Like all of science is. Nothing in science is some "absolute truth," but rather our best model/approximation of some phenomenon. And this is based on degrees of confidence, not either/or.
Reminder that thinking about genetic causation of group differences is not binary, but a matter of how much and how sure are we. Here's some illustrations to help intuition. http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=6774 pic.twitter.com/KtqHPr1xT2
-
-
-
That's not the point. The point is that one can neatly use the Beta distribution to summarize one's subjective probability distribution on the topic, which allows for pooling of expert opinion in a less crude way.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I agree that the gene-envrnmnt discusion is better framed as a continuum. Also,it depends very much in the sources of the observed variation in particular circumstances. E.G.,in a society in which some r starving environment would be a strong determinante of cognitive performance
-
This paper is helpful to understand such issue:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00395/full …
End of conversation
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.