Eric Turkheimer

@ent3c

Clinical psychologist, behavior geneticist, Mets fan, francophile.

Charlottesville, VA
Vrijeme pridruživanja: veljača 2008.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @ent3c

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @ent3c

  1. prije 16 sati

    Clinton after acquittal. What bothers me most about the Trumpian right-- a high bar-- is that they reject civility itself as somehow a characteristic of the elite, meant to mock them. Only thuggishness is genuine.

    Poništi
  2. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    The 48 Senators who found Trump GUILTY represent 18 million MORE people than the 52 who voted not guilty.

    Poništi
  3. 5. velj

    It's exactly like twin studies, where 25 years ago researchers discovered that rMZ is always > rDZ. A guaranteed result, even though it had essentially 0 substance. That is why I wrote the 3 laws paper. Meet the new genomic revolution, same as the old genomic revolution. /end

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  4. 5. velj

    If that is all that happens, the response should be, "Oh, well." All talk of "genomic discoveries" should be avoided. But instead researchers have learned that they have a route to a guaranteed result, so they do it over and over. /5

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  5. 5. velj

    The first and fourth laws of BG, plus the phenotypic null hypothesis, combine to *guarantee* that there is some h2, some SNPs, some genetic correlations that look like the phenotypic correlations, for *everything*. This should be the null model. /4

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  6. 5. velj

    It seems for most investigators, that would be h2=0, no significant SNPs, no genetic correlations with anything. The problem is, THAT RESULT WILL NEVER HAPPEN /3

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  7. 5. velj

    Usually when one conducts a study, there is a possible null result that will lead you to say, "Oh well, it didn't work." In a well-functioning scientific world that result is still publishable. What would such a result look like for GWAS? /2

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  8. 5. velj

    In the course of my usual complaining about a GWAS-- never mind-- it occurred to me that the core of my problem is the lack of an appropriate null model. /1

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  9. 4. velj

    Agreed. R2 for PGS=.0025. There is no justification for reporting tiny uninterpretable genetic results for this kind of phenotype. Careerism only explanation. "Targeted treatment and prevention strategies," give me an effing break.

    Poništi
  10. 3. velj

    Smart reply to 's op-ed in WSJ. My 2 cents: the "genetic revolution" Murray is waiting for is never going to get here. Inexorable progress of science is no help if the model is wrong.

    Poništi
  11. 3. velj

    Relevant to a department discussion. Given that they will both take up about the same amount of time (say an hour) which would you prefer as a way of reaching a decision on a matter of departmental policy?

    Poništi
  12. 1. velj

    As usual, says what I think. I will happily support any Democrat who wins the nomination. All discussions among Democrats should start with that sentence.

    Poništi
  13. 31. sij

    Could one of you having trouble connecting to try asking your IT office if they can explain what the problem is? Having trouble finding anything the matter on our end.

    Poništi
  14. 29. sij

    Another post on Human Diversity. What Is Genetic Determinism?

    Poništi
  15. 28. sij
    Poništi
  16. 26. sij

    Many uncertainties about Dem nomination. One thing is sure: when it is all over the op-ed page (except Krugman) won't support the nominee. If it is Biden instead of one of the scary radicals, will find another reason to oppose him.

    Poništi
  17. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    24. sij
    Poništi
  18. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    23. sij
    Poništi
  19. 22. sij

    The always eloquent Fardels Bear on the retrograde endorsement of race science by .

    Poništi
  20. 10. sij

    Plus or minus some reliability, the twin genetics of intelligence looks pretty much like height. Now we can see why behavior is different: the gene-behavior pathways are more complex, more external, less "biological". IMHO the most important marginal contribution of GWAS.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi

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:

    ·