Even on its face this is incorrect
-
-
Replying to @bechhof @Biorealism and
No, it is correct. Assume an average of 100 and a standard deviation of 15: then the average of the top half is 112. Assume a narrow-sense heritability of 0,5: then the next generation has an average of 106. No further regression to the mean in later generations.
3 replies 2 retweets 27 likes -
Replying to @gcochran99 @bechhof and
Or assume that you picked from > 2 std and up ( > 132)): average of the first gen would be ~135. Average of the 2nd and later generations, assuming 0.5 narrow-sense heritability, would be ~118. The smartest population in the world.
2 replies 2 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @gcochran99 @Biorealism and
This is why you need more Turkheimer in your life
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @gcochran99 @Biorealism and
Dude read his piece about how heritability of group differences is not well defined
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bechhof @gcochran99 and
Turkheimer is the top FUDster on the topic. We also know why he does it. If one really thinks that, obviously one will do everything in one's power to muddle the waters, which he does expertly. Turkheimer is a very smart guy who knows the field well. http://www.unz.com/jthompson/psychological-predictions-eric/ …pic.twitter.com/xMA8Fc1efP
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil @bechhof and
Has he come up with a fundamental new insight? Or a powerful new method?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gcochran99 @bechhof and
He is most known for the supposed social status x heritability interaction, which is actually due to Scarr (and Rowe), but since this seems to be incorrect anyway for Western countries, I don't know which of his many contributions you want to single out.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil @gcochran99 and
was 'gloomy prospect' his idea too, or would you credit Plomin for that, and Turkheimer just ran a 'yes, actually' with it?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Seems unrelated. I don't know who came up with that. If you check long time, it arose first in 1700s with different meaning (?). https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=gloomy+prospect&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=9999&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cgloomy%20prospect%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bgloomy%20prospect%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BGloomy%20prospect%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BGLOOMY%20PROSPECT%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BGloomy%20Prospect%3B%2Cc0 …pic.twitter.com/qiC40iidqR
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.