I want to comment on this excellent discussion of research on genetics and human behavior by @MarcusMunafo /1 https://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2016/mar/04/genetic-denialism-is-unhelpful-genes-play-a-role-in-who-we-are …
-
-
Replying to @hardsci
"Genetic denialism" can take 2 forms. One is flat out refusing to accept direct evidence. Among scientists that is rare /2
@MarcusMunafo1 reply 7 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @hardsci
But a more subtle form of denialism is ignoring genetics in research where accounting for it would change conclusions /3
@MarcusMunafo1 reply 7 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @hardsci
This second form - a kind of implicit denialism - is very common. E.g., studying parenting effects through parent-child correlations /4
3 replies 6 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @hardsci
without accounting for genetic correlations in design, and at most handwaving in interpretations. And when you ask, researchers say /5
2 replies 6 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @hardsci
"I'm not interested in genetics." Which makes no sense. It's a confound, control for it so you can isolate what you ARE interested in /6
4 replies 9 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @kph3k
Eg, Dorothy Roberts claim that studying genes & IQ is IN ITSELF "racist, sexist, classist"
@hardscihttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/151211-genetics-intelligence-racism-science/ …9 replies 30 retweets 33 likes
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.