Is it fair to say that nothing substantively new has been added beyond twin studies? It seems all we get from GWAS are "missing heritability."
-
-
-
I think the most interesting new knowledge has been within- and between- family genetics, but that has mostly undercut the hereditarian case. And on the medical as opposed to the behavioral side there have been some real advances.
- Još 3 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
"The structure of the argument is like this: Soon we are going to have personal flying cars, and society had better start building appropriate traffic control structures, or everything is going to be a mess when it happens!" Ha! Perfect! Cofnas 2020 in a nutshell!
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
"they are anticipating a genomic dystopia in which poverty has turned out to be a biological given" but if - *if* - GD turned out to be the case, why should that be dystopic? we could use that info to *help* such people. ubi, etc.
- Još 6 drugih odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
I think it’s totally mischaracterizing Murray’s argument to say that partial-genetic explanations “won’t get them anywhere, because it applies to everything.”
-
Murray’s whole point is that different groups are different in a variety of ways that are all old news to the experts studying those differences — but we’re (willfully) ignorant of those differences in high-minded policy discussions.
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
What is the difference betwern "complex behavior" and non-complex behavior? Is two young male chimps or two bull calves play-fighting complex behavior? Or is it only complex behavior when human kids play-fight with each other?
-
Also pretty unfair two compare divorce with big 5 and iq as if they are remotely the same thing. One is a behavior, the second dispositions, the third an ability.
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
very nice! i have a different take on your possibility 2 though. you're talking about the possible efficacy of genetic interventions. but i think the hereditarian position is that environmental interventions are ineffective, which the imagined evidence doesn't address
-
confusing the two ideas is a key sleight-of-hand in the hereditarian argument. but there's no connection between them. GWAS is even based on the opposite (equally dubious) assumption, that traits that are genetically malleable will also be environmentally malleable
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
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.