That was more or less my take as well. The issue with individual prediction/person-centered approaches though is that if anything we are dealing in that case with proximate questions not ultimate ones. Guess it all depends on the frame.
Harden & Belsky appear to conflate current mediocre predictive validity of polygenic scores with the future ones. Then argue that because the current ones are not so useful for individuals, future ones will be too. Airplanes are impossible type argument. https://bold.expert/predicting-education-from-dna/ …pic.twitter.com/NS4QkUQRvc
-
-
-
The article changes from one to the other, then back. Consider this sentence from the beginning. It's clearly talking about the general ability, but their data is only from the current ones. They never really discuss how good PGS can get, i.e. max r = sqrt(H²).pic.twitter.com/Sv1Ck94ZOd
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Heads will remain in the sand until the desert is on fire.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.