Another disgracefully smear-filled--not to mention factually sloppy--review of a genetics book from Nathaniel Comfort. Why do Nature keep asking this guy to write for them?https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06784-5 …
-
-
If you want to see the biological argument against people like Plomin here: https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/physiol.00017.2018 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What he says is true, Plomin is biased and untrustworthy, he misrepresents biology and his arguments are based on weak science based on correlations and an obsolete reductionist genetic model.https://twitter.com/neoliberal_dad/status/988574378555256832 …
-
What exactly is wrong with that slide? The only weird one is "causal", but what he means is not that genes -> outcomes without enviro effects, but that outcomes cannot "cause" polygenic scores (a valid argument when it comes to psych traits, for example).
-
Outcomes can't cause polygenic scores but they can spuriously be associated with them, which is why the argument of no possible backward causation as proof of causation is fallacious, unscientific and Plominesque.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You're not a scientist, Chuck. Burning any crosses in the near future?
-
And you're not a decent troll, Willy.
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.