Annual subscription to Prospect Magazine online for only £24.00.
Full refund within 30 days if you're not completely satisfied.
page:
contents page
previous next
zoom out zoom in
thumbnails double page single page large double page
fit width
clip to blog
Send email to letters@prospect-magazine.co.uk Open www.prospect-magazine.co.uk
page:
contents page
previous next
zoom out zoom in
thumbnails double page single page large double page
fit width
clip to blog

twin pairs, who share the same genes, have been shown to be more likely to share antisocial traits than fraternal, non-identical ones.” The technical arguments against these twin studies have been established and reestablished for over 30 years. Rose hasn’t taken the trouble to report them. First, when twin pairs are given questionnaires, identical twin pairs often give more similar responses than do nonidentical fraternal twins. This extra similarity is then simply assumed to be the result of the extra genetic similarity of the identical twins. This, in the jargon, is the confusion between parameter estimation and hypothesis testing. The investigators assume the result they need to prove. Second, there are no experimental controls. No twin study over the last 30 years has compared same-sex fraternal twins to oppositesex fraternal twins to see if these differences in similarity are comparable to the differences in similarity that may be observed between identical and fraternal twins. Third, standard errors are routinely omitted in calculations of heritability estimates. In one famous paper, a heritability estimate of 70 per cent proved to be not significantly different from zero once standard errors of the estimate were taken into account. Joseph Schwartz John Bowlby Centre, London
TALKING TO TERRORISTS

with the IRA leadership in the early 1970s (as I did) was not an enterprise for the faint-hearted. The steps were minutely monitored by the then government at the highest level, and the result of the 1975 ceasefire with which I was associated was a sharp decline in the willingness of the nationalist community to countenance terrorism. Years later, Martin McGuinness said it had caused irreparable damage to the IRA. Subsequent moves which facilitated the start of the “peace process” also had nothing to do with misrepresenting the true position of government, as Godson alleges. Quite the contrary. It was a main concern in such discussions to represent the government’s determination to maintain the rights of the majority in Northern Ireland and to illustrate the security forces’ capability to sustain indefinitely the policy of “containment.” The impulse to terrorism is a contagion fed by discontent. The causes of discontent, and the means of its transmission, must be studied and understood if the mix of responses necessary to making progress against terrorism, beginning with imaginative and powerful security measures, is to be formed. Lazy minds prefer to simplify such a complex

problem. Terrorists and those who sympathise with them are “evil” or mad, their behaviour calling for ever more repressive legislation. But now we learn that a significant portion of the Muslim population of Britain regards the July bombers as martyrs. Should we write off that part of our community as deranged? Or should we make the effort to understand why and how they came to this position? In promoting understanding of this and other aspects of the phenomenon, Alastair Crooke—Dean Godson’s other target—makes an important contribution. Michael Oatley Sherborne, Dorset
GLOBAL INEQUALITY

24th July 2006 Robert Wade’s article on globalisation (July) was half right. As he argues, if you take China out of the statistics, the muchtrumpeted reductions in global poverty and inequality look distinctly shaky. However, China is not the only Asian success story. Wade argues that it is valid to airbrush China out of the picture because it “got richer with a form of capitalism very different from that enjoined by the liberal argument.” While it is true that financial intermediation and the drivers of corporate expansion are different in

China compared to the capitalist north—for example, Chinese capitalaccount liberalisation has been much more gradual and has really paid off—the gap may be narrowing. On Latin America, Wade is quite right. Bar the last few years, growth in Latin America was much higher during the postwar mixed economy era than in the era of purer market economies (except in Chile). Indeed, perception that marketoriented policies have had limited success in Latin America has encouraged voters in much of the region to move left. Perhaps the most interesting issue posed by Wade is the question of when, if ever, inequality will be dealt with by rich countries out of self-interest. Wade is pessimistic—the rich are unlikely to address inequality as long as “liberal globalisation is working so well for them.” But soon the rich countries will need large middle classes in Brazil, Indonesia, China, India and South Africa to purchase their goods and services. Will they then redesign the international trade and finance regime to help developing economies sustain growth? The worry is that growing global inequalities will precipitate an economic or political catastrophe before this self-interest is recognised and acted upon. Lawrence Haddad, Stephany Griffith-Jones, Institute of Development Studies
PROSPECT ONLINE
q Michael MccGwire on last month’s Trident debate q

22nd July 2006 Breadth of vision is not to be expected from Dean Godson as he peers out from the mental bunker in which he has taken refuge from the modern world. But I resent the suggestion of his article “Gone Native” (July) that I am defeatist with regard to terrorism or scornful of parliamentary procedures. Establishing connections

Ray Pahl replies to David Goodhart on progressive nationalism

www.prospect-magazine.co.uk

“I see the Hendersons have got their own nuclear deterrent now”

Write to us by post, fax or email letters@prospect-magazine.co.uk

PROSPECT September 2006 5