Geoffrey MillerVerified account

This article (and it sounds like, Plomin’s book) is a terrible summary & completely ignores the recent work being done in the field of epigenetics, which shows that the effects of nature and nurture are inseparable - that environment/experience alters our genetics and vice versa.

Environment/experience does not result in genetic changes that are transmitted to the next generation. If you think so, you are simply mistaken.

Conclusion stating “social scientists have done such a terrible job that it’s hard to see how the field can be repaired” is laughably sweeping & wrong. Mostly reveals ignorance of wide range of exceptional work in psych, econ, soc, poli sci & related statistical methods.

I know a fair amount about the predictive track record in most of those fields. Like, how many economists noticed the 2008 real-estate bubble (almost none), how many political scientists saw the fall of the Soviet Union coming - again, hardly any. And so on.

The slippage from saying non-genetic effects are "poorly-understood random factors," to saying that "your upbringing or social circumstances" don't matter, is not justified. Why think the effects of upbringing can be reduced to quantified things like socio-economic status?

If personality is mostly determined by things like your mood you the first time you saw a dog, or how many times a stranger greeted you on the street, that's obviously "upbringing" in some sense, and certainly not genetics, but it's also never going to be detected experimentally.