Rant against "popular science"
It's taken years, but Rob's dad finally has broadband and Skype - now all we have to do is convince his mum and our phone bills will be cheep-cheep! The reason for this sudden change is that his wife is working in the US for a couple of years and he can't join her just yet, but either way it's great. The fact that by the time they finally decide to visit the UK we'll have moved to NZ is totally beside the issue *cough*
Anyway.. Rob was chatting to his dad about the All Blacks recent success when the issue of the Maori warrior gene came up. Please excuse me while I batter my head against a brick wall. Listening to this conversation without mouthing off at the pair of them was very difficult and when I tried to be diplomatic about it they both got pissed off, so I left to make some tea (how very English).
The problem - for me - is that Doug threw this information at Rob as if it were fully proven and altogether sound. Rob clearly liked the sound of a gene that gives Maori a headstart in games like rugby, so he immediately asked me what I thought about it. Me with the biological anthropology degree, albeit years ago. Whether or not I agreed, the conversation was doomed! Both of them should know me well enough to realise that I will raise a zillion ifs, buts and "that sounds like a load of bollocks", and that's before they give me a chance to look the subject up!
Once the call ended and Rob retreated into stubborn silence, I did my homework. Identifying gene function is all well and good, but stating its contribution to an individual's physical or mental make-up is so easily abused. For instance Doug's focus was 100% rugby scores: the warrior gene means that Maori are more successful the opposing team - nature only, no impact of nuture whatsoever. So why did the only news story (heh media, so reliable) that I could find state that it made those of Maori descent more prone to aggressive, anti-social behaviour? Shades of Once Were Warriors, and isn't that an unfortunate name under the circumstances. Suddenly genetic determinism doesn't look so crash hot any more.
I can see the link, channelling aggression onto the pitch etc, but try telling my father-in-law that. That's the point when he comes back with the tempering effect of upbringing, lifestyle, education, health, poverty etc - which was my point from the beginning - but until then all he saw was me raining on his parade. He would rather present this as the whole, unadulterated legacy of Maori culture that has suddenly been enshrined in the hallowed halls of genetic supremacy.. also forgetting that there are no full-blooded Maori left in the world and that NZ didn't make it to the last World Cup final.
Why couldn't Doug just laugh "nyah, nyah, we beat you!" like everyone else? At least that's a proven fact. Making a player's success less personal because of his genes is hell of a lot worse for morale.
I know England won't make it to next year's World Cup final because we're crap *lol* although we did beat South Africa on Saturday, and Ireland stomped all over Australia :)
..on the other hand, could someone locate a kicking gene and retrovirus it into Charlie Hodgson?
Anyway.. Rob was chatting to his dad about the All Blacks recent success when the issue of the Maori warrior gene came up. Please excuse me while I batter my head against a brick wall. Listening to this conversation without mouthing off at the pair of them was very difficult and when I tried to be diplomatic about it they both got pissed off, so I left to make some tea (how very English).
The problem - for me - is that Doug threw this information at Rob as if it were fully proven and altogether sound. Rob clearly liked the sound of a gene that gives Maori a headstart in games like rugby, so he immediately asked me what I thought about it. Me with the biological anthropology degree, albeit years ago. Whether or not I agreed, the conversation was doomed! Both of them should know me well enough to realise that I will raise a zillion ifs, buts and "that sounds like a load of bollocks", and that's before they give me a chance to look the subject up!
Once the call ended and Rob retreated into stubborn silence, I did my homework. Identifying gene function is all well and good, but stating its contribution to an individual's physical or mental make-up is so easily abused. For instance Doug's focus was 100% rugby scores: the warrior gene means that Maori are more successful the opposing team - nature only, no impact of nuture whatsoever. So why did the only news story (heh media, so reliable) that I could find state that it made those of Maori descent more prone to aggressive, anti-social behaviour? Shades of Once Were Warriors, and isn't that an unfortunate name under the circumstances. Suddenly genetic determinism doesn't look so crash hot any more.
I can see the link, channelling aggression onto the pitch etc, but try telling my father-in-law that. That's the point when he comes back with the tempering effect of upbringing, lifestyle, education, health, poverty etc - which was my point from the beginning - but until then all he saw was me raining on his parade. He would rather present this as the whole, unadulterated legacy of Maori culture that has suddenly been enshrined in the hallowed halls of genetic supremacy.. also forgetting that there are no full-blooded Maori left in the world and that NZ didn't make it to the last World Cup final.
Why couldn't Doug just laugh "nyah, nyah, we beat you!" like everyone else? At least that's a proven fact. Making a player's success less personal because of his genes is hell of a lot worse for morale.
I know England won't make it to next year's World Cup final because we're crap *lol* although we did beat South Africa on Saturday, and Ireland stomped all over Australia :)
..on the other hand, could someone locate a kicking gene and retrovirus it into Charlie Hodgson?