Does the study have explanatory variables, other than genes, where people accurately estimate, or over-estimate the influence? (Ow could just be that subjects don’t understand the scientific language/artistically terminology, no?)
-
New conversation
-
-
-
Things like stomach ulcers are actually avoidable even w/family history via proper nutrition. False positives in genetic tests are real.
-
Same thing w/Type 2 Diabetes. T2D is reversible in the vast majority of cases w/fasting or w/high fat diets (many clinical trials showing this). Yet it's claimed to be mostly genetic. It means genetic tests being used are wrong.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Why are "genes" and "heritability" being used interchangeably there? Aren't there mechanisms for heritability aside from genes or something?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Given how deeply unintuitive 'percentage of variance' is as a metric, even for well-educated statistically-literate laymen, it's hard for me to see how to regard a difference in their supposed 'estimates' from actual ACE estimates. I wonder how one would properly elicit it...
- 10 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
That's because it's pseudoscientific nonsense, Rolf. Even the most uninfomred lay person can understand that 'traits' is a misleading blurring of physical, and totally differnt cultural, social or psychological phenomena. It's just you who doesn't understand that.
-
Behavioral geneticists can predict a fair amount, you can't.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.