Sunday, December 8, 2013

The Stupid Stupidity Surrounding the Warrior Gene, MAOA, is Stupid

Byrd AL, & Manuck SB (2013). MAOA, Childhood Maltreatment, and Antisocial Behavior: Meta-analysis of a Gene-Environment Interaction. Biological psychiatry PMID: 23786983


LaughingMan0X said...

A most amusing and informative video good sir.

Anonymous said...

I would like to see more shitting on evogen, I wish someone had saved lithodid man's video where he talked about how evogen lived in his house for 9.5 months contributing nothing. The one that got taken down after they had their 4 hours public relations skype conference.

Also you should tag your videos so that if someone searches race IQ on youtube it shows up.

Otherwise very informative video. You seem to know a lot about the ins and outs of the academic politics on this.

With that kind of knowledge I would suggest making a video/blog post exposing everything the academic establishment is doing to get in the way of the research finding the specific genes for violence or IQ or other behavioral traits.

As I see it if they believed in racial egalitarianism they would support the research immediately as they would expect it to show no difference across races in the frequencies for genetic variants that affect behavioral traits. Or in other words the research would add scientific rigor to their egalitarian worldview.

The implication is that their efforts show that they have no confidence and are in fact worried about what the results of this research will reveal.

DKshad0w said...

^Someone did save the video, "EvogenVideos is a Piece of Shit long boring ramble"

Enjoy, and Happy Holidays!

Dubbidubdub said...

Great job pointing out the egregious dishonesty of the authors of the MAO paper which used a sample size of 20 something percent women for the whites and 48(?)% women for the non-whites, when the the allele in question only (putatively) produced negative effects on behavior when expressed in males.

Not to sound sycophantic, but that really was an insightful catch, which served to elucidate how to look for bias and dishonesty in a scientific publication.

Your work needs more attention.

nooffensebut said...

Thanks for making this a successful video, everybody!!

I am pleased that it was “retweeted” by the famous geneticist and neuroscientist, Dr. Kevin Mitchell.

The following comment that I found in Google cache was deleted from YouTube:

“Hoot hoot Sammy, I see were @n00ffensebut chased you around the tree branches, spanking your rhetorical nonsense with his REAL scientific knowledge and understanding.”

Yesterday, we had 18 “thumbs up” and no “thumbs down.” Just in the last few hours we received 10 “thumbs down.” The enemy has heard us, but they have nothing to say….

B.B. said...

Sam Owl & Alexis Delanoir respond to LaughingMan0X at a blog called "How to Paint Your Panda". nooffensebut's MAOA video is criticized in the comment section.


nooffensebut said...

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.

nooffensebut said...

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.

Unknown said...

It's funny reading the "Steel Owls" (aka anti-White sociopaths) hooting how The Owl's mother figure/imaginary girlfriend (sock) puppet "Lex", has refuted Laughingman0x, with her post that is allegedly from a post BY THE OWL, who can't post or make videos himself because he's having panic attacks.........but he still seems to be posting and proclaiming victory........damn, i'm confused now! Anyone would think this parliament of Owls is really just the work of one lone sociopath

Anyway, the self proclaimed homeowner, wife, (almost) six figure earner and published academic "catnipbiologist" (i take it from her handle she's a career driven biologist who's using cats as a substitute for not fulfilling her own biological function) is questioning your credentials--I'd say it's a desperate bid to distract attention from the mess that's been flung over into the Owl Roast.

Saying as they won't allow comments from "the opposition" over on Mrs Bates' blog (aka Sam's Mommy figure) I'll copy paste her response in here:

"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." (catnipbiologigist almost six figure earning academic superstar)

nooffensebut said...

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

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.

nooffensebut said...

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”

nooffensebut said...

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.

nooffensebut said...

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.

Anonymous said...

It's laughable to watch them posting over there (especially catladybiologist) saying you are afraid to address their points....

Hey Catnip, "Lex" CENSORS comments that do not align with her claptrap hence why none of the "oppositions" posts are getting through. Post your comments over here where there is NO censorship.....or are you scared of the response you'll get?

nooffensebut said...

Regarding Kevin Mitchell, I was glad that Mitchell linked to the video and still am. I vaguely remember him from when I used to comment on Razib Khan’s blog. Khan, Mitchell, and Daniel MacArthur are all buddies and promulgators of the ideology of genome-wide association studies. This ideology basically believes that all human behavior is “complex,” and, therefore, the genome, as a whole, has a significant influence on behavior, but individual genes can only have minute impacts. One GWAS, in particular, found no important individual genes for any personality trait. Of course, a gene promoter like MAOA cannot be studied with SNP-array GWAS. The fact that Mitchell promoted the video without watching it is funny and telling. He apparently liked the title because he thought it mirrored his beliefs back at himself. While I would have preferred that this powerful clique had softened their views in response to solid evidence, I shall gladly settle for having achieved a subversive Trojan horse. I spread word of the amazing Byrd and Manuck meta-analysis, which strikes at the heart of their fundamentalist views. Apparently the video’s title is a second idiot test. I did think there was something fishy about an academic advertising a video that included a joke about Martin Luther King’s plagiarism. I don’t know exactly to what extent desire for money for their GWAS influences their ideology, but I think medical doctors have a more mature and objective view of the power of a single molecule like serotonin. If you confront them about the power of neurotransmitters, they always point to the complex genetics of HMG-CoA reductase, an important enzyme in cholesterol metabolism. Their ideology may be more enlightened about quantitative genetics than the so-called “anti-racists,” but if their ideology were completely true then Brunner syndrome should not exist. I would also point to Vimaleswaran et al, a study that compared obesity GWAS to obesity candidate gene studies. Of course, that study recognized that candidate-gene or hypothesis-driven research produces many false positives, but their results also showed “evidence for enrichment” compared to GWAS results such that “the candidate gene approach retains some value.”

As for the YouTube jokers, they have capitulated sooo much that I can no longer tell if they disagree with me anymore. I don't think their points about MAOA were ever very important to them. Now, they mainly just want to communicate how much they dislike me. It is curious how people can harbor so much hatred for someone about whom they know next to nothing. I thought people like me were supposed to be the haters.

Unknown said...

Despite The Owl's panic attacks he is still managing to post text based replies

Here's the latest from the little anti-White head weaver:


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."

Anonymous said...

James, the ironic thing here is you're feeding the "proxy battle" that several and yourself have complained about.

I detect distinct hypocrisy.

nooffensebut said...

Yeah, 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.

nooffensebut said...

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.

nooffensebut said...

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.

nooffensebut said...

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.

nooffensebut said...

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.

Stone Cold Jeff said...


Really, do you have anything better to do with your time?

I've come to two conclusions-

1) You are either a raging racist who is totally off his medication and rocker.


2) You are an actually liberal human rights satirist who is attempting to disguise his diatribes in racism (such as your frothing rantings on about half of African-American Women having Herpes) and are failing miserably.

I can disprove your claim at #2. I once fucked two different "Black" women on separate occasions before, and neither of them had Herpes.

Either way, I'd conclude a logical assumption that you're an internet troll without a life, that most of your YouTube videos have a high Dislike ratio, and that you also censor free speech by disabling comments.

Have a nice day.

Julian said...

***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.***

Seems that has happened?

Correlation of the COMT Val158Met polymorphism with latitude and a hunter-gather lifestyle suggests culture–gene coevolution and selective pressure on cognition genes due to climate

ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE, Vol. 121(3), 161–171, 2013

Factor Analysis of Population Allele Frequencies as a Simple, Novel Method of Detecting Signals of Recent Polygenic Selection: The Example of Educational

Attainment and IQ. Piffer (2013) – Open Access, Open Review Journal

Anonymous said...

Now, don't get me wrong, I appreciate the clarification of the studied affects of MAO-A, most specifically the clinical significance of their inhibitors, but I feel as though you made two mistakes in this whole situation (Which was incredibly stupid by the way, and not worth wasting any time in).

The first is probably more important. You used the copy/paste error Lea and Chambers made as an "idiot" test, but then suggest that if someone makes a mistake in interpreting that information, we shouldn't listen to anything else they say about the gene. In an abstract way, that's a fallacy of composition.

The second was that you took a Hannibal/EvoGen approach to accusing "Sam Owl" and his friends/supporters/constituents/whateveryouwanttocallthem of all being sock puppets. I don't really care how bad their arguments were, that's kind of a dumb thing to do, because it makes you look as paranoid/disingenuous as Hannibal the Hutt.

No need to respond to any of this, it's not like I really care that you're picking off online trolls a la half-assed slaps with a ruler, but I felt like something needed to be said on the matter.

nooffensebut said...

It would be nice to think that I don’t need to say anything to dispel stupid myths that surround research on MAOA or a CDC report on herpes prevalence in the African-American community. Ideally, there should be “adults in the room” who don’t waste their time with Wikipedia or Scientific American. Learned professors should ignore that and explore the depths and decades of this research. Maybe someone might even pass findings about MAOA-2R to Henry Louis Gates, Jr, and he could make news by calling indifference to the subject on the part of researchers a high-tech genocide against African Americans.

I believe that the idiot test had reached a critical mass to the point that it was becoming a problem for MAOA research. John Horgan is as successful at getting attention for his writing as he is unintelligent. I recently discovered that his article that explicitly attacked MAOA research almost entirely based on the idiot test was reposted all over the Internet, including The Chronicle of Higher Education, and he also printed the idiot test in one of his stupid “The End of” books, which people like Razib Khan read cover-to-cover and review.

I knew full well that the obviously uneducated person or persons to whom I responded in this comment thread was/were an “enemy” who would declare victory no matter how badly he/they lost the “debate.” They were just passing on Horgan’s words into the video format, so I used them as a foil. As I said before:

“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.”

nooffensebut said...

To refer to the idiot test as “a mistake in interpreting that information” is to suggest that a careless falsehood constitutes “information,” unless you are referring to the information in Lu et al, which would mean that you consider a copy-and-paste error to be an “interpretation.” The best thing about the idiot test is that it is so stupid that it is really, really funny, and some of the stuffiest pseudointellectuals fell for it. It reveals from where the person received their introduction to MAOA research, which shows that they prioritize media hype over scholarship in their investigations. Since there is so much information on MAOA freely available just on my blog, there is no point in wasting time or energy listening to anything else such people would say about it, even though I enjoyed pointing out their other mistakes. There is no fallacy in prioritizing information sources.

I don’t really care whether this “debate” was against one moron or a complete set of morons. I made quite obvious that many respected people believe the same nonsense. The “little people” on YouTube and blogs were just a foil. He/they didn’t care about the evidence or the truth, which is why he/they transitioned to capitulations, attempts at personal attacks, and explicit suggestions that the audience, as it were, wouldn’t understand my evidence anyway. I don’t consider him/them to be legitimately progressive or against racism, but they do want to copy an ethos of populism or “people power.” Antics in the Pussy Riot style are about creating an active movement rather than a reasoned debate. Look at the performance of David Suzuki in his debate with JP Rushton. I respect Suzuki’s environmental activism, and I did see at least one flaw in Rushton’s performance, but Suzuki obviously was not focused on intellectual persuasion. Like a trash-TV talk show, audience reaction is the star. We can all comprehend how a falsehood can get popular, but on a visceral level it matters how many cute girls are nodding to Sam Owl or John Horgan. Also, people should remember that this is the fucking Internet. It isn’t really paranoid to wonder who all those people are who want to engage in the debate, but can’t even bother to come up with a pseudonym, like you.

Anonymous said...

It's hard to receive tone on the internet, but if I'm understanding yours correctly, I don't get what the hostility is for in response to two minor criticisms. I guess there are less adults in the room than one might suggest?

"To refer to the idiot test as “a mistake in interpreting that information” is to suggest that a careless falsehood constitutes “information,” unless you are referring to the information in Lu et al, which would mean that you consider a copy-and-paste error to be an “interpretation.”"

Whether I said it was a mistake in interpretation, a mistake in understanding, or a mistake in proper research is irrelevant. My suggestion is that even some of the most prominent scientists and researchers in their fields can make mistakes in their research, and all it takes to correct their mistakes is admission of having made that mistake in the first place. Nobody is going to get everything 100% right 100% of the time. That's a complete contradiction of science research as a whole. Whatever words I used, it's still kind of a fallacy.

"Since there is so much information on MAOA freely available just on my blog, there is no point in wasting time or energy listening to anything else such people would say about it, even though I enjoyed pointing out their other mistakes. There is no fallacy in prioritizing information sources."

To suggest that your bibliography [although extensive] or similar mediums [any blog bibliography] has higher priority than the NZMJ is pretty crazy, regardless of the stupid mistakes people like Lea & Chambers make. You're subject to the same mistakes as them, especially when you're not restricted by the peer-review process. You're right, it's very clear how media hype can distort the truth, but that doesn't mean you're free from distortion. Far from it.

"Also, people should remember that this is the fucking Internet. It isn’t really paranoid to wonder who all those people are who want to engage in the debate, but can’t even bother to come up with a pseudonym, like you."

It's paranoid to suggest that all the people you were arguing with, or even a substantial number of them, were just sock accounts of a single community college student. Hannibal the Hutt did something similar with his detractors in the wars with Sofia Rune, suggesting that they were all your sock accounts. All I'm suggesting is that what you're doing is not at all different from what he was doing. It's a dirty game of ad homs and accusations that can't be proven or disproven.

What's even funnier is that the majority of them had pseudonyms. I don't. So what? I participate in debates if they interest me. If you want a name to call me, call me Roy, or RJ, or Roytoy if you're my coach from uni. It doesn't alter the significance of what I have to say.

I seriously get that you didn't care that much about the "debate", which is why I made note of the fact that it was pointless at the beginning of my first comment. I get that it was "faux personal" as you said. Just saying "I know what I'm talking about, they don't" doesn't give you immunity to criticism or legitimate concern with your tactics. Quite frankly, the way you're suggesting otherwise makes you look like an old fool. How long ago did scientific optimism abandon you?

nooffensebut said...

“two minor criticisms”

I don’t accept them as criticisms. I consider them drama escalations, both of which were already stated by my “debate” opponents. My opponents were not prepared to debate facts, so their entire argument became etiquette and why I’m bad. How about I call you Miss Manners?

“all it takes to correct their mistakes is admission of having made that mistake”

Let me know when that happens. Has John Horgan, his publisher, or Scientific American run a correction? Has Adrian Raine corrected his book? Neither Raine nor Pinker responded to my e-mails. I heard Pinker fixed the idiot test in his book, but I doubt he fixed the other errors. Science is supposed to be self-correcting, but political correctness does not concern itself with the truth. It sets up rules and tries to get fired anyone who breaks the rules. If John Horgan repents, I don’t have a problem with him going to Heaven, if there is a heaven. Earning my respect as a science reporter is another matter entirely.

“Whatever words I used, it's still kind of a fallacy.”


“To suggest that your bibliography [although extensive] or similar mediums [any blog bibliography] has higher priority than the NZMJ is pretty crazy”

The bibliography links to peer-reviewed literature. Is NZMJ peer-reviewed? JAMA, it is not. I have experienced peer review, and it is more political than one would like to think.

“that doesn't mean you're free from distortion”

Here’s a novel request: name my specific distortions.

Roytoy said...

Alright sweet cheeks, but if you get to call me Miss Manners, I can call you Lord Man Child, or LMC to get down wit dub yung gangstuhs.

So LMC, where'd you drop the soap this time?

"I don’t accept them as criticisms. I consider them drama escalations."

Well then, I hope you're ready for the real world, LMC, cuz the streets aren't too sweet on people like you. Next time someone points at your wrinkles, don't bitch at them too, ya hear?

"Let me know when that happens."

Oh I will. Let me know when you get my point too, kay doll?



If all you can seriously do when someone accuses you of a fallacy is just take up exceptionism, or just flat out deny it, then maybe your wheelchair isn't a good spot to be reporting from then, huh?

"The bibliography links to peer-reviewed literature."

So does the NZMJ. So does everybody trying to make you point. Think you're special, champ?

"Is NZMJ peer-reviewed?"

"JAMA, it is not."

You're bad at this LMC.

"I have experienced peer review, and it is more political than one would like to think."

Well then you got the short end of the stick there LMC. Just because you feel like you're persecuted by "the man" doesn't mean you've got an argument.

Oh, and before you bring it up, yes, I'm familiar with the stories about false studies being passed in peer-reviewed journals. Never said the system was flawless, m'kaaay? I said the system is better than your freelance "fighting the politically correct dogma AKA THE MAAAAN" network of asshattery.

"Here’s a novel request: name my specific distortions."

See all the above.

Have a nice day, LMC. Say hi to the bruthas for me, and while you're at it, test them for Brunner's.

nooffensebut said...

I apologize for insulting the integrity of an admitted plagiarist.

Roytoy said...

No problem LMC mah bruthu, there's still love goin around.

No Offense's Butt said...

BUTT wait.

Is NZMJ and JAMA peer-reviewed or not? Because they say right in the descriptions in the links provided that they are...And they're from Wikipedia. I know you trust that.


nooffensebut said...

When I said "JAMA, it is not," I meant "NZMJ, I served with JAMA. I knew JAMA. JAMA was a friend of mine. NZMJ, you're no JAMA."

Anonymous said...

But in the end it's still just an attempt to find the best linear
approximation to the function which takes vertices of a very high
dimensional hypercube to the quantitative trait or conditional
probability of a binary trait. And obviously a least squares linear
approximation means nothing if the conditional expectation surface isn't

As soon as one "looks" at the real world gxe to trait function this best linear approximation looks very bad and ridiculous.

So multiple gwases will overlap, but the hard core of non-zero variants will be elusive. It's a wild goose chase.

I like two quotes Vischer gave in his review paper:

From Tim Crow, Molecular Psychiatry 20112:

“There comes a point at which the genetic skeptic can be pardoned
the suggestion that if the genes are so small and so multiple, what they
are hardly matters, the dividing line between polygenes and no genes is
of little practical consequence. Have we reached this point”?

Jonathan Latham, on, 17 April 2011:

“Among all the genetic findings for common illnesses, such as heart
disease, cancer and mental illnesses, only a handful are of genuine
significance for human health. Faulty genes rarely cause, or even mildly
predispose us, to disease, and as a consequence the science of human
genetics is in deep crisis.Since the Collins paper [Manolio et al.
20093] was published nothing has happened to change that conclusion. It
now seems that the original twin-study critics were more right than they
imagined. The most likely explanation for why genes for common diseases
have not been found is that, with few exceptions, they do not exist.”

btw, i am a bgi study partcipant, and steve can't stand it.

nooffensebut said...

Whether learning the identities of the many alleles of small effect is practically useful depends upon one's goals. For developing therapies or genetic engineering, benefits will take time. For diagnostics and race/population comparisons, the data will be almost immediately useful.

Those findings from SNP-array GWAS have absolutely nothing to say about repeat polymorphisms like MAOA VNTR, the "warrior gene."

Latham obviously has no clue.

nooffensebut said...

I just noticed that the one who calls himself Sam Owl and catnipBiologist is still attacking me and promoting the idea that he “debunked” MAOA on his YouTube channels. Mostly it’s just bullshit drama, but I wanted to respond to a couple things.

Jon Cragaladarador said:
“What about the study that was done on mice that found that MAOA deficiency led to them being more aggressive?”

Sam Owl said:
“If you mean the Scott, Bortolato, Chen and Shih study, the sample size was 6.”

This guy doesn’t appear to have access to other studies on knock-out mice, even though his alter ego claims to be a biologist with a six-figure income. :)

Here are some other studies that address aggression in knock-out mice:
Chen et al, 2007
Vishnivetskaya et al, 2007
Cases et al, 1995

Also see Mejia et al, 2002 for the effect of MAOA inhibitors on mice. There are other studies that address other behavioral differences, too.

catnipBiologist said:
“Not to mention the video was talking about humans. The gene expression of MAOA in mice is likely to be different than in humans.”

This “biologist” doesn’t understand that knock-out mice and humans with Brunner syndrome have exactly the same gene expression of MAOA, zero.

nooffensebut said...

It appears that my former "debate" opponent, Sam Owl, has erased all of his videos from YouTube. Is it common for debate victors to destroy the evidence? I think I still have copies, if anyone has questions.

Unknown said...

We need a Manhattan Project of sorts directed at the correction of this 2R-allele in all populations, particularly those of Subsaharan African and likely also e.g. Australian Aboriginal descent.
Rather than giving aid to Africa and "peacekeeping" as they now do, the UN I feel, now that this has been discovered, bear the responsibility of organizing a project to correct this gene through genetic engineering, drugs or implants - whatever psychiatric cure is possible, and as soon as possible.