Oligopsony, you imply that there is symmetry between the state of knowledge possessed by the small town dwellers and the city dwellers. I disagree.
The small town dwellers generally know who is related to whom, amongst the humans that they encounter. They also possess somewhat detailed information about the kind of upbringing that many of the people they encounter have experienced.
The cosmopolitans on the other hand simply lack knowledge about the genetic background, and the upbringing, of most of the people they encounter. Where is the symmetry?
I don’t see the question “Who is likely to form the most accurate estimate regarding the importance of nurture vs nature, supposing that these folks are exposed to no other relevant information?” as being most salient. In reality, they are exposed to other information on the subject.
Rather, what Harpending and Cochran appear to be discussing is the idea that the small town dwellers are less easily fooled by inaccurate but “clever” theoretical arguments in favour of the idea that nurture is a far more powerful influence than nature. Ceteris paribus, I also think that the converse applies: the small town dwellers should also be less easily fooled by inaccurate technical arguments stating the opposite extreme. They simply possess more evidence than the city dwellers do, ceteris paribus.
As it happens, in this society it is the former false idea (nurture dominating nature) that is promoted by the media-education system, which is why Cochran and Harpending focused on how the move away from small town living has facilitated that.
Yes but I think they do a disservice by making what sounds like an off-hand and very question-begging reference to a possible consequence with regard to selection of schizophrenics.
Oligopsony, you imply that there is symmetry between the state of knowledge possessed by the small town dwellers and the city dwellers. I disagree.
The small town dwellers generally know who is related to whom, amongst the humans that they encounter. They also possess somewhat detailed information about the kind of upbringing that many of the people they encounter have experienced.
The cosmopolitans on the other hand simply lack knowledge about the genetic background, and the upbringing, of most of the people they encounter. Where is the symmetry?
I don’t see the question “Who is likely to form the most accurate estimate regarding the importance of nurture vs nature, supposing that these folks are exposed to no other relevant information?” as being most salient. In reality, they are exposed to other information on the subject.
Rather, what Harpending and Cochran appear to be discussing is the idea that the small town dwellers are less easily fooled by inaccurate but “clever” theoretical arguments in favour of the idea that nurture is a far more powerful influence than nature. Ceteris paribus, I also think that the converse applies: the small town dwellers should also be less easily fooled by inaccurate technical arguments stating the opposite extreme. They simply possess more evidence than the city dwellers do, ceteris paribus.
As it happens, in this society it is the former false idea (nurture dominating nature) that is promoted by the media-education system, which is why Cochran and Harpending focused on how the move away from small town living has facilitated that.
Yes but I think they do a disservice by making what sounds like an off-hand and very question-begging reference to a possible consequence with regard to selection of schizophrenics.