Extremely belated but re-reading this after you linked it in your 'wrestling' post. Below 'Heads below the parapet', I think you meant Tay-sachs, which impacts ashkenazi jews, and not sickle cell, which impacts black people.
I am so grateful for professional researchers such as yourself and Razib sharing their findings to us lay-folk. I also value a forum such as this where I can engage/solicit your thoughts on this topic - so thanks!!
I'm fully aware that the following question holds potential for conflict, yet I'm attempting to find the reason why my logical inference would not follow from the following premises:
1) Reduced CAG repeats length in androgen receptor gene is associated with violent criminal behavior
2) Androgen receptor gene CAG repeat length varies in race-specific fashion in men (... without prostrate cancer)
Conclusion: there is a correlation between race and violent criminal behavior
Now I'm rushing to type this part. First, I have no idea how replicable these findings were (I've gathered they're more or less replicable, but dunno). Second, the correlation of these two findings do not imply a causal link. Third, if first two hold, the propensity of the combined effect is minor, or not distinguishable within the standard error. Fourth, if last three hold, the interaction between environment (nurture/culture) has a far larger effect on outcomes than the aforementioned genetic inclination. Fifth, and finally (!), this is an instance of a topic that we shouldn't investigate further due to... (pick your reason).
With these qualifications/rebuttals stated, how does one reconcile the fact base? I'm inclined, as you, to pursue these linkages simply due to the pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore, if the conclusion holds, I sure as hell want to know how significant it is, and I want to know how cultural intervention attenuates the undesired behavior in order to prioritize resources and develop appropriate/sensitive messaging. But all this is predicated upon my logical inference from 1) and 2), which may be faulty or statistically insignificant. Hence, my outreach.
Your input would be helpful on this topic. It's such a sensitive topic that it simply clatters around in my head out of sensitivity for others, and/or the entire point I'm exploring (the validity of the inference - not policy).
Thanks for the question. I don't really feel qualified to comment because I've never looked into the field. I know that many single-gene studies failed to replicate. Just from hitting Google Scholar a few times: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.05.009 suggests that CAG failed to predict fourth-finger-length in a meta-analysis. Similarly, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-010-9404-7 suggests not much is going on with respect to aggression. So whether CAG really does either correlate or cause aggression or crime seems not very clear. This review is more positive, but it isn't a full meta-analysis and doesn't consider publication bias: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajmg.b.32388
The broader question is "should we do these studies and how should we react to any results". My answer is the same as above: we study crime because it is a real problem, not because we want to feel good. I also feel secure holding the straightforward liberal view that we should judge individuals as individuals, and I don't foresee that results of genetic research will challenge that.
Extremely belated but re-reading this after you linked it in your 'wrestling' post. Below 'Heads below the parapet', I think you meant Tay-sachs, which impacts ashkenazi jews, and not sickle cell, which impacts black people.
I am so grateful for professional researchers such as yourself and Razib sharing their findings to us lay-folk. I also value a forum such as this where I can engage/solicit your thoughts on this topic - so thanks!!
I'm fully aware that the following question holds potential for conflict, yet I'm attempting to find the reason why my logical inference would not follow from the following premises:
1) Reduced CAG repeats length in androgen receptor gene is associated with violent criminal behavior
2) Androgen receptor gene CAG repeat length varies in race-specific fashion in men (... without prostrate cancer)
Conclusion: there is a correlation between race and violent criminal behavior
Now I'm rushing to type this part. First, I have no idea how replicable these findings were (I've gathered they're more or less replicable, but dunno). Second, the correlation of these two findings do not imply a causal link. Third, if first two hold, the propensity of the combined effect is minor, or not distinguishable within the standard error. Fourth, if last three hold, the interaction between environment (nurture/culture) has a far larger effect on outcomes than the aforementioned genetic inclination. Fifth, and finally (!), this is an instance of a topic that we shouldn't investigate further due to... (pick your reason).
With these qualifications/rebuttals stated, how does one reconcile the fact base? I'm inclined, as you, to pursue these linkages simply due to the pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore, if the conclusion holds, I sure as hell want to know how significant it is, and I want to know how cultural intervention attenuates the undesired behavior in order to prioritize resources and develop appropriate/sensitive messaging. But all this is predicated upon my logical inference from 1) and 2), which may be faulty or statistically insignificant. Hence, my outreach.
Your input would be helpful on this topic. It's such a sensitive topic that it simply clatters around in my head out of sensitivity for others, and/or the entire point I'm exploring (the validity of the inference - not policy).
Thanks
Thanks for the question. I don't really feel qualified to comment because I've never looked into the field. I know that many single-gene studies failed to replicate. Just from hitting Google Scholar a few times: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.05.009 suggests that CAG failed to predict fourth-finger-length in a meta-analysis. Similarly, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-010-9404-7 suggests not much is going on with respect to aggression. So whether CAG really does either correlate or cause aggression or crime seems not very clear. This review is more positive, but it isn't a full meta-analysis and doesn't consider publication bias: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajmg.b.32388
The broader question is "should we do these studies and how should we react to any results". My answer is the same as above: we study crime because it is a real problem, not because we want to feel good. I also feel secure holding the straightforward liberal view that we should judge individuals as individuals, and I don't foresee that results of genetic research will challenge that.