::Alexis Delanoir:: Thank you for your comment SSDD (love the name by the way!). I just finished watching n00ffensebut's video and while I don't have the time or desire to entirely address the video, I have a few things to say about the matter. For one, in his video, he was perhaps more pedantic and irrelevant than John was. Perhaps this is a common theme amongst their in-group, but outside there, it looks like nothing but people desperately grasping at straws attempting to find contention with something they disagree with. You're right about two things. One is that he didn't really address a lot of what was said - he instead picked at little nuances of the arguments. Sam's argument for gene expression went without much notice by n00ffensebut; or rather, it went without any direct refutation. "Mainstream scientists" do, in fact, refer to gene expression for useful predictions of a gene's phenotype expression in a given part of the body. n00ffensebut claims to have an MD, but even if that were true, understanding gene expression is something that many people have difficulty with. He could get his MD without even knowing the basics. In actuality, gene expression was used as part of the argument for some time concerning the "viciousness gene" in pit bulls - something I will be discussing in my next blog post. What's funny was that this supposed viciousness gene was used in the same ways that MAOA is used. Blacks: Point out high rate of crime. Point to gene that supposedly results in high rate of criminal behavior. Determine that blacks are genetically predisposed to commit crime at a higher rate than other people. Suggest policy changes or alter public opinion because of this. Pit bulls: Show statistics of pit bull attacks. Propose viciousness gene. Determine that pit bulls are genetically predisposed to be vicious dogs. Breed-specific legislation. See where this upholds Sam's point in his video on MAO-A? We have to be careful about what we look into concerning genes and behavior. They can result in policy changes and negative decisions that ultimately put groups in the SOL seats without any true justification (can there be true justification for making policies concerning a superficially assigned group?). The second thing you're right about is that he falsely claimed plagiarism. I never made the comment about the liberal gene, gay gene, god gene, and so on; I only made the comment about single-gene theories. Even for that, I never claimed they were my own words, although they were. Whether or not Sam plagiarized the list of genes, can be debated, but if we can plagiarize lists now... well, I would refer to my post on why there exists no more original thoughts. It upholds that. He did seem rather childish in his video. A lot of his responses were cocky, and he even resorted to referring to the alleged sink piss incident with EvoGenVideos... yet he complains about people spreading things around about him because they don't like him. Honestly, people like n00ffensebut and LaughingMan0X aren't worth my time. The only reason I got involved is because Sam Owl is a personal friend of mine (we've been close for nearly 6 years, and we've known each other for about 10) and with his recent medical ailment, I felt it was important to finish what he started. You can ask around on YouTube, at my university or within my inner circle. There have been many times where I had to take a step back and say "okay, so I was wrong." I'm familiar with people like LM and N00B (see what I did there?). Their positions are immutable. Anyone with a beating heart can recognize when a debate just isn't worth it, because neither person involved is getting anything out of it besides further polarizing themselves. ::Sam Owl:: So one of the things n00b mentioned (I'm taking Lex's acronym) was that the New Zealand Medical Journal copied the data incorrectly from the Lu et al. study on the frequency of the variant of the MAOA gene in the Chinese population. I looked back at the study and he was correct: the data was swapped, where the sample size was 77 and the actual frequency was 54.5% (or 55 when rounded up, explaining the 55 sample size). However, I was curious. Does this difference actually mean anything? So my last hypothesis test of the two proportions included the following data: Population #1; Africans p̂ = .59 n = 52 Population #2; Chinese p̂ = 77 n = 55 Where alpha (α) = 0.01, or a 99% confidence level. The results were that the Z-value did not fall within the rejection region, so there wasn't sufficient evidence to suggest that the true proportions between the two tested populations was any different. In other words, for all we know, the 3 repeat allele variant of MAO-A occurs at the same rate between blacks and Chinese. But as we've discovered, the data was reversed. So I did another hypothesis test with the corrected data. Population #1; Africans p̂ = .59 n = 52 Population #2; Chinese p̂ = 55 n = 77 Alpha is still the same. The two-tailed cutoff was 2.576. The Z-value resulted to be -0.450. Once again, it did not fall within the rejection region. I actually did this same test with a 90% confidence level, or α = 0.1, thus narrowing the rejection region to be more lenient. The two-tailed cutoff would still be 1.645, so no matter what, unless you want to operate off of a 34% confidence level or lower (absolutely ridiculous), there isn't a difference. n00b's pointing out of this trivial fact did absolutely nothing to affect the validity of my video. In fact, it just reflects how much misinformation there is out there on statistics regarding MAO-A. So what was the point? As Lex said, it was probably just to pick at anything he could in order to make it seem like he had a point. Now, excuse me before I have a heart attack or some shit. (It's not that bad guys, really.) ::Val Desi:: "Not so fast! Brunner's Syndrome has been identified in TWO more people! AND in mice!" > Ignores the fact that the identification of the syndrome didn't follow DSM criteria (something that Sam mentioned). > Ignores the high variability of impulsive and aggressive behavior in mice according to strain survey and phenotype testing data (something catnipBiologist mentioned). ::n00ffensebut:: Yes, the critics lack the testes to respond to me directly, even though I promised uncensored commenting. So, I’ll have to copy their criticisms here from their safety zone. Alexis Delanoir said: “Whether or not Sam plagiarized the list of genes, can be debated” I thought Alexis was the imaginary girlfriend of “Sam Owl.” I guess she is real, and she wants to shift blame for plagiarism to Sam. Whatever. I don’t really care that Sam committed verbatim plagiarism. Almost every one of his criticisms of warrior-gene research was stolen from people like John Horgan, who stole them from the editorials in MAI Review in response to the Rod Lea scandal. All of my pettiness regarding the “little people” on YouTube was faux personal and humorous. Sam appears to be a junior-high school student who has time to learn from his online mistakes. The point of putting him in the video is to show how falsehoods survive and pollute minds to this day. Plus, it is harder to make an example of someone like Horgan because he will probably remain employed as a science reporter no matter how wrong he is. Being incorrect is okay, as long as one is not politically incorrect. Alexis Delanoir said: “Sam's argument for gene expression went without much notice by n00ffensebut; or rather, it went without any direct refutation.” These people obviously do not know what gene expression is. The “warrior gene” refers to the three-repeat allele of an upstream variable number of tandem repeats (uVNTR) promoter polymorphism for monoamine oxidase A. A promoter is a gene-expression element. I also spoke of epigenetic methylation. I don’t want to excessively focus on Sam’s gene-expression fallacy because I don’t believe in kicking someone when that person is down. I think it should be embarrassing enough for him that he is claiming not only that all MAOA studies are false positives, but also that all drug trials for every MAO inhibitor that led to FDA approval were also false positives. Queue laugh track. Sam Owl said: “I looked back at the study and he was correct: the data was swapped, where the sample size was 77 and the actual frequency was 54.5% (or 55 when rounded up, explaining the 55 sample size).” I give Sam credit for admitting he was wrong, which is more than can be said for a certain anonymous agitant on Wikipedia. As hard as it might be to believe, caveat emptor for Wiki. Sam Owl said: “In other words, for all we know, the 3 repeat allele variant of MAO-A occurs at the same rate between blacks and Chinese.” Obviously. Sam doesn’t seem to understand the idea he was stealing from John Horgan. The idea is that Chinese people are much more likely to have MAOA-3R than others, but Chinese people are never violent. Therefore, the warrior gene doesn’t make anyone violent. Of course, the scientific consensus is that MAOA-3R causes violence through its interaction with childhood maltreatment. As I pointed out, there is no reason why IQ could not be substituted for childhood maltreatment in this line of research, since it had a stronger association in Fergusson et al. IQ and hormonal differences could explain why Asians and Jews have lower rates of violence than African-Americans, despite having high MAOA-3R allele frequencies. MAOA-2R, on the other hand, really is overwhelmingly a black gene. It is also relevant that all of the critics of the research are making this obtuse mistake because they have no real familiarity with the research. Val Desi said: “Ignores the fact that the identification of the syndrome didn't follow DSM criteria” Tuinier et al did examine nine men with Brunner syndrome for DSM criteria and none met the criteria for any existing disorder, but they had common symptoms, and in this case study, the patient responded to antipsychotic treatment. Brunner syndrome was a new syndrome that is too rare for the DSM. These critics do not understand the purpose of the DSM. Val Desi said: “Brunner's Syndrome has been identified in TWO more people!” The point wasn’t that I believed Brunner syndrome was common. It was that I think Brunner syndrome exists, which would prove that this one gene can influence a “complex” behavior. If one can prove that a disease being rare means that it actually does not exist, I shall be happy to inform the sufferers, such as those with epidermolysis bullosa. There is a mountain of evidence for MAOA’s effects, and I didn’t even mention fMRI research. ::Val Desi:: So his reply to me was: 1) A complete misinterpretation of the argument that Brunner didn't follow the diagnostic criteria (he didn't classify it properly). 2) A strawman of what my intentions were in bringing up Brunner's Syndrome's rarity and falsity. 3) An omission of the rest of what I said. Guys, at least he's consistent. Give him credit for that. Also, props for using the dehumanizing/polarizing/propagandist/warrior/hype phrase "the enemy." This is how we know we're dealing with a professional here. A professional BF4 player. ::catnipBiologist:: I think it was pretty obvious Sam's point was that if there is no statistically significant difference between the two populations, then we can't confidently make statements about the higher frequency in one race over another. His comment about allelic repeats is consistent with his prior reasoning. If I were to take a guess, he's stating that because a change in sequence can cause the higher or lower expression of the gene in a given area, if black people are more likely to have a higher frequency of the 2 repeat variant than some other variant, then the gene expression would be different. This rebuttal is kind of strange, if it's what he means. Technically, yes, his proposition is true, but it's kind of identical to the cascade amplification argument in that it's still a "what if." In actuality, all of the allelic variants of MAO-A have been found to have some kind of connection with behavior, so if he's arguing that the gene expression didn't account for other allele variants, then it's a moot point. I don't think Sam (although he can correct me on this if I'm wrong) was saying all tests for MAO-A are false positives, either. I think his argument was that they're overlooking the influence of other factors. His brief mentioning of epigenetic methylation wasn't enough for me to confidently make any guesses about what his arguments were, but really, it sounds like his arguments aren't addressing the gene expression of MAOA itself, but merely just trying to trivialize the expression levels Sam displayed. If his argument in regards to epigenetic methylation was that 'because a gene's expression can be affected by something other than the sequencing of the DNA itself, gene expression levels have no significance in this case,' then I'm just wholeheartedly convinced he's an undergrad. ::n00ffensebut:: This opposition lacks coherence. At least scientists have a good excuse for focusing on replicating Caspi et al (the study for which “Sam Owl” erroneously refers to Moffitt as the lead author). Their excuse is that MAOA-3R and MAOA-4R are common and, therefore, easier to study. There is no logical consistency in disbelieving in Brunner syndrome, a complete absence of MAOA enzyme but believing in the gene-environment interaction for MAOA-3R, which causes somewhat less MAOA enzyme. A role for the environment might have a touchy-feely appeal, but that is no substitute for coherence. Clearly we need a better opposition. Dr. Beaver is back with more insight on MAOA-2R in African-American men: The 2-Repeat Allele of the MAOA Gene Confers an Increased Risk for Shooting and Stabbing Behaviors Abstract There has been a great deal of research examining the link between a polymorphism in the promoter region of the MAOA gene and antisocial phenotypes. The results of these studies have consistently revealed that low activity MAOA alleles are related to antisocial behaviors for males who were maltreated as children. Recently, though, some evidence has emerged indicating that a rare allele of the MAOA gene—that is, the 2-repeat allele—may have effects on violence that are independent of the environment. The current study builds on this research and examines the association between the 2-repeat allele and shooting and stabbing behaviors in a sample of males drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Analyses revealed that African-American males who carry the 2-repeat allele are significantly more likely than all other genotypes to engage in shooting and stabbing behaviors and to report having multiple shooting and stabbing victims. The limitations of the study are discussed and suggestions for future research are offered. ::catnipBiologist:: So n00b's reply simply: Dismisses us (or perhaps only I) as being incoherent [I believe my comment, although others may feel free to verify this, was easily understandable, except one might need to Google some of the terminology; however this should not be an issue for somebody who is familiar in the field as n00b purports to be], Imposes his strawman of Val once again [I believe none of us have denied the existence of Brunner's Syndrome, merely brought its classification and rare diagnosis into question -- a big difference that someone as qualified and educated as n00b ought to know. Even so, I haven't mentioned a thing about Brunner's Syndrome as of yet], Points out that Sam cited Moffitt as being the head author [This is perhaps the only empirical statement n00b made, and even as such, has no bearing on the validity of the arguments being made as it is a very trivial point about something which was not even mentioned in the most recent and relevant arguments. Even in itself, there is no particular value, as anyone can find the study Sam referred to by typing in "Moffitt et al 2002 MAOA" in a reference search], Refers to the abstract of a very recent study by Beaver, Barnes and Boutwell [I will probably have full access to this study by the end of the month, although for now I cannot do anything but wait for peer critiques]. This being considered, let the record show that he has not sufficiently addressed the majority of our arguments, and absolutely none of mine. His most recent statements hold little-to-no relevancy or factual value, giving us no reason to treat them with any degree of seriousness. ::Val Desi:: I'm not gonna stick around and keep feeding the undergrad troll, but okay, I'll clarify. It was actually really simple: His rebuttal for the contentions with using Brunner's Syndrome as supportive evidence was the following: 1) A few more people have been diagnosed with it, enough to count on one hand. 2) Knockout mice. Argument #1 is just stupid. Argument #2 ignored the rebuttal catnipBiologist gave to that one idiot "Steampunk Realist" who was kissing n00b's ass. The rest of the rebuttals you or others gave were ignored. My point was that his argument was stupid. I wasn't denying the existence of Brunner's Syndrome :rolleyes: As I said, it was a strawman. ::n00ffensebut:: I guess my comments on “Sam Owl” and company are still being monitored by them, so maybe I should respond to them more directly. In “debates” like these, my endgame is never victory a la atomic bomb on Japan. I perfectly understand that the enemy cannot surrender because the fate of all vulnerable peoples hangs in the balance, or something. Corollary to that, I must always remain the big, bad wolf. My objective is to merely paint them into a corner so that objective observers and those making up their own minds can sense their incoherence, and so I can teach those people something in the process. Predictably the opposition engages in goalpost moving, which I think is a little different from what is seen in IQ debates. I think IQ debates start with complete denial so that realists are forced to point out time after time that racial gaps exist, just to make the realists look like asses for pointing it out. It often ends with “What are the genes, then?” which is actually a question with which I partly sympathize because soft science is soft, and the answers might be just a few years from now, or so. We don’t have to wait until all epistasis is explained or even until all common variants are found. We only need enough hits to create a powerful genetic-index formula that is proved useful for individuals and make a racial histogram with the HapMap database. I already did this for obesity. So… lighten up and be patient about it. In this debate, the opposition (as a whole, not just these community-college students) is really conflicted and incoherent, which is why I think they usually avoid it, and Nature recently decided that the genetics of violence was only a “mild” taboo. There is no way to deny the existence of violence, as with intelligence, which is so mysterious to them. There are non-serious fallacies like it only seems like African-American men are more violent because of our racist justice system/media or equating antisocial personality disorder with geopolitics, and don’t cha know the White Man oppressively oppresses the oppressed, which is really just trivializing the diseases like APD. There are also plausible un-disprovables like correlation is not causation (another way of saying Screw you, science. I’m going home.) or going around and around with damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t racial obfuscation. Widom and Brzustowicz was pivotal for that. Genes that affect whites don’t affect other races, even though race is a social construct. You haven’t studied the genes in minorities enough. You studied them in minorities, but the genes were just proxies for race, that is, racial prejudice. Once enough confidence in the genes for something like IQ settles in, they will have to reverse themselves because consumer-driven eugenics will become a new source of inequality. Of course, there is always a slew of ad hominem filler. Having an opposition can be a very good thing, even an insecure, incoherent one like this. Sometimes the critiques are actually good questions reworded as accusatory. Those were the points to which I responded. It is also helpful and funny that members of their hive capitulated without following the chain of command. “Oh, to clarify, yeah I did ‘plagiarize’ John Horgan” “he was correct: the data was swapped” “Technically, yes, his proposition is true, but it's kind of identical to the cascade amplification argument in that it's still a ‘what if.’” “I don't think Sam (although he can correct me on this if I'm wrong) was saying all tests for MAO-A are false positives” “I believe none of us have denied the existence of Brunner's Syndrome” Sometimes incorrectly labeling an argument a “strawman defense” is a way of capitulating while saving face. When this particular opposition isn’t capitulating, it is being extremely vague and not responding to the voluminous points made in the video. Maybe this is because they realize that they are painting themselves into the corner. Notice how I’m the only one citing actual studies. They did cite a few studies, but the ones not used to support fraudulent points (Lea, Widom) were studies that supported my side (Caspi). At some point, I always get tired of beating people up, and I hope that observers can see what happened. Of course, that is when the opposition declares victory. I see a lot of parallels with other science-denial, like creationism and global-warming denial. I can understand how some might find this debate boring. Most of the points that I made I originally made a long time ago on my blog. The opposition could have saved themselves some embarrassment, like falling for the idiot test, if they had learned to read. Most of the points the opposition made were made a long time ago by the people they are plagiarizing. The truth is that hashing this out among nobody ignoramuses in YouTube land actually does serve the debate because many people don’t have time to read and become informed about an issue (like every member of this opposition), so the video format is value added. Oh, I guess I should also frame my terminology corrections. The opposition is extremely ignorant, and one member couldn’t even pronounce the gene correctly. I have had to make a series of small terminology points, which are important so that others can follow the discussion. It also reveals that the opposition is green. Yes, the study was Caspi et al, not Moffitt et al. Yes, almost my entire video was about gene expression. You are using the term wrong, and if think liver MAOA production disproves the effect of MAOA expression in the brain, then all of the studies I cited have to be wrong, including the epigenetics study. Their only response has been to try and create confusion about the corrections or whimper and say I make too big a deal out of them. Sorry to anyone who has been reading all of this. I believe that this commenting back and forth doesn’t have very much value added, but I'm not a stupid comment nazi, like Razib Khan. The video, itself, settles everything, which makes more sense as a feat when one considers that I have been honing the points in the video for years on my blog. Don’t expect some amazing debunking video from the opposition. ::catnipBiologist:: In n00b's most recent posts, it seems all he has done is go on an extensive rant attempting to show that he is in the winning position without providing sufficient arguments, that he has humiliated us on display (or "painted us into a corner"), and that these comment exchanges are not worth it. He also denies that he has created a strawman despite the clarifications being made. It seems that the only empirically verifiable claim he made is that he's the only one who cited sources. True, but his failure to directly bring relevant arguments to the table (and instead tries to imply that he's made them before, that it's not worth his time and that it's just so obvious we're all ignorant) kind of overlaps such a point. According to n00b's logic, by clarifying what the purposes were of our arguments, by pointing out where he has made a strawman as opposed to addressing real arguments, by pointing out that the majority of his arguments have been incredibly trivial and held no value in the argument, and by pointing out that he has failed to sufficiently address the arguments that we have made, we are giving concession to our own loss and ignorance. If such rules applied to any debate, debating would serve no purpose. Ever. And he continues to say "the enemy." How mature. We collectively, I would say mostly I and Sam, have provided plenty of arguments which are actually relevant to the points being made. n00b's arguments are mostly either irrelevant, atypical, or are simply directed at reasoning which none of us have subscribed to. This is, once again, consistent with the methods of his video. If what n00b has done suffices as having won an argument in his mind, then my prior assumptions were correct. He's either an undergrad or has the mentality of one. At this point, it should be fairly obvious to the fence sitters what has transpired. I will hold to my previous statement in response to Braden Eagle. I've had plenty of these types of disagreements with others in my field in the past. A typical exchange would probably consist of us throwing back and forth jargon, and once one person really drove home a point, the other (usually I) would say "Huh, that's interesting, I'll have to look into that. Thank you." What n00b has displayed here is primarily interest in his own reputation and image, trying to maintain an image of untainted validity, and based on his other posts about "political correctness," probably an allure of autonomy as well. The failure to have an exchange such as what I explained above is probably due to the fact that n00b's comments generally have no productive claims in them, therefore there is nothing to address. Since the beginning of this discussion, this is the general impression I got. It hasn't changed, so as I said, my comment to Braden will hold true. This is obviously not worth my time, or anyone's for that matter. For the record, inhibitors are commonly used to treat various things like HT-1, hypertension, and so on. It's not at all insane to think that an MAO-A or MAO-B inhibitor could help treat something simple such as hyperactivity. The reason impulsive violence is complex is because of the leads. There are many leads for such behavior, and not all of them are due to biological violent behavior. Some are a survival measure, which is why poverty is correlated with crime. It's a complex behavior because it's something that isn't easily quantifiable, and it can't be judged the same way depending on the cause. That's where the skepticism comes from, or at least, my skepticism. n00b is now essentially claiming victory, so it must be true. ::Sam Owl:: Let me illustrate n00b's methodology in this debate. I admitted to the fact that the one study I was intending to REFUTE had mixed up the sample size (77) with the sample proportion (54.5%). I admitted to it, and responded by conducting another hypothesis test with the corrected data, and what did I find? The change didn't make a difference. The only thing that was nullified was that Chinese have the highest MAOA-3R frequencies. No, now their frequency is just moderately high. When I did this, n00b took it as evidence that I backed out of my argument, and further used it to support his thought that perhaps I don't have a point, or don't disagree with him anymore. So, here's my options. I can either admit to the fact that the data was swapped, and he takes it as me "capitulating," even when I offer a counter argument and maintain my warrant. Or, I can deny that the data was swapped, and he can call me a liar. Here's another example. I said I took John Horgan's list of genes. Yes, I did. Now, I stated in kind that that fact does not negate my argument. His thoughts are that if you plagiarize something, or you don't see that data was swapped somewhere, then nobody has reason to listen to you anymore. That's called a composition fallacy. But here's the setup there: If I admit that I plagiarized, n00b says I'm capitulating again. If I deny that I plagiarized, n00b can say I'm a liar. He's setting this whole thing up as a zero-sum game in which nobody but himself can win (evidence of narcissism). Really? That makes us look weak, or disingenuous? We're all getting sick of HIS dishonesty and selection bias. ::n00ffensebut:: I actually think they have made a bigger deal out of the plagiarism than I did. It doesn’t really matter what they say about it because it can’t be taken back or hidden. It isn’t that much plagiarism compared to Rand Paul or Martin Luther King, but it is still a character issue. Since he copied Horgan’s points, in addition to a little bit of verbatim plagiarism, it’s also kind of pointless to listen to Sam because we can just read Horgan directly. The only point Sam made that I think was original was that he claimed that liver MAOA production basically negates FDA approval of clorgyline. That’s crazy but original. I am much more interested in matters of substance. For instance, I presented evidence that the metabolite, 5-HIAA, of MAOA’s reaction also has a consistent association with aggression. Did they refute that evidence like I did with their evidence? Did they even mention it? They would rather talk about drama because they don’t understand the science. I would prefer to just set my sights on people like Steven Pinker and debate him, if he stands by anything he said, but juxtaposing “Sam Owl” with Pinker is, itself, an effective take-down because Pinker really doesn’t sound that much better. Sam is reading what I write, and he saw the video, so I don’t know why he thinks he can play dumb about the issues of hormones and IQ for explaining the interaction effect for MAOA-3R in Asians. I think the truth is that he just wants to deceive. For instance, Caspi et al is probably the most famous study on MAOA. He cited it and claimed that the environmental factor “quashed” the effect of the gene. What a ridiculous way of describing the results! EvoGenVideos said something even more stupid. The truth is that the study was monumental because it showed that MAOA-4R had a protective effect. In other words, people with MAOA-3R were affected by child abuse, but those with MAOA-4R, the version that whites tend to have, were unaffected. The same thing happened in the studies for IQ and testosterone. That means that in white societies, the masses are likely to behave better than societies with comparable IQ levels. The masses might not be as smart as the elite, but their behavior is more likely to be controlled thanks to MAOA-4R. (They now claim that they never meant to say that all MAOA studies are false positives, right? So, what’s the problem? Maybe they should provide us with a list of which studies are false positives, so that we can take them seriously, again.) As far as which blog should be the debate location is concerned, I made a video and made my blog the comment location because I haven’t signed up for Google +. I tried responding directly to EvoGenVideos, HannibalBurka, and Sam Owl directly on their YouTube channels, but each one blocked me for no good reason. I haven’t tried to comment on their blog, nor do I intend to do such a thing. It is fair for them to accuse me of not respecting them as debate opponents. They can’t even cite any legitimate studies to defend their point of view, whatever it is at the moment. However, I promised uncensored commenting, and I shall keep my word. ::catnipBiologist:: Looks like n00b decided to finally offer some arguments. Hooray. Since he has dismissed any intention to come here, I will respond in kind, although I’m curious if I’ll feel like responding again, since I already said it wasn’t worth it. He says he’s interested in matters of substance, but it took this long to get a somewhat significant reply. Let’s clarify that clorgiline is only FDA approved for research. The drug isn’t listed on the FDA approved drug list. MAO inhibitors are no longer commonly prescribed and are mostly used as third- or fourth-line treatment, in accordance with their guidelines. In 1999, the Michigan Psychiatric Association conducted a survey finding that only 2% of their responding practicing psychiatrists had used MAO inhibitors frequently, down from 25% in 1990. This is because they were found to have adverse effects such as hypertensive episodes due to overaccumulation of tyrosine, and were sometimes ineffective. Example: selegiline requires high inhibition rates and is ineffective in treating depression. He says that 5-HIAA is associated with aggression, but doesn’t make specifications. High presence of MAOA has been found to have no significant effect on 5-HIAA, although studies testing this have produced controversial results (not consistent). It’s also found that high MAOA levels do not result in higher homovanilic acid (HVA) levels in the cerebrospinal fluid, inconsistent with the hypotheses being challenged, although its variation does effect dopamine levels in the CNS. n00b says IQs and hormones can counter the effect MAOA-3R has in Asians, but once again he’s still stuck on a trivial point which Sam has not pursued… in any case, as it pertains to the Chinese sample, the Chinese average IQ is 100. At least that’s what “IQ and the Wealth of Nations” says. His point is vague and lacks positive claims. He says the study by Caspi et al in 2002 found a protective effect from MAOA-4R, but it doesn't mention MAOA-4R. We’re still talking about the same study, right? “Role of Genotype in the Cycle of Violence in Maltreated Children?” Again, clarification is needed. It’s hard to reply when everything is vague. Yes, nobody claimed that all MAOA studies are false positives. We said it’s plausible that they affect simplistic behavioral traits, although not by themselves. To infer some kind of deterministic position that the low presence of MAOA alone, without GxE or another confounding factor, on something complex like “impulsive criminal behavior,” or any variant, is problematic from its conception, from the point of how you are inferring impulsive criminal behavior to how you are testing that MAOA alone affects it. It’s even more dangerous when someone gets a hold of these studies and makes negative racial implications, especially someone who has said that “black men with the warrior gene have a duty to retreat to Liberia,” or “I congratulate Sam (Seder) on finding five black and Hispanic men who aren’t violent.” Is this slander? Maybe, but it does imply that there is bias. Sources: Balon R, Mufti R & Arfken CL (1999). A survey of prescribing practices for monoamine oxidase inhibitors. Psychiatric Servivces, 50, 945–947. Clary C, Mandos LA & Schweizer E. (1990). Results of a brief survey on the prescribing practices for monoamine oxidase inhibitor antidepressants. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 51, 226–231. Ducci et al. (2006). A functional polymorphism in the MAOA gene promoter (MAOA-LPR) predicts central dopamine function and body mass index. Molecular Psychiatry, 11(9), 858-866. Gordon et al. (1999). Oral versus transdermal selegiline: antidepressant-like activity in rats. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 63, 501–506. Horwitz D, Lovenberg W, Engelman K, Sjoerdsma A. (1964). Monoamine oxidase inhibitors, tyramine, and cheese. Journal of the American Medical Association, 188, 1108–1110. ::n00ffensebut:: There was some incredibly stupid reply from “catnipBiologist,” which seems intended entirely to create confusion. I’m not sure if these people are real or sock-puppets of “Sam Owl.” I hesitate to engage in debate that dignifies such a low understanding of the science and that contains apparently disingenuous arguments. I still feel that the video that I made is of primary value, and these comments are not very instructive. First of all, let me address some jokes I made a long time ago that seem mean spirited because they were taken out of context. I don’t believe in being sincerely hurtful to people, but I do believe in using satire to make points, even controversial points about race. Some famous people, like Sarah Silverman, Sacha Baron Cohen, and the creators of South Park, have, at least in the past, made jokes that are racially insensitive. In interviews, they might claim that they were satirizing racism, itself, but it is obvious that going into a Roma village and making fun of everyone as stupid and low class is not satirizing racism. Likewise, it is obvious that South Park used to express race realism ideas, which started as safe jokes about “Frenchies,” then progressed to extreme but hidden views about immigration in an episode called “Jakovasaurs.” Thereafter, it seemed that almost every right-wing view about race was expressed until the show reversed itself in an anti-stereotype episode purportedly about “gingers.” There is definitely a racial disconnect in America, which I think was best encapsulated when I saw Gwen Ifill accidentally laugh when she reported that 51 percent of whites think there is more racism against whites than African Americans. She fashions herself as a journalist, first, and she tries to keep her punditry non-partisan, but I felt that her laughter was basically an editorial statement about what whites should be allowed to believe about affirmative action. With that said, I tried to express my opinions about the George Zimmerman self-defense shooting of Trayvon Martin and the media’s reaction with satire. Anyone is entitled to be offended by my sense of humor, but I do have freedom of speech, and I felt that the right to self-defense was being encroached upon as part of a larger racial agenda that I would also connect to the Eric Holder’s criticism of the rate of suspensions of black students in Texas. If the justice system and even high-school suspension policies are racist, then how long will it be before racial quotas are applied to the imprisonment for violent crime? Anti-racists assume that race realists want to bring back segregated lunch counters, but some of us just want to defend a status quo that allows us to be treated somewhat equally before the law and defend our families, as needed. In response to an argument by a liberal commentator that stand-your-ground laws should be replaced by a “duty to retreat” based upon a belief that Trayvon Martin was an innocent boy murdered in cold blood by George Zimmerman, I stated that “black men with the warrior gene have a duty to retreat to Liberia.” It is an edgy joke that was not intended to be taken literally. I am proud of how succinctly it incorporates historical and scientific concepts. This is a country that celebrates a white supremacist who advocated moving African Americans to Liberia, a man named Abraham Lincoln. Many liberals have argued that black people do not commit higher rates of violence and that a racist justice system and media only make this appear so. The truth is that feminists were right when they said that the personal is political, and racial violence, whether it is a flash mob or a knockout game, is racial oppression. In response to a liberal commentator down peddling the rate of violence committed by black men by using anecdotal evidence, I said that I congratulate him for “finding five black and Hispanic men who aren’t violent.” Obviously the point is that statistics for rates of violence exist and contradict his example. If your sensibilities are too delicate for this kind of racial satire, then get off the Internet and go listen to some classical music to soothe your nerves. Politically, I see these jokes as being no more radical than opposing racial quotas in imprisonment. Now, onto the discussion about MAOA. Before I made my video, I pointed out to Sam Owl and others in this discussion that clorgyline exists. It is my belief that they were unaware of this drug before I mentioned it, and MAO sounded like some obscure molecule to them of no real importance. Their responses to me have been some variations of saying that the drug doesn’t work, and they defended this view by pointing out that currently psychiatrists prefer to prescribe SSRIs instead. This is a telling response because it shows 1) that they are deliberately missing the point, 2) that they still defend radical views despite their capitulations, and 3) that they can’t use logic. They originally claimed that MAOA isn’t important based on things like its action outside the central nervous system. MAOA has so much effect within the brain that there are serious neurological side effects of taking an MAO inhibitor, which is partly why doctors prefer SSRIs. So, they contradict themselves and miss the point that these first antidepressants were approved by the FDA due to their effectiveness during phases two and three of the drug trials. This is an example of me painting them into a corner. They thought they were on safe ground criticizing MAOA research. Now, they have to attack the FDA for allowing doctors to prescribe the first antidepressants. How did they get here? Why don’t they just give up and concede the point? catnipBiologist said: “Yes, nobody claimed that all MAOA studies are false positives. We said it’s plausible that they affect simplistic behavioral traits, although not by themselves.” Once again, they go back and forth. I thought we all agreed that Brunner syndrome does exist. Which symptoms of Brunner syndrome are “simplistic behavioral traits”? Arson? Sam said, “We have to be careful that we don’t put groups of people in the shit-out-of-luck seats on a type-1 error.” Type-1 error means false positive, and he claimed to “debunk the warrior-gene theory.” Again, which studies are type-1 errors? Be specific. What effect of MAOA are they claiming to have debunked? I don’t want to go too far beating up people who might have illnesses like panic disorder, but I also don’t feel like this is much of a debate. Should I allow them to duck out in a way that lets them save face? I think this debate would be a lot simpler if my opponents knew what they were talking about. catnipBiologist said: “He says that 5-HIAA is associated with aggression” No, I didn’t just say it. I posted a review study in the video that supported the contention by saying that “Nearly all studies show that concentrations of CSF 5-HIAA are inversely related to clinician- or self-reported ratings of aggression, irritability and hostility, or criminal activity” with an accompanying table of the specific studies. catnipBiologist said: “High presence of MAOA has been found to have no significant effect on 5-HIAA” From Robinson et al: “5-HIAA content increased (r=-0.56, p<0.005) as MAO activity increased.” Where are you getting this? catnipBiologist said: “the Chinese average IQ is 100.” Is it? Why are “anti-racists” lowballing the average IQ of Chinese people? I thought we were comparing Chinese people to black people. In my video, I debunked the “77 percent of Chinese people have the warrior gene” racial slander, but I admitted that their allele frequency was still “pretty high” and showed numbers that basically put their allele frequency in line with that of African Americans. Sam ran some calculations, came to the same conclusion, and claimed that I did not respond to his new argument, even though I said it first. Are they now contending that the average IQ of African Americans is about 100, too? catnipBiologist said: “He says the study by Caspi et al in 2002 found a protective effect from MAOA-4R, but it doesn't mention MAOA-4R.” How could anyone claim to “debunk the warrior-gene theory,” if they can’t follow the most important study in the whole history of research on the gene? Table S1 shows that 274 subjects had MAOA-4R. Yes, they also included 5 subjects with MAOA-3.5R based on a study that found a similar effect on gene expression with that allele. So what? This is why I don’t see a point in debating these people. ::catnipBiologist:: It seems that n00b doesn’t exactly know how inhibitors work, and thinks that since inhibitors can result in adverse neurological side effects, it proves that MAOA has a high activity in the brain. An enzyme inhibitor can be very specific, in that it does not affect enzymes or proteins other than what is targeted. An inhibitor can be introduced to a specific part of the body, thus if someone wants to administer an MAOA inhibitor to counter a neurological disorder, they can administer it exclusively (or at least mostly – most scientists in this field enjoy no less than 90% specificity) to the brain. This does not mean that MAOA can cause such disorders by itself. It means that a scientist can select specifically for MAOA in the brain to counter neurological disorders which already exist. Nobody attacked the FDA. Yes, Brunner’s Syndrome exists. Now, please remain consistent in following our contentions with using that as an example. It is a very rare case, and we are all skeptical if it relies exclusively on MAOA. A symptom of Brunner’s Syndrome is low IQ. MAOA has been found to only affect IQ with the presence of COMT. We’re actually considering the very potent possibility of other factors playing a role in this. n00b is not. I’m really willing to place a bet that Sam used “Type 1 Error” figuratively, in that people are, once again, testing and claiming that MAOA by itself can affect complex behavioral traits, but may be ignoring other factors. “Other factors” – this is, and has consistently been, the focal point of our argument. n00b is overlooking this and is taking our arguments piecemeal to better suit his abilities. So as such, it seems n00b is only focused on confirming his positive hypotheses as opposed to testing a null hypothesis – something characteristic of pseudoscientists. My first reference, Ducci et al., found no significant effect of MAOA activity on 5-HIAA levels. Williams et al found high activity of MAOA was correlated with high 5-HIAA levels in men, but not women; another study by Jonsson et al. found high activity of MAOA was correlated with high 5-HIAA levels in women, but not men. I cited my study for this and stated that the results of such studies produced conflicting results. For HVA again, Zahlsman et al. found high MAOA activity correlates with high HVA levels in men, but Jonsson et al. found high HVA levels in women; lower levels in men. The reason I refer to HVA is because of its correlation with dopamine levels. Continuing, n00b seems only to refer to one study by Robinson et al. and has neglected to look at the other studies, although limited in number. I explained where I got the Chinese average from. Other estimates put it at 105, but this isn’t much higher. I actually believe finding a mean national IQ is stupid. Examiners account for dozens of factors: history is taken into full detail, including the number of people in the examinee’s household, smoking habits, neurological/physical/language/social/emotional difficulties, their strengths in school, and so on. They also monitor/score significance for multiple factors, including the person’s hearing/sight during the test, distractions, if their thoughts caused them emotional distress, etc. The factors that play into an IQ score are so numerous that averaging millions of people doesn’t work. It was intended for individual assessment. I’m referring to WAIS-IV but the same factors are usually accounted for in other tests such as WMS-IV. The variation in the Chinese average seems to verify that it’s not reliable. Sam never claimed n00b didn’t respond to the new argument. Sam admitted the data was swapped, so he conducted a new hypothesis test to see if the change actually made a difference regarding his original point. He wanted to show that the frequencies given by group were not significant enough to show any true difference in proportions; he did this same test for the other groups and came to the same conclusions, except for one pairing I believe. Whether n00b understands the warrant for this claim, I don’t know, but it certainly explains why n00b thinks Sam brought up little-to-no original arguments. This next part was a goose chase. I thought perhaps n00b and I were looking at two different studies, so I commented with the name of the study. The fact that n00b did not attempt to correct me should reflect that we’re looking at the same study. So, I read it again. Once again, there was absolutely no mentioning of MAOA-4R, 3.5R, or any specific repeat allele on the promoter region of MAOA for that matter. I don’t know where n00b got this idea from, but I thought maybe I was looking at a review of the study as opposed to the study itself. So, I read it on 3 different websites – JSTOR, ScienceMag and Pedocs. Still the same. Although I will not be commenting again, for my own interest, I requested a copy of the study from my old university. As I said, I will not be commenting again. This has been a monumental waste of my time due to the opposition’s vagueness and narcissism. I have more important things to do than go on goose chases to verify (or in this case, disprove/conflict with) the claims that people like n00b make. As long as he stays on the internet pretending to be a physician, asking for donations, I don’t see any reason to give him attention. As commenter John said, he’s only interested in gaining attention, not validity. Hence his oh-so-clever “Trojan Horse.” Good luck to everyone in the future. I’ll be around to chat every now and again. ::n00ffensebut:: Sam Owl, I mean catnipBiologist said: “An enzyme inhibitor can be very specific, in that it does not affect enzymes or proteins other than what is targeted. An inhibitor can be introduced to a specific part of the body, thus if someone wants to administer an MAOA inhibitor to counter a neurological disorder, they can administer it exclusively (or at least mostly – most scientists in this field enjoy no less than 90% specificity) to the brain.” “I’m really willing to place a bet that Sam used ‘Type 1 Error’ figuratively” Do you see what I see? catnipBiologist is a highly paid biologist and not at all the same person as “Sam Owl.” The first one is classic. Sam Owl, I mean catnipBiologist said: “Williams et al found high activity of MAOA was correlated with high 5-HIAA levels in men, but not women” Robinson et al actually looked at enzyme activity, which relates to my actual point. You are talking about the promoter polymorphism. Watch my video for reasons why women are not affected as much by this promoter. Philibert et al also found another VNTR promoter that affected women more than the VNTR promoter that you and I, Sam, have been discussing. Also, we’re comparing MAOA-3R to MAOA-4R without interaction variables. “Once again, there was absolutely no mentioning of MAOA-4R, 3.5R, or any specific repeat allele on the promoter region of MAOA for that matter.” As a highly paid biologist, Sam, you might consider checking the supplemental. “I will not be commenting again” Good idea, Sam. Get well soon. ============================================================================================================== The debate ends with n00ffensebut accusing catnipBiologist and Sam Owl of being the same person, leaving with no actual refutation, followed by his opposition laughing at the fact. The comments are found on the following two blogs: Alexis Delanoir's: http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/ n00ffensebut's: http://theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com/ To me, it seems obvious that catnipBiologist and the Steel Owls won, while n00ffensebut (nicknamed "n00b" for short) desperately attempted to save face with a final ad hominem.