Links this week: David Dobbs on progress in genetics. Steve Horwitz on what makes libertarians cry. The uncertain biological basis of morality. Eugene Fama on his Nobel. A great story of an amateur pulling apart a psychological theory (an exception to the psychology equivalent of Sign 1 of a good critique). The great interviews on the origin of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society continue.

In the comments, Rory Sutherland writes: One favour to ask. I completely agree with you that Behavioural Economics should be called Behavioural Science. But We don’t really to decide what things are called. Darwin only used the word “evolution” a handful of times. It is a very valuable term as a Trojan Horse. If I want to get people studying for MBAs, say, or people in finance, to take behavioural science seriously, anything with the word “economics” in it will get their attention: anything with the word “psychology” in it, by contrast, will probably make them think of couches and hypnosis.

After reading Chris Auld’s 18 signs you’re reading bad criticism of economics (I agree with most, although by viewing them as “signs” with exceptions), I was thinking about what signs someone should someone look for in a decent critique. So, here are my thoughts. Some are twists on Auld’s points, or could easily be turned into additional reasons that a criticism is likely bad, but they’re a useful initial filter.

Links this week: Carl Zimmer and Razib Khan on sequencing your kids. John Hawks on the Dmanisi skull. The Economist asks whether science is self-correcting. Do hunter-gatherers exhibit an endowment effect? A review of Worldly Philosopher: The Odyssey of Albert O. Hirschman. (HT: Diane Coyle)

As I pointed out in my last post, Jared Diamond called the transition to agriculture the worst mistake in the history of the human race. Yet despite evidence that the early adopters of agriculture were shorter and had worse nutrition and health than the hunter-gatherers that preceded them, the agricultural way of life came to dominate human society. Health may have rebounded as humans adapted to their new lifestyles, and the long-term benefits are now clear, but why would the early adopters of agriculture shift to what would appear to be a much a poorer way of life?

Relative to their hunter-gatherer counterparts, early Neolithic farmers were short, had poor dental health due to malnutrition, bone lesions suggestive of disease and stunted spines from the back-breaking labour. This comparison underlies Jared Diamond’s claim that agriculture was the worst mistake in the history of the human race. However, this decline in health was not permanent. For example, the health of Egyptians 12,000 years ago, shortly after the shift to farming from foraging, was poor.

Links this week: David Barash reviews some books taking an evolutionary perspective on reproduction. (HT: Andrea Castillo) A cut from the Econtalk interview with Tyler Cowen. Conscientiousness will become more important in response to increasing opportunities for self-improvement. Behavioural economists did not discover irrationality. And while we’re at it, let’s start calling it behavioural science. How much species diversity was there at the time of Home erectus?

While Malcolm Gladwell bashing season is still in full swing and before the mob burns the Gladwell effigy, I want to record a few thoughts that I feel are under-appreciated (or under-emphasised) by some of Gladwell’s critics. (For those not up to speed, Chabris opens, Gladwell responds, Chabris has another go, Gelman comments, twitter goes nuts, and if you google, you’ll find plenty of other contributions). First, I am not a fan of, for want of a better way of describing it, the conformist strain that underlies some of the critiques.

Links this week: Talks for the Darwinian Business conference have been posted online. A great interview with Richard Thaler. Taboo genetics. Robert Kurzban and Rob Brooks on religion and cooperation. The Gladwell debates continue.Chabris writes a second piece. Gladwell responds. Andrew Gelman weighs in.

Links this week: Enrico Spolaore and Romain Wacziarg write on genetic barriers to growth. I have previously posted on their work here, here and here. Doug Kenrick on Free Market Psychology. There needs to be a rule that only those who have read Adam Smith are allowed to describe Adam Smith’s take on the invisible hand Also at Psychology Today, Matthew Rossano on human and Neanderthal rituals.