Adam Green

@adamlewisgreen

Interested in behavioral and medical genetics, statistics, bioethics, jazz, kettlebells, ev bio, etc. Attempting to improve my model of the world.

Vrijeme pridruživanja: kolovoz 2019.

Medijski sadržaj

  1. 2. velj
    Odgovor korisniku/ci

    Shakespeare ain’t got nothing on Michael Brecker.

  2. 2. velj
    Odgovor korisnicima

    See the crude, unfinished structural causal model below. The green represents everything you eliminate when conditioning on parental EA (which includes some c^2 not captured by SES measures). Unidirectional arrows represent causal effects; dotted double-arrows correlations (3/n)

  3. 2. velj
    Odgovor korisnicima

    You observe SES-group differences in PGS that go away after conditioning on SES and parental education. This conditioning eliminates some shared environmental effects not captured by SES, which is why you do it. But it also eliminates unmeasured (non-PGS) genetic effects (2/n)

  4. 28. sij
    Odgovor korisnicima

    You suggest some of the EA ~ PGS x SES effect might operate through # of books in the home, preschool, and other early investment. If true, wouldn’t we expect to see these sorts of interventions produce consistent, long-term, large effects in RCTs (which we mostly don’t)?

  5. 28. sij
    Odgovor korisniku/ci

    Glad to see this paper finally out! - You say EA score distribution is largely similar across SES groups. What about in the far right tail? Graphs below suggest potentially big differences in odds ratio. Not sure how to answer this question in a non-parametric (KDE) context (1/2)

  6. 28. sij
    Odgovor korisnicima

    This is how the RDD treatment procedure worked. The paper seems pretty convincing, I must say, especially given all the existing literature on the causal lead-crime connection.

  7. 28. sij
    Odgovor korisniku/ci

    Interesting. 2 concerns: - Does RDD treatment "randomization" process + controlling for covariates eliminate all selection bias? (treatment: receive 2 blood tests with BLL > 10 µg; control: only 1 test > 10µg) - Treatment effect heterogeneity: effect only present in >20µg group?

  8. 14. sij
    Odgovor korisnicima i sljedećem broju korisnika:

    Btw, here’s the key fig from the paper

  9. 10. sij
    Odgovor korisniku/ci

    Unless I midunderstood, it seems the out-of-sample R^2 for height was 0.7 (which is absolutely bonkers; there goes nearly all the missing heritability). Am I missing something? It's also fascinating from a pop gen / ev bio standpoint that LASSO works so well. Why sparsity?

  10. 7. sij
    Odgovor korisnicima

    “our included intelligence tests are somewhat limited as measures of general cognitive ability as the tests only include a few subtests.” The authors point out some residual confounding may be due to selection effects—death, lack of participation, etc. The attrition rate is high

  11. 7. sij
    Odgovor korisniku/ci

    The midlife IQ ~ age 12 IQ x years of EDU interaction is curious. Yes, perhaps because “the Danish school system has a strong focus on improving the abilities of the least able”, the interaction is causal: the <90 IQ group experienced greater IQ returns of schooling. However...

  12. 31. pro 2019.
    Odgovor korisnicima i sljedećem broju korisnika:

    I wouldn't hang my hat on p = 0.031 for math and statistical insignificance for English.

  13. 31. pro 2019.
    Odgovor korisnicima

    In Fig 2, it's plausible that the air filters had no effect at all on school improvement. Just eliminate the RD line and draw a horizontal line, r = 0. The air filter x distance effect is clearly driven by one outlier.

  14. 27. pro 2019.
    Odgovor korisniku/ci

    Dubious. P(replication of interaction) < 20% - The financial incentives were small, on the order of 10 cents per question? - The interaction is significant when controlling for education but only marginally significant when not. - It's more parsimonious: RWA --> worse CRT score

  15. 22. pro 2019.
    Odgovor korisniku/ci

    I was curious about the 2/sqrt(π) constant and found the original (?), short proof of it:

  16. 22. pro 2019.
    Odgovor korisniku/ci

    The largest dataset I've seen on this subject: It's scary how fast the increase in aneuploidy rate is from early 30's onward. This is a good book on the development of IVF and other assisted reproductive technologies:

  17. 3. pro 2019.
    Odgovor korisnicima

    Rawls' second principle of justice is implicitly anti-utilitarian, valuing equality of outcome above total utility. In education, high heritability () of educational attainment _may_ be a good proxy for a level playing field. See:

  18. 18. lis 2019.
    Odgovor korisnicima

    The view I'm referring to is the "Normal Function" account of disease treatment/enhancement distinction

  19. 17. lis 2019.
    Odgovor korisnicima

    From Cavaliere (2018), "Looking into the shadow: the eugenics argument in debates on reproductive technologies and practices":

  20. 17. lis 2019.
    Odgovor korisnicima

    Soon we will face incredibly difficult choices about genetics, privacy, and assisted reproductive technologies. To make these choices wisely, we mustn't paper over our sordid history & settle for simplified narratives. (See cliched quote of questionable provenance below.) (13/n)

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·