Petty identity politics indeed, or, holding a grudge is no excuse for anti-science

Living Anthropologically takes issue with my contention that the "big hole" in genetic sampling of Native groups in the US is due to "petty identity politics contra science":

1. Contemporary Native Americans have very good reasons to not participate in these studies of earliest Americans. 

Just like in “Battle of the Bones”–which attempts to make a science-versus-creationism argument for studying Native American remains–people take this “paucity of samples from North America” as an opportunity to bash contemporary Native Americans for opting out of these studies. Dienekes blog asks if this is “Petty identity politics contra science?” and commenters on various articles condemn Native groups for this supposedly “petty” refusal. 

For many years I’ve been showing the BBC production, Bones of Contention: Native American Archaeology for Introduction to Anthropology. Produced in 1995, this film is even older than “Battle of the Bones,” but it takes a BBC perspective to give a fairer presentation of U.S. politics and Native issues. What this film at least makes clear–and seems lost on so many–is that Native Americans have plenty of good reasons to still be suspicious of genetic investigation. 

Genocide. Treaty abrogation. Children sent to boarding school to be stripped of language and identity. Contemporary inequalities. The fact that every time I assign “Battle of the Bones” and screen Bones of Contention, some students openly snicker or rant about Native Americans holding back science. It’s one of the factors that went undiscussed in that re-study of Stephen Jay Gould’s Mismeasure of Man–how did Morton get all those skulls anyway?
Petty identity politics indeed.

In my opinion that is a lot of hooey to justify the unjustifiable. I won't argue about the veracity or details of this version of history, but surely native Americans from the US were not especially mistreated compared to other people colonized by Europeans?

I mean, there are now samples from Native Australians, East Indians, Sub-Saharan Africans, Native Americans from all over the Americas except the US. Why don't all these people not "hold a grudge" for their bad treatment at the hands of Europeans, but, apparently, are perfectly willing to participate in genetic research if it's explained to them how they might learn more about their ancestors from it?

And, why limit ourselves to people colonized by Europeans? Surely, Slavs, for example, have a lot of things to say about German Rassenkunde scientists belittling them, studying their skulls to "prove" they are an inferior race, and hatching up and executing plans for their annihilation. So, why do the Russians give the Denisova fingerbone to ze Max Planck folks to study, or allow them to study ancient DNA from all over their territory?

Scour the literature for a while, and you'll find plenty of (modern) Germans studying Jews, and Jews studying pretty much everybody, including many not-so-friendly Muslim populations. You'll find Russians too, studying all the subjugated ethnic groups of their former Empire, and plenty of Han Chinese scientists studying some of the 57 ethnic groups of their country. You'll find Serbs and Turks forgetting about the Battle of Kosovo or the Balkan Wars to participate in joint research about the origins of the Neolithic. You'll find Roma and Saami being studied by their native European "oppressors."

And, how about those African Americans whose ancestors were dragged across the Atlantic in chains, and forced to work as slaves, surely they have as good a reason, if not better, to be suspicious of being made an object of study by people outside their community? But, last time I checked, there were plenty of studies on that population, informing them about the sources of their African ancestors and the timing and extent of admixture with their European ones.

In short: you'll find plenty of groups with historical or even contemporary sources of conflict setting aside their differences in the interest of science.

The anti-scientific attitude of certain Native American groups cannot be ascribed to a history of oppression or conflict with the ancestors of the scientists wishing to study them. And, indeed, if Native Americans were once oppressed by the Palefaces, why don't they let themselves be studied by Chinese or Japanese researchers, or indeed by their own scientists: there are Native American geneticists after all!

There are two answers to this question:

• The cultural relativist nonsense about science being a "white man's way of knowing" that is of no use to Native groups who already know who their ancestors were.
• "petty identity politics" indeed.

If one can think of a better explanation, I'm willing to listen. But, please, no more of that "oppressed people mistrusting Western scientists" tripe.

Mapping Stereotypes

If you're in need of a good belly laugh, I'm sure you'll find something in the Mapping Stereotypes site to suit you.

Εκλογές 17ης Ιουνίου 2012

Κείμενο της ομιλίας.

Το μέλλον της Ελλάδας

Το Μέλλον της Ελλάδας

Η οικονομία μπορεί να ανακάμψει εντός της Ευρωζώνης. Επιστροφή στη δραχμή θα ήταν δημοσιονομική αυτοκτονία.

των Ν. ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΔΗ, Γ. ΙΩΑΝΝΙΔΗ, Ε. ΠΕΤΡΑΚΗ, Χ. ΠΙΣΣΑΡΙΔΗ ΚΑΙ Θ. ΣΤΕΓΚΟΥ

Αυτή την Κυριακή οι Έλληνες θα προσέλθουν στις κάλπες με σύγχυση, φόβο και βιώνοντας μια τρομακτική επιδείνωση του βιοτικού τους επιπέδου. Κατά τα τελευταία δύο χρόνια, το μέγεθος της κρίσης στην Ελλάδα και την Ευρωζώνη έχει πιάσει επανειλημμένα τις χρηματοπιστωτικές αγορές απροετοίμαστες. Οι ψηφοφόροι της χώρας βρίσκονται τώρα αντιμέτωποι με ένα κρίσιμο δίλημμα που θα καθορίσει το μέλλον της Ελλάδας για πολλές γεννιές: Να μείνουν στο ευρώ ή να διαπράξουν δημοσιονομική αυτοκτονία με μια επιστροφή στην δραχμή. Η επιλογή των Ελλήνων ψηφοφόρων θα επηρεάσει σημαντικά τη μελλοντική σύνθεση της ζώνης του ευρώ και τους κανόνες που οι χώρες-μέλη της ακολουθούν.


Με μια πρώτη ματιά, υπάρχει μια εύκολη απάντηση στο δίλημμα: Παραμονή στο ευρώ- προτίμηση του 80% περίπου των Ελλήνων, σύμφωνα με τις δημοσκοπήσεις. Από δική της πρωτοβουλία και σύμφωνα με τις δεσμεύσεις της δανειακής συμφωνίας με τη ΕΕ-ΔΝΤ, η Ελλάδα έχει υποστεί σοβαρή λιτότητα για περισσότερο από δύο έτη. Ήταν σε ύφεση για πέντε έτη, ενώ κατάφερε να μειώσει δραματικά το πρωτογενές έλλειμμα του 5% το 2010 από 10,4% το 2009. Πρωτογενές πλεόνασμα βρίσκεται στον ορίζοντα.

Παρά το γεγονός ότι η Ελλάδα έχει χάσει την ανταγωνιστικότητά της σε όρους μοναδιαίου κόστους εργασίας από το πρώτο τρίμηνο του 1999, όπως και όλες οι χώρες της ευρωζώνης εκτός από τη Γερμανία και την Αυστρία, η Ελλάδα έχει υιοθετήσει σημαντική μείωση μισθών και απολαβών, και τώρα βρίσκεται στο άνω ήμισυ των χωρών της ευρωζώνης όσον αφορά την εξέλιξη της ανταγωνιστικότητας της. Κατά τα τελευταία δύο χρόνια η χώρα έχει διαγράψει σχεδόν το ένα τρίτο του χρέους της και τώρα έχει πολύ χαμηλά επιτόκια στο υπόλοιπο του χρέους της. Η μελλοντική επιτυχία της εξαρτάται από την εφαρμογή δραστικών μειώσεων των δημοσίων δαπανών, πιο αποτελεσματική συλλογή φόρων, καθώς και βελτιώσεις στην παραγωγικότητα.

Υπάρχουν τεράστιες αρνητικές επιπτώσεις από την έξοδο από το ευρώ και την εκτύπωση νέων δραχμών. Αν μια Ελληνική έξοδος από την ευρωζώνη μοιάζει σχεδόν βέβαιη μετά από τις εκλογές της Κυριακής, θα δούμε ένα πλήρη τραπεζικό πανικό. Οι ελληνικές τράπεζες θα κατέρρεαν αν η Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα δεν λάμβανε έκτακτα μέτρα, ενδεχομένως, κατά παράβαση του καταστατικού της. Η νομισματική ισοτιμία είναι πιθανό να είναι δύο ή τρεις δραχμές για ένα ευρώ, η οποία θα διπλασιάσει ή θα τριπλασιάσει την ελληνική τιμή των εισαγόμενων προϊόντων μέσα σε λίγες ημέρες. Οι τιμές των περιουσιακών στοιχείων, συμπεριλαμβανομένης της ακίνητης περιουσίας, θα κατέρρεαν. Όσοι μετακίνησαν καταθέσεις τους στο εξωτερικό θα είναι σε θέση να αγοράσουν αυτά τα περιουσιακά στοιχεία φθηνά, γεγονός που οδηγεί σε σημαντική, οπισθοδρομική αναδιανομή του πλούτου της Ελλάδας.


Εκτός από τον πληθωρισμό την πλευρά της προσφοράς, θα υπάρξει πρόσθετος πληθωρισμός αφού η Ελλάδα θα εκτυπώσει δραχμές για να χρηματοδότησει το έλλειμά της. Τέλος, οι επιχειρήσεις δεν θα είναι σε θέση να εισαγάγουν χωρίς να πληρώσουν εκ των προτέρων με σπάνια ευρώ. Τα απαραίτητα αγαθά θα τελειώσουν σύντομα και το εμπόριο θα είναι σε στασιμότητα. Η Ελλάδα θα αναγκαστεί σε μια κρίση πολλαπλάσιας έντασης από τη σημερινή, τροφοδοτώντας περαιτέρω την κοινωνική αναταραχή.

Όμως τρεις βασικές δυνάμεις εργάζονται ενάντια στην παραμονή της Ελλάδας στη ζώνη του ευρώ. Πρώτον, οι Έλληνες ψηφοφόροι δεν είναι καλά πληροφορημένοι. Ενώ αισθάνονται την σημερινή τους ταλαιπωρία πολύ έντονα, δεν ξέρουν ή δεν κατανοούν πλήρως τις συνέπειες για τους ίδιους από την έξοδο από την ευρωζώνη. Λαϊκιστές πολιτικοί υποβαθμίζουν αυτές τις τρομερές συνέπειες.

Δεύτερον, ορισμένα ελληνικά πολιτικά κόμματα υποστηρίζουν ότι οι συνέπειες της εξόδου της Ελλάδας από την ευρωζώνη θα είναι πιο σοβαρές για την ΕΕ από ό, τι για την Ελλάδα. Προτείνουν ένα παιχνίδι της "κότας" με τη Γερμανίδα Καγκελάριο Άνγκελα Μέρκελ και απειλούν να καταργήσουν τη συμφωνία της προηγούμενης κυβέρνησης με τους δανειστές της. Αν αυτά τα κόμματα πάνε καλά την Κυριακή και οι απειλές τους γίνουν πραγματικότητα, είναι δύσκολο να δούμε τι θα μπορούσε να σταματήσει μια σχεδόν άμεση έξοδο της Ελλάδας από την ευρωζώνη.

Οι Έλληνες έχουν επίσης ταυτίσει την ευρωπαϊκή συμφωνία για το χρέος με τη λιτότητα, τις απολύσεις, και τις περικοπές στους μισθούς και τις συντάξεις, λόγω του γεγονότος ότι η ΕΕ, η ΕΚΤ και το Διεθνές Νομισματικό Ταμείο έχουν τοποθετήσει την προώθηση των αναπτυξιακών μεταρρυθμίσεων σε δεύτερη θέση, πίσω από τη δημοσιονομική εξυγίανση, όταν θέσπισαν τους όρους για την υποστήριξή τους προς την Ελλάδα.

Υποθέτοντας ότι η λογική θα επικρατήσει την Κυριακή, μια νέα ελληνική κυβέρνηση-κατά πάσα πιθανότητα ένα κυβερνητικός συνασπισμός-θα βεβαιώσει εκ νέου την προσήλωση στο ευρώ και στις υφιστάμενες δανειακές συμφωνίες για την Ελλάδα έως το τέλος του μήνα. Η Ελλάδα θα ζητήσει από την ΕΕ για να απαλύνει τα μέτρα λιτότητας της και να δεσμευτεί σε σημαντικές επενδύσεις σε υποδομές. Η ΕΕ σε αυτό το σημείο θα πρέπει ανασάνει με ανακούφιση και να συμφωνήσει και για τις δύο αιτήσεις, διότι είναι σαφές ότι η σκληρή λιτότητα από μόνη της δεν θα φέρει σταθερότητα στην Ελλάδα.

Η ΕΕ πρέπει επίσης να βοηθήσει την Ελλάδα να επιτύχει άμεσα διαρθρωτικές μεταρρυθμίσεις για να βελτιώσει ριζικά την ευκολία με την οποία οι επιχειρήσεις μπορούν να λειτουργήσουν, καθώς και για τη μείωση της φοροδιαφυγής, την εξάλειψη της διαφθοράς στις δημόσιες συμβάσεις και την φιλελευθεροποίηση των αγορών εργασίας και προϊόντων. Πρέπει να τα κάνει όλα αυτά, διασφαλίζοντας παράλληλα την εποπτεία σε όλη την Ελλάδα από τις αρχές ανταγωνισμού, τη βελτίωση της αποτελεσματικότητας του δικαστικού συστήματος και του τομέα της υγείας, και το άνοιγμα της πρόσβασης σε τεχνητά κλειστές αγορές της στον τομέα των μεταφορών, των φαρμακευτικών προϊόντων και της μηχανικής, μεταξύ άλλων.


Οι μεταρρυθμίσεις αυτές είναι απολύτως απαραίτητες για την ανάπτυξη ενός δυναμικού παραγωγικού τομέα στην Ελλάδα προσανατολισμένου στην ποιότητα και τις εξαγωγές. Η Ελλάδα θα πρέπει επίσης να επιστρέψει άμεσα στην πολιτική σταθερότητα για να μπορέσει να προσελκύσει επενδύσεις. Με τη υλοποίηση αυτών των μεταρρυθμίσεων και ένα πρωτογενές πλεόνασμα πολύ κοντά, η ελληνική οικονομία μπορεί να ανακάμψει.

Αυτές οι μεταρρυθμίσεις θα βελτιώσουν επίσης την ποιότητα της ζωής των Ελλήνων και θα είναι επωφελείς για την υπόλοιπη ζώνη του ευρώ. Αλλά όσο η Ελλάδα αφήνει την πόρτα ανοιχτή στις καταστροφικές συνέπειες της εξόδου από ευρώ, το υπόλοιπο της νομισματικής ζώνης θα πρέπει να ασχοληθεί με τη μετάδοση στην ισπανική, ιταλική και σε άλλες αγορές ομολόγων και τις τράπεζες, μέσω της άμεσης παρέμβασης από την ΕΚΤ. Όπως και στην κατάρρευση της Lehman, μπορεί να υπάρχει ένας αριθμός αγορών που θα πληγούν σοβαρά από μια έξοδο της Ελλάδας και που δεν είναι άμεσα προφανείς. Καθυστέρηση στην αντιμετώπιση αυτών των προβλημάτων, ή άρνηση ότι υπάρχουν, θα κάνει τις επιπτώσεις πιο ακριβές.

Ο κ. Οικονομίδης είναι στο New York University Stern School of Business, ο κ. Ιωαννίδης στο Tufts University, ο κ. Πετράκης στο Πανεπιστήμιο της Κρήτης, ο κ. Στέγκος στο University of Guelph, ο κ. Πισσαρίδης στο London School of Economics και κάτοχος του βραβείου Νόμπελ 2010. Οι συγγραφείς είναι όλοι καθηγητές οικονομικών.

(το παρόν δημοσιεύτηκε στην WSJ στις 14 Ιουνίου 2012 στα Αγγλικά υπό τον πρωτότυπο τίτλο The Future of Greece και μεταφράστηκε εδώ από τον Διηνέκη Ποντικό)

Why is Condoleezza stunned?

Ancestry testing goes for pinpoint accuracy

Condoleezza Rice, former US Secretary of State and national security adviser, ought to be a tough woman to surprise. Yet when Henry Louis Gates Jr, host of a US television series called Finding Your Roots, revealed that nearly half of her genetic ancestry could be traced to Europe, Rice, an African American, told Gates, “I’m stunned.”

I am not particularly surprised that Condoleezza is stunned. Years ago, I wrote that persons of mixed ancestry often have three reactions:

1. Acceptance ("multiple ancestries, and love'em all")
2. Seeking the lowest common denominator ("we're all human; race doesn't exist")
3. Denying or minimizing one type of ancestry

Reaction #3 seems to be commonplace in the Americas. Of course, the identification of African Americans with the "African" part of their ancestry is the most famous case of this, but a different example is that of various types of "indigenous" activists who are often more European, or even African, but somehow identify with their "Native American" ancestry, even if they lack both genetic and cultural (language, religion) links with that ancestry.

I can't claim to have any experience on African Americans, but it seems to me that their frequent surprise in programs such as "Finding Your Roots" is a consequence of two things:

1. Their cultural identification with the African part of their ancestry, because it is what separates them -quite visibly- from the rest of society: i.e., African Americans differ from other Americans because of their African ancestry
2. The misapplication (understandable, due to a lack of experience) of their own identity to Africa itself. This is rather an empirical bias: the most African-looking African Americans still have substantial European ancestry, and the average one has ~20%. To give a color analogy, a shade of grey looks lighter compared against black, and darker compared against a darker shade of grey.

In any case, the utility of ancestry analysis is that it provides people with relatively objective data about their genetic origins. How they (choose) to react to this data may be a function of their own psychology and the society they live in. Hopefully, as knowledge about genetics spreads, society as a whole will become more enlightened about its members.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes postponed

In Rise of the Planet of the Apes, a young scientist experiments with genetically modified chimpanzees, inadvertently making one exhibit human-like behavior. I thought of the movie as I was listening to the live webcast of Svante Paabo's talk at the Genomes Environments Trait conference (not sure if/when there will be an archival copy of the talks available).

Paabo was discussing how scientists had identified amino acid substitutions in the FOXP2 gene that were fixed in humans and different from chimpanzees, and, more recently -thanks to the availability of the Denisova genome- of differences that were fixed in modern humans and different in our closest genetic relatives (archaic humans).

The question naturally arises: how can we tell what the (modern) human specific mutations actually do.

Paabo said that we could do this if we created transgenic chimps/humans with the human/chimp version of the gene, but then jokingly crossed out the idea since ethics committees would never approve it.

He went on to say that the human version of FOXP2 was input into transgenic mice instead, with some evidence that these mice had different vocalization than regular mice. Even though we cannot actually breed humans with the chimp version of FOXP2, there may actually be some of the 7 billion humans in existence that may harbor back-mutations giving them this version.

Naturally, the question arises: if nature itself mutates human FOXP2 into its chimp version and vice versa, why is it unethical to do so in the lab?


Of course, there are good ethical reasons why we wouldn't want to give human children a chimp gene: we don't exactly know what it will do, but the risk of causing harm to a human person is sufficient reason to act cautiously.

But, why is it unethical to give chimps the human version of the gene? After all, the fact that the human version is fixed (in humans) may mean that is doing something really important and giving us some ability that we shouldn't toy around with. But, what evidence is there that the reverse is also true, and the chimpanzee harboring a human FOXP2 gene would face any problems at all?

This brings me to the topic of a recently introduced bill which would ban chimpanzee research altogether. This would not only subject the issue of chimp research to ethics committees who would probably not approve it, but ban it altogether.

There are substantial benefits in learning more about FOXP2 and other genes in which humans differ from chimpanzees. There is the intellectual benefit of learning what makes us special within nature, and how we differ from apes. There is the practical benefit of potentially easing the suffering of patients with damaged copies of genes that are fixed in the human lineage. Or, of understanding how language ability and cognition emerge, so that we can one day hope to create machines capable of it, freeing mankind from a great deal of toil.

And, there is the infinitesimal potential that we'll end up with an unhappy chimp ready to organize the simian takeover of our planet. Thankfully, Pinky and the Brain do not give rise to the same levels of dread and insecurity, so, for the time being we still have the option of experimentation with mice.

Personally, I'm all for putting human FOXP2 in chimps and seeing what happens. And, I am rather dismayed that the scientific and political culture has become so risk-averse that an experiment that would bring no harm to any humans, that would benefit humans, and that may not, indeed, affect negatively the chimps involved is, nonetheless, rejected out of hand on the basis of the nebulous probability that it might.

The American Anthropological Association opposes open science

Why am I surprised? This is the same group of people who wanted to remove "science" from the definition of anthropology. Apparently, not only do they think that science might not be "inclusive" enough for them (=they want to include under their auspices those who don't do science), but they also think that it should not be open.

From their response (pdf) to Public Access to Scholarly Publications: Public Comment:

We write today to make the case that while we share the mutual objective of enhancing the public understanding of scientific enterprise and support the wide dissemination of materials that can reach those in the public who would benefit from such knowledge (consistent with our associations' mission), broad public access to such information currently exists, and no federal government intervention is currently necessary.

Really? Try accessing the current issue of the flagship journal of the AAA, the American Anthropologist. If you're in the small part of the population that is a member of the AAA or in a subscribing institution, you can. If you are not an anthropologist, or not in a subscribing institution: tough luck. You have to pay! Either by buying access, or by spending time and money to go to a library that has access.

What is the effect of this? That anthropological knowledge will remain locked away from the vast majority of the population; that the population that funds the AAA either directly or indirectly will have no access to its work; and, most importantly, that the population at large will never be exposed to the kind of heavy-on-the-prose/light-on-the-facts/heavy-on-the-politics/light-on-the-science drivel that their tax money buys from the good folks at the AAA (*).

More from the AAA response:

We kow of no research that demonstrates a problem with the existing system for making the content of scholarly journals available to those who might benefit from it.

Read on: by "those who might benefit from it", the good folks at AAA mean "other researchers". Apparently, for AAA, plain anthropoi might not really benefit from their product. What a nice way to create an insular community of anthropologists reading and citing each others' papers with no reference to society at large?

Indeed, AAA is right: plain people do not really benefit from their papers. And, sooner or later, people will wake up and decide that either the good folks of AAA must not lock away their product where it cannot be seen, or they'll have to do without the (direct or indirect) funding that keeps them alive.


More:

we dispute assertions underlying many of them suggesting that the federal government has the legal right to mandate public access to scholarly journal articles which result from federally funded research.

Their argument is that since journal articles are the product of non-federally funded individuals (such as editors and designers), the federal government doesn't have the right to mandate public access.

Trouble is, that these "non-federally funded" persons aren't really so non-federally funded. They are paid by publishers, who make money largely from subscribing anthropologists, and subscribing libraries, who... get their money from government. They don't get funded from government directly, but if government stopped funding anthropology departments and libraries, most of their income would disappear.

It's a nice racket: let's protect the interests of designers, publishers, and distributors! How about we protect the interests of the regular people who fund anthropology departments and libraries via their taxes, and shouldn't be forced to pay twice for the same product?

(*) With exceptions, of course.

Does capitalism reduce fitness? (part II)

Rasmus Nielsen responds to my commentary of his students' ‘rEvolutionary Biologists say: Capitalism Reduces Fitness!’ sign and the blog post associated with it:

Dienekes was shocked by this travesty and decided to make a blog post about it. To my surprise his outrage was not about the social conditions in West Oakland but rather about the loose use of fitness employed in the blog. He took the statement by my students and postdocs literally and pointed out that if you include all the different components of fitness, and not just viability, there is in fact no good scientific evidence that the absolute fitness of individuals growing up in capitalist societies is reduced.

I largely ignore economics and politics in this blog, not because I have no interest in them, but because this is an anthropology blog. And, while I'm sure social conditions in West Oakland may be in great need of improvement, it's not my business to improve them; apparently there are plenty of kind souls working toward that goal already.

It is one thing to hold a political opinion as an individual and another to link that opinion to one's scientific discipline. An electrical engineer, a medical doctor, and a biologist may think that capitalism is a terrible or wonderful system, but if they attempted to link that opinion with electrical engineering, medicine, or biology, I would like to see the evidence for it.

The people in question explicitly linked their political opinions with evolutionary biology, both by ascribing those opinion to "rEvolutionary biologists" and by explicitly linking their dismissal of capitalism to fitness, a central concept in evolutionary biology.

Dr. Nielsen continues:

Most of the students and postdocs in my group are from Europe, and many have not been here for long. They have perhaps not quite gotten use to American political discourse and may not express themselves in a way that most Americans find convincing. But at least they haven’t quite lost their sense of empathy and care for other people. I figure that if I keep them here, in an American academic environment, for a couple of years more they will get cured of that problem and will be able to concentrate fully on their research careers without getting distracted by the economic and social problems they encounter in the neighborhoods around campus on their commute from and to work. If I push them hard, the may even eventually end up getting real jobs and move up in the East Oakland hills. They will then never have to worry about the problems in West Oakland again, and can spend all their time making sure they include all components of fitness when making blog posts.

Last time I checked, both East Oakland and West Oakland, and indeed the entire United States have a capitalist economy. If someone cares why people in West Oakland have a different life expectancy than those in East Oakland, they must seek the explanation elsewhere, and not in their common economic system. If they wanted to examine the influence of capitalism on life expectancy, they could, perhaps, compare South vs. North Korea, two countries with similar populations, that also happen to have a difference in life expectancy of about 10 years, with capitalist South Koreans outliving non-capitalist North Koreans.

Does capitalism reduce fitness?

I was much surprised to find this blog post on my feed today:

nielsen lab, occupy, and berkeley protests

I don't have much to say about the Occupy movement itself. People can differ in their opinions about the causes of the current economic malaise, and to argue about them. But, I will comment on a point:

We’ve thus been taking part in multiple ‘Occupy’ activities, starting the first meeting of Occupy Oakland in mid-October, marches in SF, and the Nov 2 Oakland general strike. This was a great moment – young and old, blue and white collar workers walked and rejoiced together the whole day. Our sign said ‘rEvolutionary Biologists say: Capitalism Reduces Fitness!’

Well, it’s the objective truth. An flyer distributed in the demonstration was pointing out that an African-American boy born in West Oakland has 15 shorter life expectancy than someone born up in the hills. If that’s not reduction in fitness, what is?

A reduction of life expectancy by 15 years is not evidence of reduction of fitness. Fitness is measured in offspring, it is not measured in years lived. African countries, for example, have very high population growth rates, and very low life expectancies. That is fitness. Fitness is not a comfortable long life, but having lots of babies and living long enough to ensure their survival as independent entities.

It is strange that evolutionary biologists from a top institution would make such a simple mistake. Perhaps public spending is not the best way to advance science and education?

Winners of televised election debates, or, hoi polloi are easily swayed

The authors seem to argue that the ease with which viewers of electoral debates were swayed by scientifically-clad distortion in the form of the "worm" is a danger to democracy. Certainly, their study should be worrisome for anyone invested in the good function of modern democratic polities, i.e., most of us.

However, I would argue that the study brings to the forefront an even greater problem: the ease with which voters are swayed. The effect of the distorted worm was non-trivial:

Advocates of democracy often claim that this form of constitution is superior because the outcome of an election is determined by the balance of interests of most people in society.

Yet, experiments such as this show that rather than a balance of rational interests, it may be a balance of influences by political marketers who act in many more ways than just the "worm" that determine who wins an election.

PLoS ONE 6(3): e18154. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0018154

Social Influence in Televised Election Debates: A Potential Distortion of Democracy

Colin J. Davis et al.

Abstract

A recent innovation in televised election debates is a continuous response measure (commonly referred to as the “worm”) that allows viewers to track the response of a sample of undecided voters in real-time. A potential danger of presenting such data is that it may prevent people from making independent evaluations. We report an experiment with 150 participants in which we manipulated the worm and superimposed it on a live broadcast of a UK election debate. The majority of viewers were unaware that the worm had been manipulated, and yet we were able to influence their perception of who won the debate, their choice of preferred prime minister, and their voting intentions. We argue that there is an urgent need to reconsider the simultaneous broadcast of average response data with televised election debates.

Link

Optimal committee size

This is a very interesting paper in view of my recent post on democracy. The authors address the issue of how many evaluators or judges a committee ought to have. Adding more judges of similar competence improves accuracy of evaluation, but comes at a cost. Moreover, the optimal committee size depends on the quality of the judges, with the counterintuitive finding that it decreases as the judges become worse.

The moral: it pays to gather many experts, but it doesn't pay to gather many fools.

Democracy can be viewed as a form of decision-making system by a very large committee of mediocre evaluators. From a cost-benefit perspective it's a rather big waste.

PLoS ONE 5(9): e12642. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012642

The Calculus of Committee Composition

Eric Libby, Leon Glass

Modern institutions face the recurring dilemma of designing accurate evaluation procedures in settings as diverse as academic selection committees, social policies, elections, and figure skating competitions. In particular, it is essential to determine both the number of evaluators and the method for combining their judgments. Previous work has focused on the latter issue, uncovering paradoxes that underscore the inherent difficulties. Yet the number of judges is an important consideration that is intimately connected with the methodology and the success of the evaluation. We address the question of the number of judges through a cost analysis that incorporates the accuracy of the evaluation method, the cost per judge, and the cost of an error in decision. We associate the optimal number of judges with the lowest cost and determine the optimal number of judges in several different scenarios. Through analytical and numerical studies, we show how the optimal number depends on the evaluation rule, the accuracy of the judges, the (cost per judge)/(cost per error) ratio. Paradoxically, we find that for a panel of judges of equal accuracy, the optimal panel size may be greater for judges with higher accuracy than for judges with lower accuracy. The development of any evaluation procedure requires knowledge about the accuracy of evaluation methods, the costs of judges, and the costs of errors. By determining the optimal number of judges, we highlight important connections between these quantities and uncover a paradox that we show to be a general feature of evaluation procedures. Ultimately, our work provides policy-makers with a simple and novel method to optimize evaluation procedures.

Link

Magnus Carlsen vs. the World or the shortcomings of representative democracy

I participated in the G-STAR RAW World Chess Challenge last Friday, in which top-rated Norwegian chess player Magnus Carlsen played against the "World", eventually winning the game after 44 moves.

The game started going downhill for the "World" early on, and, as I was waiting to see how the inevitable 1-0 would play out, it dawned on me how closely the whole experience paralleled what goes on in a modern representative democracy.

Carlsen (C): a "challenge" facing the public; the crisis, or problem, that needs to be addressed

Lagrave, Nakamura, Polgar (LNP): the "politicians", suggesting what needs to be done to address C, one move at a time

The public (P): the "electorate", choosing from the moves suggested by LNP

Kasparov & Ashley (KA): the "media", providing commentary on C, LNP, and P

The game itself was good evidence in favor of two assertions about democracy:

1. The sum of mediocre minds does not create a genius

2. Crowds do not plan long-term and are not consistent

1) The sum of mediocre minds does not create a genius

In many situations, combining mediocre elements produces a superior result. This is true when tasks can be broken down to components that are easy to handle. A regular person would die of boredom before he could sum up a thousand numbers, but a hundred people could achieve it with a handful of additions each.

It is also true when mediocre participants are unbiased and independent, and there is a simple way to combine their output. For example, I can't guess another person's height with any great accuracy, but if twenty people take a guess, the average of their guesses may be quite close to the truth.

In the Carlsen vs. the World match, neither of these two conditions held: different individuals did not think about different aspects of the game. In short, there was no co-operation, no strength in numbers. The result was that the World did not play as a massively parallel machine, but rather as one amateur player picking between alternatives sugested by three really strong ones. Nor did they combine their thoughts in any interesting way, but simply with the basic rule of majority voting.

2) Crowds do not plan long-term

Long-term planning with many participants is difficult to achieve. This is not only due to the unpredictability of the future, or people's inability to think ahead except in the vaguest of terms, but also due to the difficulty of maintaining a consensus.

Consider a group of people deciding to reach the end of a maze. Each person has an idea of how to achieve this goal, but there are different ways in which the people can achieve their goal:

In a democracy there is a vote at each intersection, in monarchy the crowd follows a leader, in anarchy everyone goes their own way, while in aristocracy (in the original sense of the word, which is "rule by the best") the crowd follows leader(s) chosen for their ability in maze-navigation.

In the Carlsen vs. the World match it could be argued that there were aristocratic elements at play (as LNP, who led the people, are definitely chess experts) but also a democratic principle, as the leaders did not decide, but the people did.

If someone (say one of LNP) came up with a good plan, he could not carry it through, because midway through the plan's execution, the public, who did not understand the plan, and the other two leaders, who may not have guessed it, or may have preferred a different one, changed course.

Moves that were suggested early on, ended up played much later, when their "bite" was gone. The crowd flocked alternatively to displays of bravado and early counter-attack, followed quickly by overdefensive moves that created an uncomfortable cramped position that was impossible to defend.

The parallels to democracy

The world's failure is impressive, because it had so many good things going for it: the "leaders" were part of the chess elite, and both them, and the public had a clearly defined common interest: to win the game.

In a real democracy, not only do politicians and citizens have different and conflicting agendas (e.g., raise or lower taxes, increase or decrease immigration, regulate or liberalize markets, etc.) but the quality of politicians is generally low: LNP were selected largely because of merit, putting their plans to democratic scrutiny; in a real representative democracy, both leaders and plans are subject to a vote.

Not to mention the media, composed to a large extent of opinionated ignorami who have to sink to the level of the lowest common denominator of the populace in order to achieve circulation or viewership targets, rather than inform the public about the issues at hand, and the different political parties' plans.

It could be argued that the Carlsen was too smart, so we should not make too much out of the World's failure to defeat him; yet, it can also be argued that the real-world challenges that face societies are even more complex, whether they are climate change, the organization of financial markets, the decision to go to war, domestic and foreign enemies, and so on.

Conclusion

The main advantage of democracy, compared to other political systems is its adaptiveness. In a monarchy, you either get a good ruler or a bad one, for long periods of time. You have the advantage of long-term planning, but the disadvantage that the long-term plan may lead to ruin. In a typical representative democracy, you get a series of average rulers. Constancy and long-term planning go out the window, but course correction is built into the system.

Experiences like the Carlsen vs. the World match should, however, bring into our attention how suboptimal as a governing system representative democracy really is. It's difficult to see how democracy would evolve in a more efficient direction, but it is definitely worth thinking about.

Hitler's "Jewish and African" roots

I'm not going to honor with the link all the stories circulating in a number of newspapers about Hitler being supposedly of "Jewish or African" origin because he belonged to haplogroup E1b1b1.

This comes from a study of men believed to share patrilineal origin with Hitler.

It is difficult to see how much of the hype is due to the original geneticists or to the "journalists" who report on the work.

These "Jewish and African" roots are supposedly due to the fact that Hitler belonged to haplogroup E1b1b1. But, without further information about the subclade in which Hitler belonged to, there is no reason to think that he was of Jewish or African ancestry. He could just as well be of Greek or Albanian patrilineal ancestry. But, I guess that "Hitler's Greek or Albanian roots" doesn't have the same zing that his "Jewish and African roots" does.

What do we know? That Hitler may have had distant Y-chromosome E1b1b1 cousins that wouldn't be considered Aryan in Nazi Germany. But, this would be true no matter what haplogroup he had (except I, perhaps).

If the researchers had found evidence of a recent "non-Aryan" ancestor that would disqualify Hitler from possessing Aryan status according to his race laws, then that would be an interesting and ironic discovery. Or, if they had found that he belonged to a subclade such as E-M81 (found in Berbers and other north Africans) that has most plausibly introgressed into Europe in historical times.

However, the available public evidence is that Hitler may have belonged to a haplogroup that isn't as common in Germany as e.g., in the Balkans, just as some people from the Balkans belong to haplogroups that are more common in Germany, or some Jews belong to haplogroups that are more common in Europe, and so on.

Hard problems in Social Science symposium: a couple of my propositions

The Hard Problems in Social Science symposium is happening today, and there is a live webcast of the event. From the symposium announcement:

During the daylong symposium, a panel of experts from multiple universities will individually present what they believe to be the hardest unsolved problems in the social sciences, emphasizing both why the problems are hard and why they are important. At the end of the day the panelists will debate their proposals with each other and with the audience. Over the days and months following the event, anyone from around the world will be able to view streaming video of the symposium, vote on the proposed problems, and, perhaps most important, submit additional problems for consideration and voting.

The final votes will be used, in combination with the symposium proceedings, to develop a prioritized list that we hope will serve to focus and inform research and policy directions, as well as funding support, in the future.

I don't quite think that there are hard problems in the social sciences in the sense of Hilbert's original 1900 problems. The reason for this is simple: we know when one of Hilbert's problems has been solved, but it's hard, or even impossible to know when a social science problem has been answered to everyone's satisfaction. To quote Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics:

Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts. Now fine and just actions, which political science investigates, admit of much variety and fluctuation of opinion, so that they may be thought to exist only by convention, and not by nature. And goods also give rise to a similar fluctuation because they bring harm to many people; for before now men have been undone by reason of their wealth, and others by reason of their courage. We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs.

With the caveat that social science hard problems are not "hard" and cannot be solved in the same way as those of mathematics, here is what I think are two of the hardest problems in the social sciences.

Homogeneity vs. Diversity

Paying lip service to diversity is a favorite pastime in the western world. Indeed, (genetic or cultural) diversity has its advantages. From the genetic standpoint, increased genetic diversity increases the chances that the population will be able to adapt to changes in its environment. A race of clones is doomed to extinction if its genetic Achilles' heel is discovered; that is less likely for a diverse population where there is enough variability to ensure adequate response to selection pressure.

From the cultural standpoint, diversity can also be an asset. It is pleasant to have different choices of food, dress, entertainment, or to be able to talk to people with different backgrounds and life experiences. It is sometimes also practical: having people with different perspectives is a good way to ensure intellectual alertness as cultures tend to stagnate in their own assumptions if they are not continually challenged by people with a fresh viewpoint (whether these are young ones who have not yet internalized their society's tradition, or foreigners who view it as something novel).

However, the downsides of diversity are also numerous. Two are particularly important, and I will call them friction and hierarchy.

By "friction", I refer to the ineffectiveness of diversity. While having 10 different languages may make the expression of cultural nuances possible, it makes communication more difficult as these nuances are "lost in translation". Indeed, friction may reach explosive levels, both because heterogeneity breeds distrust, or even outright conflict as different segments of society begin to see themselves as inimical to each other.

By "hierarchy", I refer to the fact that some things that are unequal may in fact be organized in terms of superiority or inferiority. Different foods may all be pleasant to have as options, but they are not all equally good for one's health. Sickle-cell trait may harden the population against outbreaks of malaria, but it is not exactly pleasant at the level of individual. Monogamy or polygamy may be different social practices, but they have important adverse consequences for societal functioning (e.g., cheating by polygynous-inclined males in monogamous societies vs. an excess of unattached, potentially troublesome, males in polygynous ones).

To conclude: it is time to go beyond the "diversity is power" slogans and study the problem of homogeneity vs. diversity with an open mind, trying to figure out when, how, and what kind of diversity is good.

Central control vs. Open Society

The argument for central control was put succinctly by the Platonic Socrates who made the argument that when a ship is in danger the captain has command, and not the assembly of sailors, because the captain has superior knowledge of what is to be done.

The argument for "open society" and its more libertarian or even anarchic versions is that the leader --any leader-- is prone to error or misuse of power, so it is better to organize society bottom-up, and to trust in peoples' ability to find good solutions to their problems.

Psychologically most 21st century people feel a revulsion against the idea of their lives ruled by unelected philosopher kings. On the other hand, there is an abundance of examples of democracies shooting themselves in the foot, and the idea that a captain should lead the sailors is intuitively right.

Indeed, we accept central control in a number of different social institutions, e.g., sports teams, corporations, classrooms, or military units. Coaches, CEOs, teachers, or COs lead these organizations, and the principle of democracy goes out the window.

If there was an optimal decision maker, then most people would be fine with ceding control to them. That is why some historical rulers are known as either heroes or tyrants. Those who make good decisions and keep their societies strong and happy are elevated while those who bring them to ruin are demonized.

An unstated assumption in political science is that different constitutions can be evaluated in isolation, without considering the actual states and populaces over which they will be instituted.

Democracy, we are told, is best, but how good is it really in a society filled with superstition and lacking in scientific knowledge? How can we expect such a society to democratically decide what is good for it? Or, how appropriate is democracy in a society of abundance where decisions can be made rationally and cool-headedly, vs. a dog-eat-dog society of scarcity where voting majorities may be inclined to live at the expense of minorities?

The modern world as a whole experiences an increase in expertise. Moreover, problems are increasingly technical in nature: the average citizen doesn't have a clue about how serious climate change is, or how drastic measures to address it should be enforced.

To summarize: putting down democracy is unpopular, but it is time to see how it can function in today's world, as opposed to the small-scale states it was first instituted in. The goal: to figure out which problems should be decided democratically and which should be left to experts, and to create a political system that will distinguish between the two.

Democrats and Republicans really do look different

It would be really neat if someone did a facial composite of the average Democrat/Republican using e.g., all Caucasoid US senators belonging to either party.

I think it's fairly easy to distinguish between Greek politicians belonging to different parties as well. Here's my guide to some typical traits of Greek politicians (of course there are numerous exceptions):

Right-wing: regular suit and tie, shaved, "managerial" look

Center-left: higher probability of sporting a mustache

Communists: never wear ties, usually shaved, "faux-proletarian" look

Radical Left: never wear ties, higher probability of being unshaved, "leftist-intellectual" look

Extra-parliamentary left: never wear ties, unshaved, unkempt hair, "revolutionary" Che Guevara wannabes

PLoS ONE doi:http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0008733

Democrats and Republicans Can Be Differentiated from Their Faces

Nicholas O. Rule, Nalini Ambady

Abstract

Background
Individuals' faces communicate a great deal of information about them. Although some of this information tends to be perceptually obvious (such as race and sex), much of it is perceptually ambiguous, without clear or obvious visual cues.

Methodology/Principal Findings
Here we found that individuals' political affiliations could be accurately discerned from their faces. In Study 1, perceivers were able to accurately distinguish whether U.S. Senate candidates were either Democrats or Republicans based on photos of their faces. Study 2 showed that these effects extended to Democrat and Republican college students, based on their senior yearbook photos. Study 3 then showed that these judgments were related to differences in perceived traits among the Democrat and Republican faces. Republicans were perceived as more powerful than Democrats. Moreover, as individual targets were perceived to be more powerful, they were more likely to be perceived as Republicans by others. Similarly, as individual targets were perceived to be warmer, they were more likely to be perceived as Democrats.

Conclusions/Significance
These data suggest that perceivers' beliefs about who is a Democrat and Republican may be based on perceptions of traits stereotypically associated with the two political parties and that, indeed, the guidance of these stereotypes may lead to categorizations of others' political affiliations at rates significantly more accurate than chance guessing.

Link

Το προσχέδιο νόμου για την πολιτογράφηση των μεταναστών σε διαβούλευση στο opengov.gr

Όλοι πάμε στο opengov.gr σχολιάζουμε με σοβαρότητα άρθρο προς άρθρο, απαντούμε σε όσους έχουν αντίθετη άποψη, και ζητάμε για ένα τόσο σοβαρό κοινωνικό ζήτημα να εγκρίνει την πρωτοβουλία της Κυβέρνησης ο λαός με δημοψήφισμα.

Κάντε κλικ στην εικόνα για να πάρετε έγκυρη πληροφόρηση και επιχειρήματα εναντίον της μεταρρύθμισης. Κάθε νέα πληροφορία θα προστίθεται σε νέο ποστ και συγκεντρωτικά σε αυτή τη διεύθυνση.

Οι πολίτες παίρνουν την υπόθεση στα χέρια τους! Όχι ιθαγένεια και ψήφος στους πάντες χωρίς ουσιαστικές προϋποθέσεις!

Προσοχή: η διαβούλευση διαρκεί έως τις 7/1/2010.

Γιατί ψηφίζουμε Ντόρα Μπακογιάννη στις 29 Νοεμβρίου

Στηρίζουμε Ντόρα Μπακογιάννη, γιατί δεν θέλουμε αύριο η Νέα Δημοκρατία να κυβερνάται από τη δυαρχία των πρώην αρχηγών αποτυχημένων κομμάτων και να έχει ηγετική ομάδα τους Μανώλη/Παπακώστα/Παναγιωτόπουλο/Πιπιλή/Μιχαλολιάκο/Μαρκόπουλο/Γεροντόπουλο/Γκιουλέκα. Στηρίζουμε Ντόρα Μπακογιάννη γιατί δεν θέλουμε να μείνουμε στην αντιπολίτευση ως το 2017 και βλέπουμε. Στηρίζουμε Ντόρα Μπακογιάννη γιατί ήταν μαζί μας στον αγώνα της 4ης Οκτωβρίου ενώ ο Μεσσήνιος Μεσσίας διατηρούσε το προσωπικό του ίματζ άφθαρτο και κρυβόταν στην εκλογική του περιφέρεια. Στηρίζουμε Ντόρα Μπακογιάννη γιατί ζήτησε διάλογο και πήρε άρνηση, δεσμεύτηκε για θητεία και προκριμματικές εκλογές και πήρε "ίσως", βγήκε σε όλα τα μέσα, φίλια και εχθρικά, και δεν κρύφτηκε σε μονολόγους μπροστά σε χειροκροτητές. Στηρίζουμε Ντόρα Μπακογιάννη γιατί δεν κοιτούσε 8 χρόνια τους τοίχους του σπιτιού της. Στηρίζουμε Ντόρα Μπακογιάννη γιατί δεν έκανε 7 ερωτήσεις 3 χρόνια ευρωβουλευτής. Στηρίζουμε Ντόρα Μπακογιάννη γιατί αυτός που πάτωσε το κόμμα του και οδήγησε σε αύξηση της Αριστεράς το 1996 δεν θα δώσει ιδεολογική λάμψη στην Κεντροδεξιά το 2013. Στηρίζουμε Ντόρα Μπακογιάννη γιατί δεν έχει πορεία εκκρεμούς, να είναι υπερβατική κεντρώα το 1993 και Σαρκοζική δεξιά το 2009. Στηρίζουμε Ντόρα Μπακογιάννη γιατί δεν θέλουμε να ξεχάσουμε την ιστορία μας και τους τρεις μας αρχηγούς εναντίον των οποίων κατέβηκε ο Σαμαράς στις εκλογές. Στηρίζουμε Ντόρα Μπακογιάννη γιατί ο Εθνάρχης πέταξε έξω τον Σαμαρά από το Προεδρικό Μέγαρο. Στηρίζουμε Ντόρα Μπακογιάννη γιατί μας έκανε για πρώτη φορά μετά από χρόνια να χαμογελάσουμε για το Σκοπιανό. Στηρίζουμε Ντόρα Μπακογιάννη γιατί το καπρίτσιο του Σαμαρά ανέτρεψε την βούληση τριών εκατομμυρίων Νεοδημοκρατών ψηφοφόρων. Στηρίζουμε Ντόρα Μπακογιάννη γιατί το μεγαλύτερο πολιτικό της επίτευγμα τα τελευταία 15 χρόνια δεν είναι που στερέωσε το πόδι της Ίριδας στο νέο Μουσείο. Για τον Παύλο, για την Ευρυτανία, για το Υπουργείο Πολιτισμού, για την Α' Αθηνών, για το Δήμο Αθηναίων, για το ΥΠΕΞ, για την εργατικότητα της, για την ευφυΐα της, για τη μαχητικότητα της, για την πίστη της, για την αδιάλειπτη παρουσία της σε καλές και κακές στιγμές, Ντόρα Μπακογιάννη στις 29 Νοεμβρίου.

Αποτίμηση αποτελέσματος: 29/11/09: η νέα αρχή για τη Νέα Δημοκρατία

Γιατί υποστηρίζω την Ντόρα Μπακογιάννη για την προεδρία της Νέας Δημοκρατίας

Δεν ασχολούμαι συνήθως με τα ζητήματα της τρέχουσας πολιτικής αλλά νιώθω την υποχρέωση να πάρω μια ξεκάθαρη θέση για το ζήτημα της διαδοχής στη Νέα Δημοκρατία.

Υποστηρίζω την κ. Ντόρα Μπακογιάννη για τέσσερις λόγους, έναν αρνητικό και τρεις θετικούς:

1. Αδυναμίες του αντιπάλου της

Αυτός που θέλει τάχα να πολεμήσει τους μηχανισμούς έγινε κατευθείαν βουλευτής λόγω οικογενειακού ονόματος στα 26, παριστάνει τον υπερπατριώτη αλλά έκανε μειωμένη «θητεία» παράλληλα με άλλες δουλείες, στο Ναυτικό, πρόδωσε τη Νέα Δημοκρατία ρίχνοντας την εκλεγμένη κυβέρνησή της, διέσπασε την παράταξη ιδρύοντας νέο κόμμα με το οποίο κατέβηκε ενάντια στη Νέα Δημοκρατία σε τέσσερις εκλογικές αναμετρήσεις και απέναντι σε τρεις διαφορετικούς αρχηγούς, οδήγησε το κόμμα του οποίου ηγήθηκε στην καταστροφή του 2.3% και τα παράτησε, απέτρεψε τις εκλογές το 1995 συνεργαζόμενος με το ΠΑΣΟΚ για να κρατήσει τη βουλευτική του καρέκλα αλλά συνάμα και τον ανήμπορο Ανδρέα Παπανδρέου στην πρωθυπουργία, διακήρυξε πως ο Κωνσταντίνος Καραμανλής ήταν «κατάκοπη ηγεσία» που έπρεπε να φύγει, τίμησε, τάχα, το «δάκρυ του Εθνάρχη» ενώ ο Εθνάρχης του είχε κλείσει την πόρτα του Προεδρικού Μεγάρου, αυτοπροσδιορίσθηκε, τη δεκαετία του '90 ως κεντρώος ενώ τώρα εμφανίζεται τώρα ως σκληρός κεντροδεξιός και οπαδός του Σαρκοζί αλλά και δεύτερος Έλληνας Ομπάμα (!), πίστευε (τότε) πως έπρεπε να γίνει η «Υπέρβαση» της Νέας Δημοκρατίας ενώ μας μιλάει (τώρα) για τη διαχρονικότητα της ιδρυτικής της διακήρυξης, θεωρεί εαυτόν δικαιωμένο παρά το γεγονός πως η πολιτική που απέρριψε πομπωδώς το 1993 για σύνθετη ονομασία της ΠΓΔΜ έχει γίνει επίσημη πολιτική της Νέας Δημοκρατίας, έμεινε οκτώ χρόνια άνευ βιοπορισμού και οιασδήποτε δραστηριότητας κοιτάζοντας τους τοίχους του σπιτιού τους, έλειπε στα δύσκολα χρόνια της αντιπολίτευσης και ήρθε στα εύκολα χρόνια της Κυβέρνησης όχι με ψήφο του λαού αλλά με διορισμό στην Ευρωβουλή, έκανε αρνητικό ρεκόρ με οκτώ ερωτήσεις τα τρία χρόνια που ήταν ευρωβουλευτής, δεν βγήκε μια φορά σε ένα κεντρικό δελτίο για να υποστηρίξει τη Νέα Δημοκρατία, αυτός που έλεγε ότι δεν θα δεχόταν ποτέ να επιστρέψει στη Νέα Δημοκρατία, ακόμα και αν του ζητούσαν να γίνει αρχηγός, αυτός λοιπόν απλά δεν έχει ηθικό δικαίωμα να γίνει πρόεδρός της, και θα έπρεπε να ντρέπεται που προσβάλει τη νοημοσύνη μας θέτοντας εαυτόν υποψήφιο.

2. Βιογραφικό

Γιατί η Ντόρα Μπακογιάννη υπήρξε πάντοτε παρούσα στους αγώνες της Νέας Δημοκρατίας, και στην Αντιπολίτευση, και στην Κυβέρνηση. Γιατί ήταν διαρκώς στα μέσα ενημέρωσης δίνοντας τη μάχη της ενημέρωσης. Γιατί κέρδισε για τη Νέα Δημοκρατία και την Ευρυτανία, και το Δήμο Αθηναίων, και πρώτευσε στην Α' Αθηνών. Γιατί πρότεινε την εκλογή προέδρου από τη βάση πριν από δέκα χρόνια και δεν ανακάλυψε την δημοκρατικότητα πριν από ένα μήνα όταν συνειδητοποίησε πως δεν της έβγαιναν τα συνεδριακά «κουκιά». Γιατί ανακάλυψε το Διαδίκτυο και τα Νέα Μέσα όταν οι άλλοι δεν έβγαιναν καν σε μια εφημερίδα ή τηλεόραση. Γιατί πέτυχε στα δύο χρόνια στο Δήμο να γίνουν άψογοι Ολυμπιακοί Αγώνες κατά το μερίδιο της ευθύνης της. Γιατί δεν δίστασε να τσακωθεί με την Υπουργό Εξωτερικών της Υπερδύναμης για την είσοδο της ΠΓΔΜ στο ΝΑΤΟ, και κατόρθωσε να επιβάλει μαζί με τον Κώστα Καραμανλή την Ελληνική θέση στο Μακεδονικό κάνοντας την συμμαχική θέση με την υπογραφή τόσο των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών όσο και της Τουρκίας. Γιατί δεν υποχώρησε ποτέ στο ελάχιστο στα εθνικά θἐματα. Γιατί βίωσε τον ξεριζωμό από την Ελλάδα στα εφηβικά της χρόνια και την βία των τρομοκρατών στα νεανικά της αλλά σηκώθηκε, ξανάφτιαξε τη ζωή της και την αφιέρωσε στην υπηρεσία της Ελλάδας.

3. Προτάσεις για τη Νέα Δημοκρατία

Γιατί δεν ζητάει λευκή επιταγή και αποδέχεται να έχει θητεία σε αντίθεση με τον κύριο αντίπαλό της. Γιατί λέει το αυτονόητο, πως η ΝΔ είναι πολυσυλλεκτικό κόμμα που στηρίζεται σε ανθρώπους με διαφορετικά χαρακτηριστικά (συντηρητικούς, φιλελεύθερους, κεντρώους, δεξιούς) και δεν πρέπει να αυτοπεριχαρακωθεί. Γιατί αναλαμβάνει συγκεκριμένες δεσμεύσεις για την οργάνωση του κόμματος: αναλογικό σύστημα στην εκλογή των οργάνων του κόμματος έτσι ώστε να εκπροσωπούνται όλες οι τάσεις και να διασφαλίζεται η πολυσυλλεκτικότητα του, δημοσιοποίηση και ονομαστικοποίηση των εσόδων του κόμματος, αιρετό συμβούλιο δεοντολογίας, εκλογές για όλα τα αξιώματα και δημοψηφίσματα στα μέλη για ζητήματα πολιτικής, συχνή και τακτική λειτουργία των οργάνων για παραγωγή πολιτικής και όχι αυτοκρατορικό κόμμα όπου όλοι κρέμονται από τα χείλη του αρχηγού. Μόνο έτσι μπορεί η ΝΔ να αποτελεί όχημα σύνθεσης πολιτικών προτάσεων με προοπτική εξουσίας.

4. Πολιτική ταυτότητα και πρόταση

Γιατί δεν λαϊκίζει, είναι σοβαρή, αλλά όχι σοβαροφανής, έξυπνη, ετοιμόλογη, δημοφιλής εκτός της ΝΔ, με ξεκάθαρη φιλελεύθερη ιδεολογία και συγκεκριμένες θέσεις για την πολιτική: πιστεύει πως «εύτακτον το ελεύθερον», πως «ένα υπεύθυνο και αξιόπιστο κόμμα δεν κάνει πολιτική με δανεικά», πως το πανεπιστημιακό άσυλο πρέπει «να απαλλαγεί από όλα τα στοιχεία που το ευτελίζουν και το απονομιμοποιούν στη συνείδηση όλων μας», πως πρέπει να υπάρχει «αξιολόγηση των εκπαιδευτικών μονάδων και των διδασκόντων, σε κάθε βαθμίδα της εκπαίδευσης». Γιατί δίνει βήμα στους πολίτες, απαντάει στις ερωτήσεις τους, και διαμορφώνει νέες πολιτικές μαζί τους. Γιατί έχει όλα τα προσόντα να γίνει η πρώτη Ελληνίδα Πρωθυπουργός.

Δεδομένων αυτών των γεγονότων η επιλογή κάθε Νεοδημοκράτη για τις εκλογές της 29ης Οκτωβρίου είναι δεδομένη. Ψηφίζουμε Ντόρα και δίνουμε στη Νέα Δημοκρατία προοπτική νίκης το 2013.

Υστερόγραφο:

Γιατί ενδιαφέρομαι για την εκλογή προέδρου στη Νέα Δημοκρατία; Για τρεις λόγους:

1. Πιστεύω πως στις Δημοκρατίες οι πολίτες έχουν υποχρέωση να συμμετέχουν στα κοινά και πως όσοι δεν το κάνουν είναι άχρηστοι.

2. Πιστεύω στον συκοφαντημένο δικομματισμό, το σύστημα των μακροβιότερων κοινοβουλευτικών δημοκρατιών όπου:

• τα κόμματα συνθέτουν απόψεις και παρουσιάζουν πρόγραμμα
• το κόμμα που πρωτεύει εφαρμόζει το πρόγραμμα του για μια τετραετία και κρίνεται για αυτό, θετικά ή αρνητικά.
• Απορρίπτω τις «κυβερνήσεις συνεργασίας» όπου μικρά κομματίδια με ελάχιστη κοινωνική απήχηση επιβάλλουν όρους διακυβέρνησης και οι πολιτικές αποφασίζονται με συμφωνίες κορυφής ανάμεσα σε αρχηγούς πίσω από κλειστές πόρτες.

3. Δεν είμαι σοσιαλιστής. Πιστεύω στο έθνος-κράτος, στην ελεύθερη οικονομία, στις παραδοσιακές Ελληνικές αξίες. Επομένως δεν μπορώ να υποστηρίξω το ΠΑΣΟΚ του κρατισμού, της φοροεπιδρομής και ψηφοθηρικής «αναδιανομής», της μαζικής απόδοσης ιθαγένειας σε πρώην λαθρομετανάστες και τα παιδιά τους, της αποβολής του επιθέτου «εθνική» από τα υπουργεία, του διαχωρισμού Εκκλησίας-Κράτους

Υποσημείωση: Είμαι απλός ψηφοφόρος της Νέας Δημοκρατίας (όχι ακόμα μέλος) και δεν έχω καμιά προσωπική σχέση ούτε με την κ. Μπακογιάννη, ούτε με κανέναν άλλο πολιτευτή της Νέας Δημοκρατίας, ούτε έχω λαμβάνειν ό,τιδήποτε σε ενδεχόμενη επικράτησή της.

Δείτε επίσης:

Αναγγελία της υποψηφιότητας για την ηγεσία της ΝΔ (video)

Ομιλία στην Κεντρική Επιτροπή της ΝΔ (video)

Ομιλία Ντόρας Μπακογιάννη στο Έκτακτο Συνέδριο της 7ης Νοεμβρίου (video)

Δευτερολογία Ντόρας Μπακογιάννη στο Έκτακτο Συνέδριο στις 8 Νοεμβρίου

Σχετικοί ιστότοποι:

H προσωπική σελίδα της Ντόρας Μπακογιάννη. Η Ντόρα στο ΥouΤube, στο Τwitter, και στο Facebook.

Ενημερώσεις άρθρου:

1. Γιατί η πολιτική στρατηγική Σαμαρά είναι λανθασμένη
2. Το ΠΑΣΟΚ παρέμεινε σταθερό μεταξύ 2004 και 2009 άρα δεν κέρδισε ψήφους από τη ΝΔ. Ισχύει;
3. Η ταυτότητα του κόμματος του Σαρκοζί και ο εν Ελλάδι "μιμητής" του
4. Επιτέλους απαντήσεις από τους υποψήφιους για την προεδρία της Νέας Δημοκρατίας
5. Γιατί ο Σαμαράς δεν μπορεί να διευρύνει την παράταξη, δεν μπορεί να μετατοπίσει την εκλογική ισορροπία προς τα δεξιά
6. Τί (δεν) έκανε ο Σαμαράς στο Ευρωκοινοβούλιο
   
7. Ποιος είναι ο καπεταναίος της ήττας;
8. Γιατί ψηφίζουμε Ντόρα Μπακογιάννη στις 29 Νοεμβρίου
9. Αποτίμηση αποτελέσματος: 29/11/09: η νέα αρχή για τη Νέα Δημοκρατία

Stephen Oppenheimer's bad science

Stephen Oppenheimer is quoted in the Times Online in regard to some comments that BNP leader Nick Griffin recently made about indigenous Britons. From the article titled Nick Griffin's Bad Science.

Watching Nick Griffin's performance on Question Time last night, I was struck by more than his objectionable views and evasive answers. He also seems to have a distinctly sketchy grasp of science, which he misrepresents to support his idea that Britain belongs to its "indigenous people".

He described white English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish people as "Britain's aborigines", suggesting these groups are descended from an ancestral population that arrived 17,000 years ago. Scientists, he said, would happily confirm this.

His comments seem, so far as I can tell, to be based on the hypothesis advanced by Stephen Oppenheimer, of Oxford University, in his book The Origins of the British. This uses genetic data to suggest that about 75 per cent of British ancestry can be traced back to very ancient times, before the Anglo-Saxons, Romans and Celts -- the argument is summarised nicely in this Prospect piece.

Part of Openheimer's response:

"About three quarters of the ancestors had arrived before the neolithic. Most of the rest arrived during the neolithic. There’s about 5 per cent from Anglo-Saxons, about 6 per cent from Vikings."

The idea of Paleolithic genetic continuity has been demolished recently, as I detail in Migrationism Strikes Back. Most of the mtDNA haplogroups, thought by scientists to have been in Europe since the Paleolithic, were absent when actual Paleolithic DNA was tested. Genetic continuity must be proven directly, and inferences from modern populations are suspect.

Oppenheimer bases his inferences on age calculations based on Y-chromosome STRs on modern populations, using an extreme evolutionary mutation rate that overestimates time depth by almost an order of magnitude, and leads to even more extreme time overestimates than the evoluationary rate that I criticized recently.

I had been positively inclined towards Oppenheimer's work, and I still consider it superior to other popularizing efforts, because of its data richness and clear effort to synthesize different strands of knowledge. In retrospect, however, it is flawed, as it is based on faulty mutation rates and faulty interpretation:

Oppenheimer's argument is a special case of what Francois Balloux described recently, and Guido Barbujani a long time ago. To make a long story short, it doesn't matter if a certain haplogroup found in Britons is 1,000 or 10,000 years old. Knowing this fact tells us nothing about when the patrilineage arrived in Britain: a 1,000-year old haplogroup may have developed from a British line of ancestors that were reduced to a single man 1,000 years ago, and a 10,000-year old haplogroup may have arrived in Britain only 10 years ago by a group of distantly related immigrants.

Nick Griffin is of course also wrong in inferring that Britons are descended from Paleolithic ancestors. But, he is wrong only in misquoting a date and in building a political case around a belief in Oppenheimer's inferences on Paleolithic origins of Britons.

Oppenheimer's political case is also flawed, however:

"He’s missed the point of the genetics in terms of his perspective that he can determine who is indigenous British. All British people are immigrants. As Bonnie Greer pointed out, the original Britons were Neanderthals. They were exterminated, then the Ice Age left a clean sheet. The modern population is essentially of north Iberian origin. So what’s British?"

Clearly the word "indigenous" cannot be taken literally and everyone living in Britain is descended from people who arrived there at some point or another. But, this is a gross oversimplification of the situation. Why do people speak of "native" Americans or Australian "aborigines"? They do not, certainly, mean that these people emerged from American or Australian soil. What they do mean, however, is that these people are the oldest recorded inhabitants of their homelands, the first people that can be named.

In the case of Britain, there are indeed indigenous people that can and are named by ancient writers, e.g. the Britons or Picts. No traditions for the immigration of these people exists, although their immigration can be inferred on linguistic grounds (Britons were IE speakers). There were certainly other people before them, whose names are lost to memory, but whose genetic trace may persist in the current inhabitants. There are also non-indigenous people that arrived there a long time ago, e.g., the Gaels, the Anglo-Saxons, the Norse, or the Normans, and their arrival was noted by historians. Finally, there are people that arrived in Great Britain more recently, e.g., Poles or Pakistanis.

Is there any way to distinguish between all these groups?

Clearly, one possible distinction is chronological: groups that arrived earlier are more indigenous than groups that arrived later. However, this is a relative difference, which does not allow us to make a sharp distinction between indigenous and foreign. 50 generations certainly earns you more "native" points than 2, but no obvious demarcation of indigeneity exists.

However, the main distinction is between groups that developed in situ and groups that arrived from elsewhere. The English are descended from a bunch of different sets of people, but as a people they developed in the country that came to be known as England.

In that sense the English are indigenous to England, not because their genes didn't arrive from elsewhere (they did), but in the sense that they became a people in the land itself. Different people were grafted onto the English over time, but they became English in an ethnic sense by being grafted onto them, and not by simply co-existing with them while retaining their own identity.

DNA tests for asylum seekers

ScienceInsider has some reactions to plans from the UK Border Agency to use DNA tests to verify claims of asylum seekers that they do in fact come from the countries they claim (e.g., Somalia), rather than other ones which do not face the same geopolitical turmoil. This is a real problem for European countries, as many illegal immigrants without documents claim to be from war-zones.

I am completely in agreement with the use of DNA tests to substantiate asylum seekers' claims, with the caveat that the followed protocols should be transparent to the scientific community, so that they can be subjected to scrutiny. Right now, many DNA testing companies make bold assertions of being able to distinguish one ethnicity from another, but given that their methods are "closed box", their results are suspect.

However, it is completely inaccurate that DNA is unrelated to ethnicity. Both simple uniparental tests (Y chromosome and mtDNA), and of course autosomal panels, are useful in updating (via Bayes' rule) one's prior belief in a particular hypothesis.

A combination of linguistic assessment (whether someone knows the language of the country he claims to be form), tests of common knowledge (whether someone knows some simple facts about that country), and a DNA test (whether someone has DNA that is common in this country) is enough to determine whether someone is from some claimed origin.

Such determinations are never foolproof, but there really is no foolproof method of determining that a person with no papers is in fact what he says he is. However, they can, in fact, both statistically confirm or reject a great number of cases with very high probability of being right. This, in itself, is a great improvement.