No it really isn’t. Read that Turkheimer post please.
-
-
-
why dont you point out the specific error you think is being made that cripples the analysis like we learned in seminars instead of gesturing wildly at another paper
-
Because I want you to read the piece. It isn’t just that the derivative is different; it’s an unestimable function of the whole environment space which can go all over the place.
-
We should get back to the central point here; there is far too little evidence available to determine whether anything related to both race and socialization is genetic or social. But everyone reasserts their prior instead of saying "OK, we have no real answer based on the data."
-
I agree with you about the general point, but I suspect you're making an incorrect assumption about my priors. The main territory I'm interested in is the possibility of getting to a valid causal interpretation of generic complex phenotypic outcomes predicted nicely by genotype.
-
Nathaniel correctly points out that it's irresponsible to make causal inferences - especially for policy - based on that ability to predict. So either you're talking past one another, or I'm misunderstanding something.
-
And yes, the relationship can be inferred to be causal and STILL have misleading policy implications if the causal pathway includes societal reaction to phenotypical racial characteristics.
-
I think you're still pattern-matching me to . . . something else. I don't disagree with either of those points.
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.