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."
-
-
Replying to @davidmanheim @bechhof
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @eigenrobot @bechhof
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
And when you say you don't care about policy, you're saying there is no practical implication of this for anyone's decision-making? Or are you saying that whatever practical implication it has isn't something that you consider policy-relevant?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @davidmanheim @bechhof
This is really uncharacteristic of you. What's going on?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot @bechhof
Uncharacteristic? Treating weak and useless evidence as useful is a pet peeve - https://medium.com/@davidmanheim/the-good-the-bad-and-the-appropriately-under-powered-82c335652930 … And causality for decisions and the difficulty of decisionmaking via causal inferences is a hobby horse of mine as well.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @davidmanheim @bechhof
no I mean the bit about assuming your interlocutors hold the weakest or most odious version of arguments that might be associated with their explicit statements
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot @bechhof
Fair. But I'm frustrated that people are holding on to a claim that is unrelated to evidence in a discussion that started with policy relevance - otherwise, why is the claim that the difference is immutable? (This point was discussed extensively in the original article.)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @davidmanheim @eigenrobot
Weird is that people assume Klein is claiming that intelligence isn’t heritable when he doesn’t say that
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
heh going full circle, that article I was actually not able to read "professional Media Figures discuss their stupid dispute about Politic's" golly :kms:
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.