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
Yes. The most interesting new wrinkle is the lower heritability for GCTA analyses for personality traits than twin studies. There’s more dominance heritability in personality than expected and still disproportionate randomness.
I'd say it's likely that the bad measurement of personality in big cohorts is contributing substantially to the low gcta results. Eg ukbb has terrible few item measurements with self report only.
@drderringer has done a lot of work on that front and measurement precision does not seem to be the answer. It seems to be a genuine phenomenon that personality is not set at conception as much as other phenotypes. This finding also jibes with the longitudinal stability data >
There's more to measurement error than random error. I had in mind more systematic biases from possibly incorrect/suboptimal construct validity as well as the exclusive use of self report likert data.
Of course, there are wonderful systematic errors in self-reports that are, well, heritable in twin studies....
GCTA only accounts for Additive (linear) heritability; mid-level personality constructs (Big 5) consistently include Dominance (non-linear) heritability, even with quality measures (longer, not just self-report; more common in twin studies)https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-014-9654-x …
Level of construct may be part of the issue. Dominance goes away when looking at Personality as a combo of general & facet-level influences (in prep, ppt from June 2017 with twins in MIDUS + GWAS data in HRS):https://osf.io/awrj8/
For number of constructs etc., I had in mind stuff like https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188691400347X … and https://www.personality-project.org/revelle/presentations/brazil.pdf … No clean structure in personality at any number of factors or levels etc. Big mess.
But no different than clinical (which @drderringer can inform us about too) where they've done some nice hierarchical twin work (thinking Bob Krueger). I don't think we have a clear understanding of what level is ideal for a genetic test (broad or narrow). >
If the work on endophenotypes is any indication, getting more specific and narrow does not lead to clarity. Nor do higher order factors (the Big 2) render in genetic space any better than the Big Five. >
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
