If anyone can show me an example of genetics which doesn't occur in an environment, or environmental factors which affect a person without genes I'll start listening to these arguments of convenience.
ill informed, not what has been stated and most of all boring
Incorrect, aggressive and most of all laughable.
It seems pretty clear that you have a lot of hate for OJ, but on a basis that he says it is all environment, that is not what he is saying....?
I am puzzled by your vitriol for someone who has not stated what you claim.
May i suggest some "love bombing".
Infact i think OJ is trying to keep it balanced between the two as you (and i for that matter want) but the way that it is balanced by the evidence is 70% - 30% in the environments favour thats all not 100% either way and you can't expect to get always nice 50-50 splits i'm afraid it is not the way the world works.
What is inescapable is that 100% of those with ADHD in Thapar's study possess genes and are also constantly immersed in environmental factors. It's a false dichotomy.
I'm not being facetious, I genuinely fail to see how you, Stephen Pinker or anyone else can realistically claim to be isolating your chosen variables sufficiently to say how much they influence development.
The thread of comments under it is fascinating too. If you’re interested in how and why inexpert people appear in the press as scientific experts I urge you to read the thread and follow the links.
Oliver James has repeatedly been criticised for constructing and demolishing straw men and for failing to research his topics properly. Yet still he sells books, writes popular articles for national newspapers and is invited to take part in important and influential debates.
I’m not going to question how he’s managing to do this, that issue is dealt with very well elsewhere. Instead I’ll use this space to make a point.
It’s time we started taking responsibility for the experts that fill our book shelves and our airwaves. We choose them by buying the newspapers they work for, by buying the books they write on subjects of which we care deeply about but know little, by watching the TV shows offering them opportunities to tell us how they think things are, and also by failing to register our dissatisfaction with what they tell us. The internet has given us the power and the responsibility to check the facts before signing up for them. We should call out any person who’s argument isn’t backed up by the research in that field, write to the people employing them or comment on their websites to make our dissatisfaction known, and always, always question what they tell us. Don’t passively accept everything, even from a trusted channel or paper. And perhaps above all question what the day-job is of the person being paid to tell you these ‘facts’.