CharonY

Actually, we do (for all intents and purposes, there are certainly some mechanisms that are not quite clear, but there is far more known than yo assume). In fact there is a whole branch in biology looking into the mechanisms. One of the core mechanism is that it generally requires direct exposure to the respective antigen(s). As such, it does not translate between generations (other than through natural selection those that are unable to develop resistance just die or otherwise do not produce offspring). There is the exception of transgenerational priming, but it is a rather specific phenomenon and is not really relevant to the overall discussion of vaccinations. Compared to now humans were not doing well. An infection often meant that you had a significant chance of harm or death. Infectious diseases were among the top reasons for mortality before vaccinations were developed. Whole areas were depopulated by diseases throughout human history. Thinking that we were better off without them is preposterous. To put in some numbers, measles were responsible for ~2.6 million deaths every year. Now the rate has dropped to ~130k. Smallpox claimed ~3 million deaths a year and was virtually eradicated by vaccines. And yes, vaccines are the only weapon in our arsenal to actually eradicate a disease. Rather unfortunately the rise of anti-vaccination groups have resulted in almost eradicated diseases to rise again.

Well to be fair the latter is true for all natural sciences. Though some may be weaker in the theory part than others.

I am not a physicist, but having worked with theoretical and experimental physicist I will say that the relationship is entirely different. Sure in the most abstract levels it may be too far away for any level of empirical testing and goes more in the realm of pure mathematics. Ultimately this is the reason why those areas rarely manage to influence research outside the abstract the field (at least to my limited knowledge). However, to a large degree there is a broad overlap with the theoretical side developing models for experimentalists to work on and/or assist in the data interpretation by using or developing appropriate models. Homeopathy is just quack, which theoretical physics isn't.

The title of the study is "Biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism". Now try again.

Maybe it was HPV? After all, getting cancer is so much better... Actually in Italy there was a ferocious discussion as there was some conflict of interest (people on the board had financial ties to the vaccine producers). From what I glimpsed there were initially some questionable choices, though it was not terribly controversial as most vaccines were also recommended in other countries.

I will add that obviously vaccination programs are vetted for being beneficial and for each vaccine there is a process that makes a risk-benefit analysis which also includes the efficacy of a given vaccine. It is rather obvious but there will sometimes be discussion whether to include or exclude a certain a vaccine in the recommended panel (which happened in Italy during the early drafts) which can sometimes confuse the public.

A) as you said. some of the kids will die or are going to be affected for life needlessly. Take a look what polio did to children. B) acquired immunity is not perfect, and in cases of virus you often still carry them with you. Do you know what shingles are? C) Acquired immunity, as the name implies does not get passed to the next generation. I think that is actually a good demonstration of John's point.

I would be careful about "culture" as it is often used in a poorly defined way. Often, it is seen as something inherent to a population, without taking its massively changing background into account. For example, cultural traditions may exist for a very long time, but their context can have massive differences, depending on when you study them. Cultural values, as another example, tend to shift massively even from generation to generation. That being said yes, I think most of the people asking the question why certain nations do not do well should turn it around and consider why most modern Western Nations are doing well now. As this appears more to be the aberration. And one could ask what happened that they eventually got successful. Looking at world history it was by no means an obvious trajectory and it took a long while to catch up with with the Islamic world. One important aspect in that regard was that the latter were very well tapped into a trading network (such as the silk road). During ancient and medieval ages African empires and kingdoms were certainly a challenge for their European counterparts. So clearly it is not that African development was lagging behind a projected trajectory. If we look at the world stage and compare the largest empires Europe was clearly not a dominating power since the fall of the Western Roman empire, especially compared to say, the Asian empires. So from that viewpoint one could instead ask why European nations eventually became so successful. Again, I advise against any projections that assume something inherent that just wanted to break out (as it would not explain the millennia of not being the top dog as well as just being bad science). Now, obviously this question, just as OP's cannot be simply explained in a post or with a singular argument. Again, it is assumed to be a an interplay of a large number of factors over a significant time frame and include a wide array of economic developments, institutional developments and influx of wealth from the New World. Essentially the influx of gold and silver allowed the European nations to tap into Asian markets that were up to that that time (i.e. end of the 15th century) closed to them. This led to an increased development and expansion of mercantile powers and empires and, as some historians argue, this development provided the basis for the eventual Industrial Revolution. Note that this is a very abridged and incomplete narrative, but it is meant to state that European hegemony was not an obvious end point (and who knows how the future is going to be) and that a confluence of factors led to the point we are now today. In other words, nations are not economically less developed just because that is what they are or some inherent traits, it is rather that Europeans pulled ahead because of the mentioned (and other) factors. But again, to gain any real insights there is whole discipline that deals with that matter and one would be hard-pressed to get clear answer from reading only a few books (and now, Jared Diamond's is not one of them).

Well, no argument there.

Re: Italy, a friend of mine is Italian and when I asked about Italian politics a few years back, the answer was: "We got Berlusconi. But that is not the issue. The issue is that he is probably the sensible one... But regarding vaccination: Lack of education is potentially a big one (but I would be careful about singling out people from a specific area, the data is rather sketchy on this). It makes people susceptible to manipulation, including from anti-vaxxer groups. Those people are being blamed for a recent measles outbreak in Minnesota. However, education alone may be insufficient as quite a few anti-vaccination folks are actually well-educated and actively engage in outreach in the belief that they are doing something good. In fact, it seems to be less of an issue of immigration (Romania is the other European country with a significant measles outbreak, but has few immigrants to speak of), but the growing influence of anti-vaccination groups.

With regard to the premium increase, later studies, including those from the brookings institution found that without ACA, the premiums were likely to be higher : With regard to public health effects there are papers indicating improvement in health equity, and general increase in coverage (see e.g. Courtemanche et al. J Policy Anal Manage 2017).

Depends on how complex and established a mode is. Something fairly new and limited in scope is likely outlined in a paper and referenced there. Something that has been around long enough that it has become common knowledge are often outlined in standard textbooks. Certain models are more or less split up and sometimes you will find reviews that synthesize the findings. For some topics there are also books where various aspects are described (usually by respective experts). Typically, what gets cited most tends to become the seminal work on that matter. Edit: also the meter is more a standard than a model. For that there are various institutions such as NIST that provide measurements standards.

It would be good to reference the actual article(s). That being said, you said earlier that it was "proven". But generally science does not work that way and especially in these cases you likely only looking at correlations with various degrees of mechanistic explanations (or lack thereof).

The thing is, in companies the positions are usually quite well defined and it is rare to have something that is a vague research position. Have you looked at jobs that you are interested in at do they really state that use of statistical packages are desired? Typically the latter is again a rather specialized skill set and people looking for a statistician are typically not that interested in somehow with lab experience. Take a look at job advertisements and I would discourage you from trying to guess what people might hire in a few year's time. In fast moving fields one is wrong more often than not. On another note, I do not think that there are that many research position at a Master's level. More typically your role will be to execute tasks assigned to you. If you want to move in that direction, it would be a good idea to start in a company that at some point may be interested in sponsoring you to get one.

Richard->Rick->Dick

It is also ironic that OP asserts (not entirely wrongly) that there are too many low-quality publications out there. Yet complains that there is a too high barrier for his specific work...

I think the issue here is that OP is asking for a career, but genetics/bioinformatics are just disciplines. And unless OP wants to get into academic research the real question would be whether R skill in addition to.. well 1 or 5? Years experience as [insert job description here] would make him competitive for certain jobs. Companies generally do use background discipline to ensure that your basic knowledge can be applied to whatever specific opening they have. One thing is that R is more of a statistical package. While versatile, I am not sure how popular it is in companies (which tend to go more for enterprise solutions) and it does not translate to actual coding that well (if a job requires it). What I am saying is that if you look for an industrial job, you have to look at job descriptions and identify the required (specific) skill sets, not the rough area/disciplines. Edit: more importantly are the 5 years you have in an industrial position. What people want to know is less about the field/discipline, but what role you fulfilled and how well you did. Standard examples include e.g. familiarity with certain industrial standards, understanding the environment and need of a given company (and demonstrate willingness and ability to fulfill those) and so on. Usually these applications are seen stronger than having X courses in a related field. To emphasize, it is about demonstrating a fit for the position and not just listing things you may have learned.

Still are, the reunification tax (solidarity surcharge) is still being deducted. Funnily, it was also introduced to pay for the cost of Operation Desert Storm, which was an unforeseen expense for the German government.

Antares: I will try to summarize some of the largest issues with the statements above and note that no, you cannot just handwave those away by talking about averages. My main point is that IQ is multifactorial and has little explanatory power. With all the unknown surrounding this value my contention is that you cannot use it reliably use it as the main or even sole explanation. This is based on a number of rather simple observations that you have not addressed in any meaningful way (other than trying vaguely associate development with IQ). At the heart is the issue that correlation is not causation and I will try to explain a final time. If the model is true that A) IQ is highly genetic and can be traced along racial lines (a highly contested assumption) and B) said IQ is directly correlated to economic wealth and C) the distribution proposed by Rushton et al. is correct (i.e. Asians being the most, Africans being the least intelligent), then the world should clearly show that all Asian countries are the most developed, probably followed by Middle Eastern, European and then African countries. We can clearly see that much of Asia is doing less economically well however. In addition, if you look within populations you will find strong disagreement with the assumption, as e.g. indigenous Americans (which show admixture of Asians and Europeans) who fair less well in IQ tests. Or even if you just stay on the African continent, your maps shows that Botswana has some of the lowest scores, but it is doing rather well. So in other words, if we wanted the model to be true we are forced to use an extremely coarse grain on the world and that would a warning sign that the explanatory power is likely to be very low. In addition, there is a host of (modern) literature out there that show clear disruption of this cut and dry narrative of simple connection between race and IQ, though I will say that the matter is far from solved. What it does mean is that there is more to it and that without understanding mechanisms we should be careful in extrapolations. What I am saying, since the early posts, however, is that individual history is likely to have much higher influence on the outcome. Take China, a country with some of the highest IQ scores. Now go back to the 70s or 80s (i.e. time frames where genetics plays no part). Then tell me how developed the country is. The key element is not that they got smarter, but that they started opening up to a capitalist system. Likewise Bostwana did well, not because their average IQ is higher, but because of resources and good governance (despite being cut-off from much of the booming Western markets) after gaining independence. Also the influence of colonialism has been ins some cases extreme and are likely to be major contributing factor. And because of all these factors that my take is that these overarching one-dimensional narratives are really just propagation of a confirmation bias rather than genuine curiosity in the subject. It is a bit like focusing on the icing and declare how important it is whilst not realizing that there is no cake beneath. Complex subjects deserve some time to be researched upon. Otherwise it is precisely the same as all these aether posts on the forum.

Re: IQ, the measure is problematic for a lot of reasons and as the biology associated with the measure is unknown we are not really clear what the measure is really telling us something about. Considering that the debate is far from resolved answering with a clear yes or no. It is important to know that in these kind of studies it is almost impossible to control for all variables such e.g. nutritional status or education system (to name two). So no, that question can at best be answered with an unknown. Yet again, even if true, it does not explain the vast disparity and the success in at least some countries. So I advise you to be careful with such conclusions as they are based on data with incredibly little explanatory power. And of course there is the issue with drawing racial line as a biological concept to begin with (and never mind that Native Americans are typically ignored as they do not fit the narrative). And let's say yes, Europe as a whole is doing better. But what is the point? Western Europe is doing better than Eastern Europe. Northern better than Southern. But obviously that was not the question, so it has to become quantitative. So for example GDP per capita (PPP) puts countries like South Africa and Bostwana roughly at the level of Baltic states. So are they more European than the rest of Africa? But even if we agree that if we take the whole continent (for what it good it may do) and just say "yep it is worse". What precisely do you think have we learned from that? If you believe the lesson is that Africa is worse off because of some inherent inability to increase their economics (if we really want to drag out that silly IQ argument), then you would have to explain why some of those countries managed to pull off some of the highest growth rates in the world. Also note that China on a per capita basis based on GDP is worse off than Botswana (and are you implying that the Chinese made an IQ jump in the last decades?).

And this is the difficult annoying bit. It is so vague. Yes if we take the average of Africa (even if it does not make a lot of sense) it fares worse than most parts of Europe. But taking the same average it fairs better than e.g. India in some aspects. So what have we learned from it? My take is: nothing. What does it mean worse? Which metrics by how much? Is your perception actually anywhere close to reality? And while OP has asked the question, realistically why would genetics play a role (and has relatively quickly been discarded here)? How much does anyone here actually know about even a single country in Africa? Africa has faced many challenges, how did it shape each country? If at the end of the day your assertion is that they are somehow worse and require our wisdom to better themselves, then we are right at the same point where colonial superiority messed them up, in some cases really badly. Rather than asking why they are not like Europe, which had a completely different trajectory, why don't we ask why certain countries managed to become relatively successful (such as e.g. in terms of corruption and development) compared to others? What is the current trajectory? What I am saying is that the question is complex and trying to come up with explanations beyond "because colonialism" is akin to trying to discuss higher biology equipped solely with a half-hearted reading of animal farm. If one is really interested, one has to go away from these generalities and start asking precise questions. One starting point could be taking a look at information portals that give a glimpse in the actual reality, rather than raw assertions. Here, for example.

I am arguing that we are unable to break it down in manageable chunks here as I do not believe that we have any members that are an expert in any African country (at least as far as I am aware of). As such we are speculating based on unknown data. For example, you are saying that corruption is an issue. But obviously the level of corruption is vastly different in various African countries. At the same time, corruption levels are also changing with some countries who tend to be rather stable, such as Ghana have experienced an increase in corruption, whereas others saw marked improvements. So faced with all this diversity, what is the conclusion you would like to draw? You seem to be keen on extrapolating based on.. well things that I see no obvious connections, whilst ignoring a host of other factors. Maybe try the following experiment. Describe a Western family in a context-free manner and try to contrast it with an African family (the way you see it) and explain how either leads to a given form of governance. I am curious how you will come to a conclusion that is not already determined a priori. If we really just make general statements such as Africa is in bad place one would first need to figure out which countries and how badly it is, potentially in relation to others. For example, according to some measures, India is in a worse place when it comes to extreme poverty. A number of African countries are ranked as having a lower or comparable corruption level compared to some European or wealthy Asian countries. At the same time there are countries which are extremely high in corruption. While corruption does correlate with economic issues we would need to pick out specific countries to discuss this matter. But if we want to do that, we also have to look into local history. And again, a discussion (that I am fully aware that I am engaging in and probably really should stop) that is devoid of actual knowledge of data will lead precisely nowhere. Also I am not sure why the focus on religion and superstition, as they are also widely present in, say, South Korea, though their standard of living is very high. So again, it s not going to lead to a satisfactory explanation. And I am not sure if you quite understand the concept of economy. It does not mean monetary possession, but rather (more generally) the presence and distribution of resources. As such, the question about poverty is essentially a question of economics, not religion or family traditions.

There are often two streams. Typically both have similar or the same core curriculum, but differ in their electives. The BS tend to be more concentrated and has more connections with e.g. neuroscience. The BA tends to be broader and less geared toward psychological research but can be a side aspect in other disciplines (e,g, marketing).

What precisely is the question? It seems like an odd experiment that does not yield any meaningful insights. Do you expect an unaccounted weight increase or decrease?

Precisely. If we remove all context, decisions on the individual level are likely not to be vastly different. But, for example, the decision to put resources in subsistence farming is very likely dependent whether there is a affordable source of food. Also, you cannot extrapolate governance based on village-level decision. And also why the focus on villages and not on cities? The later are more likely to be drivers of the economy. It is like trying to figure out Chinese economics but watching farmers in remote areas (or take any Western country as example for that matter). Then, there is a need to understand the local history. After all, a country that is facing civil war for whatever reasons has faces very different challenges. And again, the question of why it faces war will depend on a host of other variables. Specifically when talking regarding poverty, we are talking about economics. And then, just talking about the local economics is a big issue. After all, since ancient times trade has been the lifeblood of many nations and empires. So if we are to understand the why, we would need to look into economics to assess current state as well as development (and OP probably underestimates the performance of some African countries. Then we have history, which outlines the rise and fall of empires, creation (and decline) of trade, border disputes, influence of imperialistic powers and later in cold war. We can look at social aspects, how the various populations interpret governance and it was eventually structured. We can look at local disasters disrupting any of these processes and so on and so forth. However, one thing to remember is that most African nations are fairly young and often drawn with rather unnatural borders. But precisely how this may have shaped those countries is likely to differ to a significant extent. Overall, I'll reiterate, it is a complex subject and as with other sciences we cannot simply intuit our way through it and expect to gain insights from it.