired interests in working with people and things, respectively.
  • Women’s relatively weak presence in STEM fields in the U.S. is partly attributable to some economic, institutional, and cultural features that are common to affluent Western democracies. One such feature is a great diversity of educational and occupational pathways.
  • In countries with developing and transitional economies, though, policies have been driven more by concerns about advancing economic development than by interests in accommodating women’s presumed affinities. Acute shortages of educated workers prompted early efforts by governments and development agencies to increase the supply of STEM workers.
  • Another reason for stronger sex segregation of STEM in affluent countries may be that more people (girls and women in particular) can afford to indulge tastes for less lucrative care and social service work in these contexts.
  • the argument that women’s preferences and choices are partly responsible for sex segregation doesn’t require that preferences are innate. Career aspirations are influenced by beliefs about ourselves (What am I good at and what will I enjoy doing?), beliefs about others (What will they think of me and how will they respond to my choices?), and beliefs about the purpose of educational and occupational activities (How do I decide what field to pursue?). And these beliefs are part of our cultural heritage. Sex segregation is an especially resilient form of inequality because people so ardently believe in, enact, and celebrate cultural stereotypes about gender difference.
  • One female student reported, “…In chemical engineering, most of the time you work in labs… So I think it’s quite suitable for females also. But for civil engineering… we have to go to the site and check out the constructions.”
  • Recent sociological research provides strong evidence that cultural stereotypes about gender difference shape individuals’ beliefs about their own competencies (“self-assessments”) and influence behavior in stereotype-consistent directions. Ubiquitous cultural depictions of STEM as intrinsically male reduce girls’ interest in technical fields by defining related tasks as beyond most women’s competency and as generally unenjoyable for them. STEM avoidance is a likely outcome.
  • Whatever one believes about innate gender difference, it’s difficult to deny that men and women often behave differently and make different choices. Partly, this reflects inculcation of gender-typed preferences and abilities during early childhood. This “gender socialization” occurs through direct observation of same-sex role models, through repeated positive or negative sanctioning of gender-conforming or nonconforming behavior, and through assimilation of diffuse cultural messages about what males and females like and are good at.
  • Sociologists who study the operation of gender in social interactions have argued that people expect to be judged according to prevailing standards of masculinity or femininity. This expectation often leads them to engage in behavior that reproduces the gender order. This “doing gender” framework goes beyond socialization because it doesn’t require that gender-conforming dispositions are internalized at an early age, just that people know others will likely hold them accountable to conventional beliefs about hard-wired gender differences.
  • Parents and educators exhort young people, perhaps girls in particular, to “follow their passions” and realize their “true selves.” Because gender is such a central axis of individual identity, American girls who aim to “study what they love” are unlikely to consider male-labeled science, engineering, or technical fields, despite the material security provided by such degrees.
  • Although the so-called “postmaterialist” values of individualism and self-expression are spreading globally, they are most prominent in affluent late-modern societies. Curricular and career choices become more than practical economic decisions in these contexts; they also represent acts of identity construction and self-affirmation
  • historical evidence pointing to long-term historical shifts in the gender-labeling of some STEM fields. In The Science Education of American Girls, Kim Tolley reports that it was girls who were overrepresented among students of physics, astronomy, chemistry, and natural science in 19th century American schools. Middle-class boys dominated the higher-status classical humanities programs thought to require top rational powers and required for university admission.
  • Science education was regarded as excellent preparation for motherhood, social work, and teaching. Sociologist Katharine Donato tells a similar story about the dawn of American computer programming. Considered functionally analogous to clerical work, it was performed mostly by college-educated women with science or math backgrounds. This changed starting in the 1950s, when the occupation became attractive to men as a growing, intellectually demanding, and potentially lucrative field. The sex segregation of American STEM fields—especially engineering, computer science, and the physical sciences—has shown remarkable stability since about 1980.
  • The gender (and racial) composition of fields is strongly influenced by the economic and social circumstances that prevail at the time of their initial emergence or expansion.
  • Tolley, for example, links men’s growing dominance of science education in the late 19th and early 20th century to changing university admissions requirements, the rapid growth and professionalization of science and technology occupations, and recurrent ideological backlashes against female employment.
  • When occupations or fields are segregated by sex, most people ­suspect it reflects fields’ inherently masculine or feminine task ­content. But this presumption is belied by substantial cross-national variability in the gender composition of fields, STEM in particular. Moreover, this variability follows surprising patterns. Whereas most people would expect to find many more female engineers in the U.S. and Sweden than in Columbia and Bulgaria, new data suggest that precisely the opposite is true.
  • Ironically, the freedom of choice that’s so celebrated in affluent Western democracies seems to help construct and give agency to stereotypically gendered “selves.” Self-segregation of careers may occur because some believe they’re naturally good at gender-conforming activities (attempting to build on their strengths), because they believe that certain fields will be seen as appropriate for people like them (“doing” gender), or because they believe they’ll enjoy gender-conforming fields more than gender-nonconforming ones (realizing their “true selves”). It’s just that, by encouraging individual self-expression in postmaterialist societies, we may also effectively promote the development and expression of culturally gendered selves.
  • Weiye Loh on 05 Jul 11
     
    Science education was regarded as excellent preparation for motherhood, social work, and teaching.
Weiye Loh

I was Jordan Peterson's strongest supporter. Now I think he's dangerous | The Star - 0 views

www.thestar.com/...now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html

Academic Politics Freedom of Speech Social Order Social Justice Religion Psychology

shared by Weiye Loh on 30 May 18 - No Cached
  • Weiye Loh on 30 May 18
     
    "Jordan has a complex relationship to freedom of speech. He wants to effectively silence those left-wing professors by keeping students away from their courses because the students may one day become "anarchical social revolutionaries" who may bring upon us disruption and violence. At the same time he was advocating cutting funds to universities that did not protect free speech on their campuses. He defended the rights of "alt right" voices to speak at universities even though their presence has given rise to disruption and violence. For Jordan, it appears, not all speech is equal, and not all disruption and violence are equal, either. If Jordan is not a true free speech warrior, then what is he? The email sent through his wife's account described Bill 28, the parenting bill, as part of the "transgender agenda" and claimed it was "misleadingly" called "All Families are Equal." Misleading? What same-sex families and transgender people have in common is their upset of the social order. In Maps of Meaning, Jordan's first book, he is exercised by the breakdown of the social order and the chaos that he believes would result. Jordan is fighting to maintain the status quo to keep chaos at bay, or so he believes. He is not a free speech warrior. He is a social order warrior."
Weiye Loh

TODAYonline | The Big Read: Social stratification - a poison seeping into S'pore's hous... - 0 views

www.todayonline.com/...es-housing-estates-and-schools

Singapore Housing Education Social Policy Public

shared by Weiye Loh on 27 May 18 - No Cached
  • Weiye Loh on 27 May 18
     
    For generations, social mixing has been a hallmark of Singapore society, thanks to the housing, education and National Service policies which encourage mixing across groups of different race, income and family backgrounds. But at least two of these three policy levers, which have carefully nurtured and reinforced the culture, are not working as well as before - or as they should be. The IPS study, which was supported by the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, found that while there is social mixing between classes, "there seems to be a gap along two dimensions of social stratification, that of housing and 
Weiye Loh

It's finally out–The big review paper on the lack of political diversity in socia... - 0 views

heterodoxacademy.org/...on-lack-of-political-diversity

Psychology Sociology Diversity Academia Liberal Conservative

shared by Weiye Loh on 17 Sep 15 - No Cached
  • Weiye Loh on 17 Sep 15
     
    (1) Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years. (2) This lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike. (3) Increased political diversity would improve social psychological science by reducing the impact of bias mechanisms such as confirmation bias, and by empowering dissenting minorities to improve the quality of the majority's thinking. (4) The underrepresentation of non-liberals in social psychology is most likely due to a combination of self-selection, hostile climate, and discrimination.
Weiye Loh

Balderdash: On trying to dismiss research findings you don't like (OR: On women being m... - 0 views

gssq.blogspot.com/...dismiss-research-findings.html

Statistics Frequentism Bayes Religion Gender Stereotype Evidence

shared by Weiye Loh on 15 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • Statistics 101: just because a difference is significant doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s significant.
  • the finding holds true across a wide variety of metrics: http://www.livescience.com/7689-women-religious-men.html “The percent of women (and then men) who: * Are affiliated with a religion: 86 (79). * Have absolutely certain belief in a God or universal spirit: 77 (65). * Pray at least daily: 66 (49). * Have absolutely certain belief in a personal God: 58 (45).” This gender disparity also shows up across 7 decades of polls. All this points to a remarkably robust result which requires, at the least, a great deal of explanation to challenge.
  • with regard to providing evidence for a particular arbitrary interpretation of statistical data versus another… is there evidence that appealing to p<0.05 provides for more accurate conclusions than p<0.01? Type I or Type II error, one must choose one's poison.
  • ...16 more annotations...
  • whether an absolute but relatively small difference that appears unlikely to be due to random variance in single population (P<0.whathaveyou) is, for want of a separate word, informative, is thoroughly context-dependent (and no where is this a more important issue to acknowledge than in the already dubious realm of evopsych).
  • religious institutions are almost all patriarchal, and almost all hang on the prophesies, testimonies, miracles and other arcane meanderings of… men. Which puts a big bloody question mark over the idea that women are, by pure voluntary association, more likely to be religious. The shadow of coercion, so neatly emphasized by such thrilling events as the Salem Witch trials, is strong and it is thoroughly male. That the religious leanings of that extra woman in the group of 20 are due to a profound social pressure does not seem like an outrageous hypothesis. Certainly a better one than “Women are more religious than men because they’re women”.
  • Me: I think any investigation of gender differences in skepticism cannot ignore the fact that women are more religious than men.
  • DSKS: Women are not more religious than men. Much like the intelligence difference issue, there’s a palpable irony in the fact that the statistics of such studies are so often approached by men with exactly the kind of lazily intuitive thinking that the data ostensibly suggest women are the more prone to.
  • Me: A p-value of 5% is standard in social science and is a good compromise between Type I and Type II errors. That’s the reason why good research must be replicable – and 7 decades of polls is surely sufficient for that. In any event, this is a very simple research finding (very unlike studies of whether drugs are more effective than placebos) with an effect size larger than what you typically find in research, so I am sure the p-value is far below 1%.
  • As for biological differences, when did they come into the picture?! What I was referring to was the very uncontroversial finding that women are *more religious* than men, not that there’re inherent biological reasons why this is so. There are various theories put forward to explain why women are more religious than men, and not all of them are biologically grounded.
  • When you sample size is 20 – 10 in each population – I would not draw any strong conclusions. Yet when we crank up the sample size – in theory 30 is the minimum you need to get a reasonably accurate result – and more importantly, replicate the findings multiple times, attempts at denying findings you don’t like look more and more like delusion (the social baggage that invariably taints such investigations is not always on the part of those seeking to draw conclusions from research). I’m assuming that you don’t think very highly of social science research in general, since more or less all of it can be objected to on similar grounds.
  • DSKS: I have no general aversion to social science. Arguably the best and the worst use of statistics occurs within that discipline. (Your last post suggests that you might be of a frequentist disposition, which is interesting because this approach is currently under pressure in the social sciences, assailed as it is by the Bayes brigade.
  • as I understand it the majority of these studies have not been conducted to the standards of a serious quantitative study by a team of social science researchers anyway; mostly basic Q&A based polls from Gallup and similar outfits. Outfits that have been notoriously wrong in there poll-based predictions for more concrete things like voting patterns. These also tend to return the kinds of numbers that are ripe for cooking in all sorts of ways to yield different strengths of interpretation. e.g. for the following: * Are affiliated with a religion: 86 (79) * Have absolutely certain belief in a God or universal spirit: 77 (65). * Pray at least daily: 66 (49). * Have absolutely certain belief in a personal God: 58 (45).”,
  • Assuming equal sampling of men vs women, the female fraction of religiously affiliated, God believing, and praying are 52, 55, and 57% respectively. Suddenly, the differences aren’t so striking, and when we consider that the latter three questions are a little vague (what exactly does an individual consider to be “God” or a “universal spirit” and what constitutes prayer?) they’re even less so simply by virtue of being difficult to parse meaningfully.
  • At best we can say that there is possibly a weak but persistent trend indicative of higher probability of a randomly selected woman being religious than for man. But simply stating a frequency statistic that, “More of the religious are women” is very different from the statement and conclusion that, “Women are more religious than men”. Given as a hypothesis, the latter is as immediately falsifiable as the statement, “Men are taller than women”.
  • The widely accepted test size of 5%, after all, means that there is a 5% chance of getting the results in question even if your null hypothesis is true. I’m assuming your bar for “a serious quantitative study” is really high, and would disqualify a good deal of research; despite repeating the mantra of “correlation is not causation” when they don’t like particular research findings, I still see researchers fall prey to it – especially when they like what they find (one example: TV violence).
  • And just mentioning Bayesianism does not mean that women are somehow not more religious than men – after all, the statistics show that more women are religious than men, which will update your prior probability
  • While definitions of prayer and gods differ, we are not trying to investigate the research question, “Do more women than men hold to the Nicene Creed” but simply “Are women more religious than men?”. What sort of questions would you ask to determine religiosity, if not these?
  • Also, differences do not have to be overwhelming in order to make a difference. To turn it around, the gender wage gap in 2008 was 77:100 (this is ignoring very important factors like education, experience, occupation, industry and union membership). So the female fraction of earnings in 2008 was only 44%. Yet, if I said “Suddenly, the difference is not so striking” or that “at best we can say that there is possibly a weak but persistent trend indicative of higher probability of a randomly selected woman earning less than a man”, you can imagine the frosty reception I would receive.
  • Lastly no one (except those flogging straw men) seriously thinks that the statement “Men are taller than women” means that all men are taller than all women, or that “Women are more religious than men” means that all women are more religious than all men, any more than anyone would say that the claim that “there is racism against blacks in the United States” is falsified by there being a black President.
Weiye Loh

Commentary: A minimum wage isn't the answer to inequality - Channel NewsAsia - 0 views

www.channelnewsasia.com/...ingapore-minimum-wage-10815924

Social Mobility Income Inequality Poverty Minimum Wage

shared by Weiye Loh on 15 Oct 18 - No Cached
  • Weiye Loh on 15 Oct 18
     
    to determine whether increase in income inequity is bad or good, we should also study whether there is social mobility.  If social mobility remains strong, income inequality would be less of an issue. But looking at income inequality, which is the gap between those with very high income and those with very low income, is not sufficient, because one has to examine the poverty rate to see how widespread the impact of poverty may be.  If the poverty rate is high, coupled with income inequality, social mobility is likely to be low. Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/commentary/oxfam-inequality-index-singapore-minimum-wage-10815924
Weiye Loh

It's Even Less in Your Genes by Richard C. Lewontin | The New York Review of Books - 0 views

www.nybooks.com/...its-even-less-your-genes

Genetic Nature Nurture Causation Heritable Heritability

shared by Weiye Loh on 20 May 11 - No Cached
  • Although classic Darwinism is framed by referring to organisms adapting to environments, the actual process of evolution involves the creation of new “ecological niches” as new life forms come into existence. Part of the ecological niche of an earthworm is the tunnel excavated by the worm and part of the ecological niche of a tree is the assemblage of fungi associated with the tree’s root system that provide it with nutrients.
  • The vulgarization of Darwinism that sees the “struggle for existence” as nothing but the competition for some environmental resource in short supply ignores the large body of evidence about the actual complexity of the relationship between organisms and their resources. First, despite the standard models created by ecologists in which survivorship decreases with increasing population density, the survival of individuals in a population is often greatest not when their “competitors” are at their lowest density but at an intermediate one. That is because organisms are involved not only in the consumption of resources, but in their creation as well. For example, in fruit flies, which live on yeast, the worm-like immature stages of the fly tunnel into rotting fruit, creating more surface on which the yeast can grow, so that, up to a point, the more larvae, the greater the amount of food available. Fruit flies are not only consumers but also farmers.
  • Second, the presence in close proximity of individual organisms that are genetically different can increase the growth rate of a given type, presumably since they exude growth-promoting substances into the soil. If a rice plant of a particular type is planted so that it is surrounded by rice plants of a different type, it will give a higher yield than if surrounded by its own type. This phenomenon, known for more than a half-century, is the basis of a common practice of mixed-variety rice cultivation in China, and mixed-crop planting has become a method used by practitioners of organic agriculture.
  • ...18 more annotations...
  • Despite the evidence that organisms do not simply use resources present in the environment but, through their life activities, produce such resources and manufacture their environments, the distinction between organisms and their environments remains deeply embedded in our consciousness
  • the problem is deeper than simply intellectual inertia. It goes back, ultimately, to the unconsidered differentiations we make—at every moment when we distinguish among objects—between those in the foreground of our consciousness and the background places in which the objects happen to be situated. Moreover, this distinction creates a hierarchy of objects. We are conscious not only of the skin that encloses and defines the object, but of bits and pieces of that object, each of which must have its own “skin.” That is the problem of anatomization. A car has a motor and brakes and a transmission and an outer body that, at appropriate moments, become separate objects of our consciousness, objects that at least some knowledgeable person recognizes as coherent entities.
  • Evelyn Fox Keller sees “The Mirage of a Space Between Nature and Nurture” as a consequence of our false division of the world into living objects without sufficient consideration of the external milieu in which they are embedded, since organisms help create effective environments through their own life activities. Fox Keller is one of the most sophisticated and intelligent analysts of the social and psychological forces that operate in intellectual life and, in particular, of the relation of gender in our society both to the creation and acceptance of scientific ideas. The central point of her analysis has been that gender itself (as opposed to sex) is socially constructed, and that construction has influenced the development of science:If there is a single point on which all feminist scholarship…has converged, it is the importance of recognizing the social construction of gender…. All of my work on gender and science proceeds from this basic recognition. My endeavor has been to call attention to the ways in which the social construction of a binary opposition between “masculine” and “feminine” has influenced the social construction of science.
  • It is, for example, all very well to say that genetic variation is responsible for 76 percent of the observed variation in adult height among American women while the remaining 24 percent is a consequence of differences in nutrition. The implication is that if all variation in nutrition were abolished then 24 percent of the observed height variation among individuals in the population in the next generation would disappear. To say, however, that 76 percent of Evelyn Fox Keller’s height was caused by her genes and 24 percent by her nutrition does not make sense. The nonsensical implication of trying to partition the causes of her individual height would be that if she never ate anything she would still be three quarters as tall as she is.
  • Keller is too optimistic about the assignment of causes of variation even when considering variation in a population. As she herself notes parenthetically, the assignment of relative proportions of population variation to different causes in a population depends on there being no specific interaction between the causes. She gives as a simple example the sound of two different drummers playing at a distance from us. If each drummer plays each drum for us, we should be able to tell the effect of different drummers as opposed to differences between drums. But she admits that is only true if the drummers themselves do not change their ways of playing when they change drums.
  • If there are several variable factors influencing some phenomenon, how are we to assign the relative importance to each in determining total variation?
  • There is a third source of variation called the “interaction,” the variation that cannot be accounted for simply by the separate average effects of location and variety. There is no difference that appears between the average of different varieties or average of different locations, suggesting that neither location or variety matters to yield. Yet the yields of corn were different when different particular combinations of variety and location are observed. These effects of particular combinations of factors, not accounted for by the average effects of each factor separately, are thrown into an unanalyzed category called “interaction” with no concrete physical model made explicit.
  • Suppose that we plant seeds of each of two different varieties of corn in two different locations with the following results measured in bushels of corn produced (see Table 1). There are differences between the varieties in their yield from location to location and there are differences between locations from variety to variety. So, both variety and location matter. But there is no average variation between locations when averaged over varieties or between varieties when averaged over locations. Just by knowing the variation in yield associated with location and variety separately does not tell us which factor is the more important source of variation; nor do the facts of location and variety exhaust the description of that variation.
  • DNA studies of disease causation had a “relatively low impact.” Both of these articles were instigated by several articles in The New England Journal of Medicine, which had come to the conclusion that the search for genes underlying common causes of mortality had so far yielded virtually nothing useful. The failure to find such genes continues and it seems likely that the search for the genes causing most common diseases will go the way of the search for the genes for IQ.
  • Ironically, at the same time that genetics has ceased to be a popular explanation for human intellectual and temperamental differences, genetic theories for the causation of virtually every physical disorder have become the mode.
  • The Mirage of a Space Between Nature and Nurture appears in an era when biological—and specifically, genetic—causation is taken as the preferred explanation for all human physical differences. Although the early and mid-twentieth century was a period of immense popularity of genetic explanations for class and race differences in mental ability and temperament, especially among social scientists, such theories have now virtually disappeared from public view
  • A major problem in understanding what geneticists have found out about the relation between genes and manifest characteristics of organisms is an overly flexible use of language that creates ambiguities of meaning. In particular, their use of the terms “heritable” and “heritability” is so confusing
  • When a biological characteristic is said to be “heritable,” it means that it is capable of being transmitted from parents to offspring, just as money may be inherited, although neither is inevitable. In contrast, “heritability” is a statistical concept, the proportion of variation of a characteristic in a population that is attributable to genetic variation among individuals. The implication of “heritability” is that some proportion of the next generation will possess it.
  • The move from “heritable” to “heritability” is a switch from a qualitative property at the level of an individual to a statistical characterization of a population. Of course, to have a nonzero heritability in a population, a trait must be heritable at the individual level. But it is important to note that even a trait that is perfectly heritable at the individual level might have essentially zero heritability at the population level. If I possess a unique genetic variant that enables me with no effort at all to perform a task that many other people have learned to do only after great effort, then that ability is heritable in me and may possibly be passed on to my children, but it may also be of zero heritability in the population.
  • One of the problems of exploring an intellectual discipline from the outside is that the importance of certain basic methodological considerations is not always apparent to the observer, considerations that mold the entire intellectual structure that characterizes the field. So, in her first chapter, “Nature and Nurture as Alternatives,” Fox Keller writes that “my concern is with the tendency to think of nature and nurture as separable and hence as comparable, as forces to which relative strength can be assigned.” That concern is entirely appropriate for an external critic, and especially one who, like Fox Keller, comes from theoretical physics rather than experimental biology. Experimental geneticists, however, find environmental effects a serious distraction from the study of genetic and molecular mechanisms that are at the center of their interest, so they do their best to work with cases in which environmental effects are at a minimum or in which those effects can be manipulated at will. If the machine model of organisms that underlies our entire approach to the study of biology is to work for us, we must restrict our objects of study to those in which we can observe and manipulate all the gears and levers
  • Genetics, from its very beginning, has been a “subtractive” science. That is, it is based on the analysis of the difference between natural or “wild-type” organisms and those with some genetic defect that may interfere in some observable way with regular function. But to carry out such comparison it is necessary that the organisms being studied are, to the extent possible, identical in all other respects, and that the comparison is carried out in an environment that does not, itself, generate atypical responses yet allows the possible effect of the genetic perturbation to be observed. We must face the possibility that such a subtractive approach will never be able to reveal the way in which nature and nurture interact in normal circumstances.
  • An alternative to the standard subtractive method of genetic perturbations would be a synthetic approach in which living systems would be constructed ab initio from their molecular elements. It is now clear that most of the DNA in an organism is not contained in genes in the usual sense.
  • 98–99 percent of the DNA is not a code for a sequence of amino acids that will be assembled into long chains that will fold up to become the proteins that are essential to the formation of organisms; yet that nongenic DNA is transmitted faithfully from generation to generation just like the genic DNA.
Weiye Loh

Women earn less than men even when they set the pay - 0 views

marginalrevolution.com/...ven-when-they-set-the-pay.html

Gender Equality Gender Stereotype Feminism Pay Income

shared by Weiye Loh on 13 Nov 14 - No Cached
  • Weiye Loh on 13 Nov 14
     
    "That women earn less money than men is well known. But research has revealed that even when women start their own not-for-profit "social enterprises" they pay themselves less than their male peers. The study, comprising 159 social entrepreneurs in the UK, showed an adjusted pay gap between the sexes of about 23 per cent. That is similar to the global difference in earnings between men and women. The International Labour Organisation estimates that to be about 23 per cent - meaning that, for every £1 men earn, women earn 77p. …The new research, by academics at London Business School, Aston University and the University of Antwerp, mirrors previous findings on the salaries earned by male and female founders of for-profit companies. A report on Goldman Sachs' 10,000 Small Businesses programme, noted that female participants, on average, paid themselves 80 per cent of the salary of male participants. Saul Estrin, visiting professor of strategy and entrepreneurship, London Business School, and co-author of the latest report, points out that the differences cannot be explained by discrimination since these chief executives set their own pay. He looked at the entrepreneurs' job satisfaction and found female social entrepreneurs to be more satisfied with their role than their male counterparts."
Weiye Loh

Epp and Borghetto have solved for the equilibrium... - Marginal REVOLUTION - 0 views

marginalrevolution.com/...ghetto-solved-equilibrium.html

Income Inequality Politics Public Policy

shared by Weiye Loh on 11 Jul 18 - No Cached
  • Weiye Loh on 11 Jul 18
     
    This article investigates the effects of economic inequality on legislative agendas. It considers two competing hypotheses: (1) that policymakers will act to counter rising inequality by renewing their focus on redistributive social policies, and (2) that rising inequality makes legislative agendas especially vulnerable to the influence of economic elites, and that these elites will attempt to keep redistributive social policies off the agenda. Empirical tests, which are designed to arbitrate between these hypotheses, use data on public laws and parliamentary bills introduced in the legislatures of nine European countries between 1941 and 2014. The evidence is supportive of the second hypothesis: as inequality becomes more acute, European legislative agendas become systematically less diverse and this narrowing of attention is driven by a migration away from social safety-net issues toward issues relating to law enforcement, immigration, and national defense.
Weiye Loh

Illusio: Balled Over by the Empire - 0 views

akikonomu.blogspot.sg/...balled-over-by-empire.html

Racism Colonialism Singapore Southeast Asia Vietnam China

shared by Weiye Loh on 01 Oct 16 - No Cached
  • Weiye Loh on 01 Oct 16
     
    " 23 September 2016 Balled Over by the Empire In our "Rise of the anti-intellectual, illiberal left" category, the question is: Which of the following did not happen this week? A. Social Justice Warriors waging war on pie. Empire Pie. I miss fafblog and its pie jokes. B. Social Justice Warriors waging war on a museum. It put on a fundraising dinner called the Empire Ball to kick of its curated exhibition of the Tate's edgy, critical, anti-colonial take on Empire and Artists (co-branding yay or nay?). They object to the word empire, of course. C. Social Justice Warriors waging war on Fox's Empire. The word empire is imperialist (duh) and triggering. The UK exports Empire Pie all over Europe. Why are Euroleftist then not triggered by Empire Pie?! But let's talk about the National Gallery Singapore's little tiff with the SJWs. Of all three cases, it is the most tragicomic for several reasons. To whit: The National Gallery Singapore (TNGS) has been building its reputation as a Curator's gallery. Nothing that happens, happens without the careful and deliberate choices taken its curators. Unofficially, we can say their operational motto is The Curators Are God. I cannot confirm or deny if they say that too in private, within the gallery itself. As is clear from its publicity material, TNGS is very clear on the critical stand it takes on the issue of Empire (i.e. Mostly A Very Bad Thing). The protesters (including some of the artists participating in the exhibition and okay with its theme and approach) have chosen to ignore that stand to insist that the use of the word EMPIRE in its fundraising Empire Ball is triggering, etc. Of interest to us is this particular denunciation from ArtHop, a soi dissant intellectual rag to explain to its artistic audience, the Southeast Asia artworld. Note the intellectual poverty and posturing, the attempt to use a badly-quilted patchwork of academic jargon to advance what is essentially a classic SJW argument of ideological purity a
Weiye Loh

Marriage should not come with any social benefits or privileges | Aeon Ideas - 0 views

aeon.co/...-social-benefits-or-privileges

Marriage Rights Gender Equality

shared by Weiye Loh on 20 May 17 - No Cached
  • Weiye Loh on 20 May 17
     
    "single people still don't have access to the legal benefits and protections the government grants to those who get married. In the US, there are more than 1,100 laws benefiting married couples, and that's just at the federal level; many states offer perks and protections as well. Spouses in the US can pass on Medicare, as well as Social Security, disability, veterans and military benefits. They can get health insurance through a spouse's employer; receive discounted rates for homeowners', auto and other types of insurance; make medical decisions for each other as well as funeral arrangements; and take family leave to care for an ill spouse, or bereavement leave if a spouse dies. Sign up for Aeon's Newsletter Daily Weekly These privileges are unavailable to the unmarried in the US, yet most single people would benefit if they were. After all, singles are rarely all alone. They have parents, siblings and other relatives, they have close friends and, often, lovers. Why should they be denied the right to pass on their Social Security benefits to them when they die, instead of having their money absorbed back into the system? Why should they be denied paid time off work to care for them?"
Weiye Loh

This video of a woman asking 100 men to sleep with her destroys myths about casual sex - 0 views

www.dailydot.com/...-experiment-100-men-casual-sex

Gender Stereotype Sex

shared by Weiye Loh on 30 Apr 15 - No Cached
  • Weiye Loh on 30 Apr 15
     
    But the truth is, there's actually an existing body of research that draws the exact same "shocking" conclusion that Andrea's social experiment does: that men aren't significantly more likely to jump at the chance to have casual sex than women are. Andrea's "social experiment" isn't just unsurprising, it's also unoriginal
Weiye Loh

It's Even Less in Your Genes by Richard C. Lewontin | The New York Review of Books - 0 views

www.nybooks.com/...its-even-less-your-genes

Genetic Nature Nurture Diversity

shared by Weiye Loh on 17 May 11 - No Cached
  • presence in close proximity of individual organisms that are genetically different can increase the growth rate of a given type, presumably since they exude growth-promoting substances into the soil. If a rice plant of a particular type is planted so that it is surrounded by rice plants of a different type, it will give a higher yield than if surrounded by its own type. This phenomenon, known for more than a half-century, is the basis of a common practice of mixed-variety rice cultivation in China, and mixed-crop planting has become a method used by practitioners of organic agriculture.
  • The vulgarization of Darwinism that sees the “struggle for existence” as nothing but the competition for some environmental resource in short supply ignores the large body of evidence about the actual complexity of the relationship between organisms and their resources. First, despite the standard models created by ecologists in which survivorship decreases with increasing population density, the survival of individuals in a population is often greatest not when their “competitors” are at their lowest density but at an intermediate one. That is because organisms are involved not only in the consumption of resources, but in their creation as well. For example, in fruit flies, which live on yeast, the worm-like immature stages of the fly tunnel into rotting fruit, creating more surface on which the yeast can grow, so that, up to a point, the more larvae, the greater the amount of food available. Fruit flies are not only consumers but also farmers.
  • One of the complications is that the effective environment is defined by the life activities of the organism itself.
  • ...9 more annotations...
  • Thus, as organisms evolve, their environments necessarily evolve with them. Although classic Darwinism is framed by referring to organisms adapting to environments, the actual process of evolution involves the creation of new “ecological niches” as new life forms come into existence. Part of the ecological niche of an earthworm is the tunnel excavated by the worm and part of the ecological niche of a tree is the assemblage of fungi associated with the tree’s root system that provide it with nutrients.
  • , the distinction between organisms and their environments remains deeply embedded in our consciousness. Partly this is due to the inertia of educational institutions and materials
  • But the problem is deeper than simply intellectual inertia. It goes back, ultimately, to the unconsidered differentiations we make—at every moment when we distinguish among objects—between those in the foreground of our consciousness and the background places in which the objects happen to be situated. Moreover, this distinction creates a hierarchy of objects. We are conscious not only of the skin that encloses and defines the object, but of bits and pieces of that object, each of which must have its own “skin.” That is the problem of anatomization. A car has a motor and brakes and a transmission and an outer body that, at appropriate moments, become separate objects of our consciousness, objects that at least some knowledgeable person recognizes as coherent entities.
  • Evelyn Fox Keller sees “The Mirage of a Space Between Nature and Nurture” as a consequence of our false division of the world into living objects without sufficient consideration of the external milieu in which they are embedded, since organisms help create effective environments through their own life activities.
  • The central point of her analysis has been that gender itself (as opposed to sex) is socially constructed, and that construction has influenced the development of science:If there is a single point on which all feminist scholarship…has converged, it is the importance of recognizing the social construction of gender…. All of my work on gender and science proceeds from this basic recognition. My endeavor has been to call attention to the ways in which the social construction of a binary opposition between “masculine” and “feminine” has influenced the social construction of science.
  • major critical concern of Fox Keller’s present book is the widespread attempt to partition in some quantitative way the contribution made to human variation by differences in biological inheritance, that is, differences in genes, as opposed to differences in life experience. She wants to make clear a distinction between analyzing the relative strength of the causes of variation among individuals and groups, an analysis that is coherent in principle, and simply assigning the relative contributions of biological and environmental causes to the value of some character in an individual
  • It is, for example, all very well to say that genetic variation is responsible for 76 percent of the observed variation in adult height among American women while the remaining 24 percent is a consequence of differences in nutrition. The implication is that if all variation in nutrition were abolished then 24 percent of the observed height variation among individuals in the population in the next generation would disappear. To say, however, that 76 percent of Evelyn Fox Keller’s height was caused by her genes and 24 percent by her nutrition does not make sense. The nonsensical implication of trying to partition the causes of her individual height would be that if she never ate anything she would still be three quarters as tall as she is.
  • In fact, Keller is too optimistic about the assignment of causes of variation even when considering variation in a population. As she herself notes parenthetically, the assignment of relative proportions of population variation to different causes in a population depends on there being no specific interaction between the causes.
  • Keller’s rather casual treatment of the interaction between causal factors in the case of the drummers, despite her very great sophistication in analyzing the meaning of variation, is a symptom of a fault that is deeply embedded in the analytic training and thinking of both natural and social scientists. If there are several variable factors influencing some phenomenon, how are we to assign the relative importance to each in determining total variation? Let us take an extreme example. Suppose that we plant seeds of each of two different varieties of corn in two different locations with the following results measured in bushels of corn produced (see Table 1). There are differences between the varieties in their yield from location to location and there are differences between locations from variety to variety. So, both variety and location matter. But there is no average variation between locations when averaged over varieties or between varieties when averaged over locations. Just by knowing the variation in yield associated with location and variety separately does not tell us which factor is the more important source of variation; nor do the facts of location and variety exhaust the description of that variation.
  • Weiye Loh on 17 May 11
     
    In trying to analyze the natural world, scientists are seldom aware of the degree to which their ideas are influenced both by their way of perceiving the everyday world and by the constraints that our cognitive development puts on our formulations. At every moment of perception of the world around us, we isolate objects as discrete entities with clear boundaries while we relegate the rest to a background in which the objects exist.
Weiye Loh

Royal Pingdom: Is the online tech crowd really THAT dominated by men? - 0 views

royal.pingdom.com/...online-tech-dominated-by-men

Gender Stereotype Technology Social Media

shared by Weiye Loh on 09 Jun 11 - No Cached
  • Male vs. female site visitors We can do a lot of talking, but the easiest and clearest way to show you how the site visitors to these sites are divided is simply to… show you. We were tempted to go with blue and pink for the chart, but we’d never hear the end of it
  • Weiye Loh on 09 Jun 11
     
    The results: Most male-dominated sites: Techmeme, Slashdot and John Gruber's Daring Fireball all have close to 90% male visitors. Hacker News and AppleInsider weren't far behind. Least male-dominated sites: Mashable was the least male-dominated of the sites (59%), followed by TechCrunch (66%). The average for the sites in this survey is 78% male visitors, 22% female. If we look at just the United States, the average is 75% male visitors, 25% female. Social networks tend to have a pretty even distribution between men and women overall, in many cases even being female dominated (here is a survey from 2009). This may explain why Mashable had more female visitors than any of the other sites in this survey; the site has a pretty strong focus on social media. Another reason may simply be that it's considered a more mainstream blog.
Weiye Loh

Reasonable Doubt: A New Look at Whether Prison Growth Cuts Crime | Open Philanthropy Pr... - 0 views

www.openphilanthropy.org/...ether-prison-growth-cuts-crime

Prison Decarceration Crime Economics Sociology Social Science Research

shared by Weiye Loh on 06 Oct 17 - No Cached
  • Weiye Loh on 06 Oct 17
     
    "I estimate, that at typical policy margins in the United States today, decarceration has zero net impact on crime. That estimate is uncertain, but at least as much evidence suggests that decarceration reduces crime as increases it. The crux of the matter is that tougher sentences hardly deter crime, and that while imprisoning people temporarily stops them from committing crime outside prison walls, it also tends to increase their criminality after release. As a result, "tough-on-crime" initiatives can reduce crime in the short run but cause offsetting harm in the long run. Empirical social science research-or at least non-experimental social science research-should not be taken at face value. Among three dozen studies I reviewed, I obtained or reconstructed the data and code for eight. Replication and reanalysis revealed significant methodological concerns in seven and led to major reinterpretations of four. These studies endured much tougher scrutiny from me than they did from peer reviewers in order to make it into academic journals. Yet given the stakes in lives and dollars, the added scrutiny was worth it. So from the point of view of decision makers who rely on academic research, today's peer review processes fall well short of the optimal."
Weiye Loh

A Guaranteed Income for Every AmericanReplacing the welfare state with an annual grant ... - 0 views

www.wsj.com/...-for-every-american-1464969586

Universal Basic Income Public Policy Welfare Income Redistribution

shared by Weiye Loh on 06 Jun 16 - No Cached
  • Weiye Loh on 06 Jun 16
     
    The UBI is to be financed by getting rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, housing subsidies, welfare for single women and every other kind of welfare and social-services program, as well as agricultural subsidies and corporate welfare. As of 2014, the annual cost of a UBI would have been about $200 billion cheaper than the current system. By 2020, it would be nearly a trillion dollars cheaper. Finally, an acknowledgment: Yes, some people will idle away their lives under my UBI plan. But that is already a problem. As of 2015, the Current Population Survey tells us that 18% of unmarried males and 23% of unmarried women ages 25 through 54-people of prime working age-weren't even in the labor force. Just about all of them were already living off other people's money. The question isn't whether a UBI will discourage work, but whether it will make the existing problem significantly worse.
Weiye Loh

Nature, nurture and liberal values | Prospect Magazine - 0 views

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/...nz-david-eagleman-neuroscience

Culture Nature Nurture Gender Stereotype

shared by Weiye Loh on 02 Feb 12 - No Cached
  • If we follow the evolutionary biologists, therefore, we may find ourselves pushed towards accepting that traits often attributed to culture may be part of our genetic inheritance, and therefore not as changeable as many might have hoped: gender differences, intelligence, belligerence, and so on through all the characteristics that people have wished, for whatever reason, to rescue from destiny and refashion as choice.
  • Weiye Loh on 02 Feb 12
     
    culture is an adaptation, which exists because it conferred a reproductive advantage on our hunter-gatherer ancestors. According to this view many of the diverse customs that the standard social science model attributes to nurture are local variations of attributes acquired 70 or more millennia ago, during the Pleistocene age, and now (like other evolutionary adaptations) "hard-wired in the brain." But if this is so, cultural characteristics may not be as plastic as the social scientists suggest. There are features of the human condition, such as gender roles, that people have believed to be cultural and therefore changeable. But if culture is an aspect of nature, "cultural" does not mean "changeable." Maybe these controversial features of human culture are part of the genetic endowment of human kind.
1 - 20 of 214 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page