Charles Murray on genetics, as written by four (4) actual geneticists.
Also Charles Murray on genetics as written by actual Charles Murray
pic.twitter.com/vZpNRrLQxR
U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
Of course, for some traits and some variants, there is a direct molecular mechanism underlying the association. (Think of eye colour, for example).
But for complex traits (and especially for social outcomes), the effects of genetic differences may also be mediated through environmental or cultural mechanisms
I think I'm missing something here - how do you propose that a genetic association occurs without having a biological effect?
As @MarcusMunafo just pointed out for the association with lung cancer (really affecting likelihood of smoking), genetic associations can be driven by very indirect lines of causation...
To be perfectly honest I don’t really understand what he’s saying at all.
Whats interesting is Im only 80% sure youre referring to the highlighted passage here- I dont understand what hes saying in his tweet either This persons work seems like the "Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?" of science writing
The first GWAS of lung cancer picked up variants that influence...smoking. So yes...hardly “innate”.
not sure that's what @charlesmurray meant here (haven't read article 'cause of paywall). he does talk about *assessing* what's innate, tho, not concluding for sure that the specific associated variants are causal.
otoh, don't see any clarification on this in the book.
“Added by the environment” we are in 2020, aren’t we?
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.