Talk:Richard Lewontin

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

must distinguish sociobiology/evolutionary psychology from behavioral genetics
The following quotation is found under the heading of Sociobiology and Evolutionary Psychology: "In books such as Not in Our Genes (co-authored with Steven Rose and Leon J. Kamin) and numerous articles, Lewontin has questioned much of the claimed heritability of human behavioral traits such as intelligence as measured by IQ tests, promoted by books such as The Bell Curve."

This gives the impression that claims such as those made in the Bell Curve belong to sociobiology/ev psych. But this is not the case; the study of the role of genetic differences in the production of individual differences belongs to the field of behavioral genetics. Sociobiology/ev psych tends to focus on what people have in common. This part of the article should be changed.

acting talent?
"When an eminent Franco-American actor saw Lewontin's performance, he dubbed him the most naturally talented actor he had ever seen, and attempted to get him to sign a Hollywood contract."
 * performance in what? I've removed that pending clearer wording and some kind of reference. -- Danny Yee 13:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

older stuff

 * Lewontin has been a persistent critic of the type of genetic determinism espoused by some neo-Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins.

I want to edit that, but I don't dare, because I'm not sure whether my edits would count as NPOV. Lewontin and Gould's argument with Dawkins appears to based entirely on a straw-man misunderstanding of Dawkins et al's "genetic determinism" (Dawkins covers this in A Devil's Chaplain, the end-notes of the 2nd ed of The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype. Matt Ridley and Stephen Pinker have also done good at showing that Lewontin's argument's based on a misunderstanding (Ridley's Nature via Nurture and Genome and Pinker's The Blank Slate)... --Steinsky 01:45, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I have edited the sentence cited above, because it gave the impression that Dawkins et al are espousing genetic determinism, when in fact that is just one (I think rather misleading) view of what they are saying.


 * The article would also, I feel, benefit from a paragraph or two outlining the response to Lewontin from the sociobiology / evolutionary psychology camp. R Lowry 20:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The article should refer to Lewontin's extreme leftist politics, and mention that his rejection of sociobiology has been criticized as being perhaps influenced by his political ideology. And if you can do this and still be NPOV, you get a cookie.  Tim Shell


 * This is just from memory, but doesn't Steven Pinker's latest book The Blank Slate refer a quote by Lewontin where he openly admits that he's only interested in doing and supporting science matching his political views? I seem to remember it does, so if someone wants to dig up a quote from Lewontin to build up this argument, it might be wise to start looking there for the reference.   Mortene 09:07, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Rather than getting too worked up about ideology and politics (which have a place, but shouldn't be the focus of the article) and having this turn into a "he-says, she-says" kind of Wikipedia article. I would rather see this article expanded further in the coverage of Lewontin's science, particularly in the early days of population genetics and molecular evolution, where he has been hugely influential and developed a good deal of mathematics and analysis which continues to inform the field to this day.  His scientific output in these areas (particularly in the early days), is more notable in the scientific community than his views on sociobiology, which are relatively small part of his output. --Lexor|Talk 09:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I was just reading Matt Ridley's Nature via Nurture, and it is mentioned that Lewontin was the first to prove that there is on average a far greater genetic difference between two randomly selected individuals from the same race, than the average between any two different races. (Chapter 8, "Conondrums of Culture", page 204 in my hardcover edition.) Sounds like a major scientific finding, which should be mentioned in the article. Ridley gives no reference for just this statement, though. Anyone here know more about this? Mortene 12:49, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It was referenced later in the book: Lewontin, R.C. 1972 "The apportionment of human diversity" Evolutionary Biology 6:381-98. I'll make a note of this scientific accomplishment in the article, if there are no protests. Mortene 09:18, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, Lewontin was one of the major contributors to that result and that reference sounds about the right timeframe. I haven't read the paper itself, possibly a good idea.  If none of use gets around to digging up the original, and if you think Ridley summarizes it correctly, just say: Lewontin 1972 blah, blah as cited by Ridley 2004(?) blah, blah.... --Lexor|Talk 14:36, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * "Lewontin was the first to prove that there is on average a far greater genetic difference between two randomly selected individuals from the same race, than the average between any two different races" - a paper on this topic is called Lewontin's Fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy and should probably get a link on this page.

Are these universities in chronological order?

North Carolina State University, the University of Rochester, and the University of Chicago


 * Yes, they are in chronological order. I worked as a summer programmer for Lewontin in 1963 at the University of Rochester, and then became his graduate student at the University of Chicago in 1964.  Earlier he had been at North Carolina State University.  Felsenst (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal
Yep, quite correct Danny Yee. I took out the MacDonald reference from the sources, but I missed the parenthetical mention. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

this isn't a message board.

Russian or Ukraine American?
Is Richard Lewontin an Russian (or Ukraine) American? This may have something to do with his political views. Anyhow, if someone knows this, this may be added to the section on his biography. (Postdoc 18:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

Lewontin's Fallacy
A section has been added by an anonymous user 87.114.148.156 which is mostly concerned to persuade us how wrong Lewontin was in committing Lewontin's fallacy and how terribly misleading this has been. This has been struggled with on the page Lewontin's Fallacy and reached a reasonable state, where it is made clear that whether there is such a Fallacy depends on what question is being asked (and a reference to a paper by R. Chakraborty saying that was given). The present section quotes material from that page while coming to a very different conclusion. The fact that with enough loci we can differentiate clearly between, say, Norwegians and Swedes, does not persuade us that we ought to call those different races. The author of this new section apparently thinks this, though. This anonymous author should reconsider. Felsenst 06:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As the anonymous author has not reconsidered, I have removed the sentences
 * "Organisations such as the American Anthropological Association, and many academics and politicians frequently cite this fallacy as though it were fact with the cliche that 'the differences between races are the same as those within them', Edwards' work clarifies the fallaciousness of this statement. The types of difference between races are not the same as the types of differences within them"

as these convey the wholly misleading impression that differences between races are somehow special and utterly unlike differences between any two populations. Edwards's point, that one can discriminate clearly between races by using enough loci, is true for any two populations, the difference being that more loci will be required the less the populations differ. Felsenst (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The entire section seems odd at best. One can find numerous papers critical of Lewontin's views. Why should this one particularly be selected for an entire section here? Doesn't a link in the "see also" section suffice? Furthermore, it's in the section on Lewontin's critique of evolutionary theory. This is clearly an unsuitable location for a reference to criticism of Lewontin himself. --Silver Pyrogenesis (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of  Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Critique of orthodox evolutionary biology
I've removed two cryptic, unexplained figures from this section. While one might guess at the meaning of the figures, no legend is given, nor a reference to some work of Lewontin's that might explain them, and one contains an outright error ('adaptionist' [sic]). The title of the section is also poorly chosen-- Lewontin's views are pretty much the definition of orthodox evolutionary biology-- but the section does address some important views of Lewontin, and I don't have any immediate suggestions for cleaning up it's title and content. MayerG (talk) 05:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

"Personal life" section
This isn't at all about his "personal life - which should be about family etc.

What we have here is a bit about his academic interactions with some academic philosophers. If this information is to be included in this article, it should be classified elsewhere.

If there is to be a "Personal life" section, it should contain appropriate information. If there is none to be had (or if no-one wants to, or is brave enough, to write it here), then this section should be removed. 101.117.70.185 (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

At least his wife's name shoud be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.80.45.176 (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Some oral history on Lewontin from EO Wilson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4TwiXs056A has some of EO Wilson's recounting of Lewontin--some info which we might want to include starting at about 7 min in. I haven't figured out a good way to integrate it yet (if at all)--but note it here as a reminder to me and others to think it through more. The information about Lewontin's scientific productivity does seem important, although I'm not sure the best way to integrate this. Pengortm (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Lewontin"
Can we can a pronunciation key for "Lewontin"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Can we can"?  If you mean "can we have", actually no.  I was Dick's graduate student in the mid-1960s.  Whenever someone asked him which way he wanted to have his name pronounced,  LEW-on-tin  or  le-WON-tin, he would say that either was OK with him.  Most people I know use the former.  Felsenst (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Vendalism recent BLP/EVADE policy-motivated edits by WeijiBaikeBianji
Hi, repeated vandalism is done by WeijiBaikeBianji who delete important part of the general presentation about Lewontin. Something should be done. --195.244.166.33 (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not vandalism. The content you are adding is unsourced and violates wikipedia policy - please read WP:RS and WP:BLP. Melcous (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Before you come to edit English-language Wikipedia, please learn to spell English words like "vandalism". By the bright-line policy of WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." This is a known exception to the rule about how many times one editor may revert an edit. Also an exception to the rule about counting repeated reversions is the rule about evading blocks. "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." Rather, you, sir, should provide a positive rationale for content that you propose be put into a Wikipedia article, based on  reliable sources, and you should be especially careful about that when referring to living person. And you should not misuse false accusations of "Vendalism" against an editor (me) who knows the rules here, so I will refactor the title of your comment according to  the rule, "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I call on the team of administrators of Wikipedia to protect this page from I.P. edits so that the repeated defamatory vandalism by 195.244.166.33 does not recur here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Mary Jane, not Mary Ann
Richard Lewontin is married to Mary Jane Lewontin, not Mary Ann. If you search (Google) for "Mary Jane Lewontin" you will find an interview where Lewontin himself refers to his wife as "Mary Jane". Felsenst (talk) 06:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Fine, correct it. Thank you for explaining the issue on the talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Lewontin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050207211627/http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wilson01.html to http://lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wilson01.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Death
https://twitter.com/PetrovADmitri/status/1411822640856137732

https://usdaynews.com/celebrities/celebrity-death/richard-lewontin-death-cause/#

Waiting for confirmation in MSM. Hanjaf1 (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Dick and genetic simulation
A "citation needed" tag in the section on Dick's work in population genetics suggests that the text has it backwards, that surely he must have been the first to do multilocus simulations, not single-locus simulations. I wrote the offending sentence and I stand by it. There were multilocus simulations earlier (notably by Alex Fraser) but Dick's paper with L. C. Dunn in _Genetics_ in 1960 on the T-allele in mice simulated the behavior of that locus, and was the first simulation to concentrate on the behavior of a single locus. The theory and simulation in that paper was Dick's work. Felsenst (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Work on human genetic diversity
I don't have time to figure out how/if to integrate this source yet, but came across the following:
 * "Edwards forwarded his (2003) paper to Ernst Mayr, perhaps the most important figure in the development ofmodern evolutionary theory. Mayr’s reply,which has never been published before, is quite interesting:
 * Thank you for your letter of 20Aug [2003] and your reprint about Lewontin’s trickery. I had already some years ago called attention to Lewontin’s misleading claims. I suggest

Lewontin’s [2000] book The Triple Helix. The unwary reader will not discover how totally biased his presentation is. All evidence opposed to his claims is simply omitted! And if you present the truth you are denounced as a Nazi or Fascist! The public unfortunately is all too easily deceived! Particularly when wishful thinking is involved!
 * Best regards
 * Ernst Mayr
 * Many scientists have complained in private correspondences that Lewontin’s science was heavily influenced by his politics. Francis Crick wrote to Peter Medawar in 1977: “Lewontin…is known to be strongly politically biased and himself admits to being scientifically unscrupulous on these issues. That is, he takes them as political ones and therefore feels justified in the use of biased arguments” (quoted in Sesardic 2010, 434). Very few scientists have expressed such views in public, and, in some cases, they may have been prevented from expressing such views by reluctant publishers. Fear of being “denounced as a Nazi or Fascist”—among both scientists and publishers of scientific material—has been effective in stifling open inquiry for decades into issues thought to have implications for morality or politics." -Pengortm (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Name removed improperly
The name of one of Dick's students was improperly removed from the list of his students in the combox, on the grounds that this student did not himself have a Wikipedia page. But the student does have a Wikipedia page. I refer, of course to myself. Felsenst (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Restored. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Generalrelative (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)