4 is not bizarre gibberish, it speaks to the severe limitations in connecting a small subset of the details of physical structure to a few specific behaviors, that are further connected to very ambiguous, ill defined outcomes.
If you can narrow this down to which of the four numbered theses advanced in the linked article you intend to defend, I will be happy to answer.
-
-
And do you agree with her 4th pt? Or do you agree that it’s bizarre gibberish to claim that only something that tests for the presence of whatever X is defined as can be an indicator of X?
-
I agree with her. Though I think you are not exactly accurate in characterizing her statement. she is pointing out that operational characteristics like IQ are not related to only biology, and so any statistical relationships cannot be used for effective screening
-
Okay if you agree with her there is nothing to discuss; she doesn’t understand how indicators work.
-
she doesn't have to, the issue is the quality of the data - GIGO
-
/sigh. Measurement error reduces the efficiency of GWAS and puts a ceiling on PGS variance, but it doesn't make GWAS impossible, and you can still get plenty of results even with crummy IQ measurements like UKBB.
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.