This is incredibly sad.
Good on him for sticking with his hypothesis far enough to research it thoroughly, write it up, and publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, and now that he has done that work, he might start to turn heads in a Ph.D program. But otherwise, rejection from Ph.D programs after applying with an idea and no credentials is a bit like saying "Based on my new theory of radiation-proof ultra-thin materials, I applied to NASA, ESA, and JAXA for a head researcher position but was unceremoniously rejected." Of course you were, mate. You have no demonstrable history in the field. They want to see at least a working spacesuit prototype first.
As they say, it's good to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brain falls out.
It's not controversial that some personality traits might have genetic roots. It's also not controversial that humans who evolved in different regions have slightly different genetics.
His research combines the two.
Note that genetic testing or evidence will be insufficient for proving the type of claim this paper is making because there are too many confounding factors which override biological similarities—that’s the whole issue with nature vs. nurture.
Can you provide a concrete example from the paper?
That’s the main part of the paper, and what follows is essentially a literature review, which is an inherently flawed way to prove a hypothesis.
A hypothesis is a testable claim, which can be independently verified if it is validated. There is no process in the paper, other than a review of other literature, to substantiate the paper’s new claims. So, this person is essentially doing science journalism, not science.
I think the two main problems are that they didn’t provide sufficient work for (b) or (c), but they’re laboring under the misconception that a background review of literature is enough. But instead a background review is used to justify the structure of measurements and analysis which usually follows in scientific papers. So, the claim is poorly substantiated.
This person could've spent a lot less time going down a rabbit hole with a couple introductory anthropology classes and by asking themselves if there were any societies with these same traits in a warm climate. It is poor scientific reasoning not to check for examples of this personality type in hot climates. Not exactly PhD material.
This is an obvious mischaracterization of the hypothesis, though.
The author says nothing about whether other cultures and groups share this egalitarian tendency.
Just that East Asians tend to share this tendency and that it must transcend cultural specifics such as Confucianism, by comparing East Asians to Inuits who predate Confucianism by at least 8000 years, and positing that cold environment adaptation was the driver.
Whether the paper’s data and analysis is PhD worthy is a different matter, but it’s an interesting hypothesis.
Which is doubly odd, because here that is more associated with upper-middle-classes. That cold stoicism that causes people to act 'gentlemanly' regardless of circumstance, or parents to pressure their children to be upwardly mobile, generals to describe an unwinnable position as "a bit of a pickle" etc. etc.
In Britain this is definitely seen as a class characteristic rather than a climatic one (we all live in a similarly temperate environment).
Cause it in individuals? Or select for it through evolution?
If the former, there's no genetic component here, and the effect should vanish as soon as you get somewhere warm.
If it's the latter, then it can't cause it in individuals who happen to work there over local-winter, right?
If it is genetically influenced psychology, it can still be a good predictor of performance in a short term job.
>West African populations have up to 19% "Ghost DNA", belonging to an extinct species their ancestors interbred with
>Southeast Asians have DNA of the extinct Denisovan species, as much as 3-5% in the aboriginal people of Papua New Guinea, Australia, the Philippines
>These aboriginals also have DNA belonging to a now extinct, but not yet discovered hominid species
I'm sure the implications of all these findings have not yet been discovered but it's exciting to see them explored
The author did themselves a disservice by not filtering some of the bitterness of their journey, because the opening story was fascinating and hints at something worth exploring.
The constructive criticism would be better served as a follow-up post.
However, the anti-"woke" part of this article seems so odd to me. Given all the wacky "science" from Nazi scientists that "research" differences between races leading to genocide, it seems completely logical to me that you jump through several hoops and make sure your research is really sound before you publish a paper that explores exactly that topic.
Your other point is that you wonder whether a paper review is going to protect against mass killing. I'd say yes, that's quite possible. Anyone can post almost anything they want on any kind of blog or 4chan sub or reddit sub, and that's fine. But scientific papers are what people quote as "truth", and publishers have some responsibility in making sure that what they publish is based in evidence. This is especially true when it concerns topics that have, historically, led to genocide.
