Register for an account

X

Enter your name and email address below.

Your email address is used to log in and will not be shared or sold. Read our privacy policy.

X

Website access code

Enter your access code into the form field below.

If you are a Zinio, Nook, Kindle, Apple, or Google Play subscriber, you can enter your website access code to gain subscriber access. Your website access code is located in the upper right corner of the Table of Contents page of your digital edition.

Mind

Reader survey results, biologists vs. non-scientists

Gene ExpressionBy Razib KhanSeptember 23, 2012 10:54 PM

Newsletter

Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

There are now over 400 responses to the survey. Here is a link to the responses in CSV format. If you import this into R, an extra parameter in regards to encoding may be necessary:

responses=read.csv("responses.csv",sep="t",header=TRUE,fileEncoding = "UCS-2LE")

I decided to separate the respondents into two categories, biologists and non-scientists (therefore, excluding other types of scientists from further analysis). You can see the filtered responses for biologists and non-scientists yourself. Below are some comments on interesting differences.

Reader survey results

It makes sense that people who say they're biologists tend to be very well educated. One thing not evident explicitly in the table is that the biologists who read this weblog tend to be more conventionally Left-liberal in their views, and I think that explains some of the differences in response to questions such as feminism.  More interesting to me is that my non-scientist readers seem to exhibit a more strongly hereditarian viewpoint, or accept the predictive power of genetics to a greater extent, than the biologists! You can chalk some of this up to ideology, but when you look at the Gattaca question I think you are getting to the heart of a major issue: biologists, and geneticists in particular, understand the limitations of genetic inference. This does not mean that one accepts a "blank slate" perspective. On the contrary, almost all of my readers accept individual differences in intelligence and personality being genetically mediated (I omitted that result there was so much unanimity). But, there does need to be some subtly in how we interpret the interplay between genes and environment. As Jim Manzi would say, this is an area with "high causal density." The world of Gattaca is really more about social engineering than genetic engineering, and the former is much more difficult than the latter.

A minor admission of surprise, in a good way, is that it seems the overwhelming majority of my readers do accept non-environmental differences in personality between the sexes. Obviously someone who reads this weblog is not representative of the general population, but as you may know I have been moderately pessimistic about acknowledgement of non-reproductive biological differences of the sexes in the current intellectual/political climate (where in some quarters such acknowledgement is ipso facto admission of being sexist). These results update my assessment in this domain somewhat, though to be sure I stated the question in a very broad and general manner which would be difficult for many to disagree with.

Finally, it seems that biologists and non-scientists read blogs a fair amount, but their selection differs somewhat. In particular, biologists seem to be reading blogs by...well, biologists (e.g., Larry Moran, Jerry Coyne). Not too surprising. The main exception is Panda's Thumb. But the reality is that many biologists have only a marginal interest in the 'controversy' of evolution, so I don't think that this exception is very telling.

    2 Free Articles Left

    Want it all? Get unlimited access when you subscribe.

    Subscribe

    Already a subscriber? Register or Log In

    Want unlimited access?

    Subscribe today and save 70%

    Subscribe

    Already a subscriber? Register or Log In