You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Because you cite heritability estimates as evidence for lack of environmental effect on an individual's behaviour. The tweetorial explains why its a category error. Great if you already know this - most people don't. Sorry if I misunderstood your point ;)
No. Crucial to grasp & communicate the key difference. Otherwise some will (and do) use high HEs as excuse not to spend money on education & public health. We scientists have to be mindful of how our work can be misinterpreted by policy makers.
High H means that whatever E variation there is, it is not important to outcome variation. Obviously, trying to adjust further on that same E variation is unlikely to produce a big change. E sets a broad prior on expected gains from interventions.
... not important to outcome variation *in the population studied*, surely? E.g if population incl kids with library down the road *and* kids from societies where access to books involves a 3 mile daily walk, effect of access to books (E) on reading ability would be higher, no?
Implied in my "that same E variation" I think. In any case, I think people vastly overestimate importance of trying to increase opportunity. The internet has made everything available for years, yet we see little change bc opportunity isn't the limiting factor, people are.
Yes I totally agree, though I don't necessarily think intervention is de facto hopeless, just that it a) is likely to be much harder and costlier than people think & b) probably requires a much better knowledge of how child's brain develops than we have now.
I don't think we need to know much about child development. Just do large RCTs, get lucky. Try some stuff we didn't try already (e.g., give all kids Ritalin at school level). Ritalin has some interesting longitudinal evidence for crime.http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1203241 …
I don't think interventions or environmental change is hopeless, but I have very little faith in social scientists due to their sheer incompetence and strong political bias.
Hey, calm down. Turns out everything I "achieved" was due to luck. http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/mathematics-confirms-rich-people-arent-smart-theyre-lucky …
Genetic luck. 
Yes, but I was mostly citing the article in jest. It argues that the vast majority of the top 20% aren't the most "talented." Probably true regarding IQ, as many other talents are key to success, and a *very* high IQ is associated with deficits in those talents. /1
I have a skewed perspective because I'm in law, and went to a law school where to have a good shot at getting in, you needed something like a 130 IQ. In stratified professions like law & medicine, it certainly looks like the people on top are pretty damn smart. /2
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
