4/ I esp liked his point that nurture often reinforces, doesn't counter, nature. If you have some innate traits that make you an unlikeable baby, people's reactions to you may reinforce that. If you have some innate traits that make more likely to be good at school, people's
-
Show this thread
-
5/ positive reactions will reinforce those traits, incl/by physically changing the brain. Great point I'd not considered. I also liked his point that bigger brain regions in some people (or sexes) may not mean "better" - might mean "less efficient so must be bigger to be as good"
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
6/ There were some times when I thought it could have used another hard edit to make it more internally consistent. He early stresses importance of regulatory DNA but later talks of mutations only being important if they are in the "3%" of important DNA. I know he knows better.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
7/ Similarly he focuses more on DNA as the book goes on. He stresses early that chance in development (say 70/30 odds on neurons going the right place) are important but later proclaims all mental illness is genetic (before qualifying that a bit late in that chapter).
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
8/ Then there are things I wish he had discussed more. I'd love more discussion than I recall in the book about mosaicism, esp the apparently high level of it in brain neurons, And I wish he had paid a bit more attention to pleiotropy. He considers it at points but not always.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likesShow this thread -
9/ (I think.) E.g., he says small IQ boosting alleles are likely to be fixed in pops but IQ lowering ones won't be but should be under selection pressure. But what if IQ+ has, in some environments (external or genetic) non IQ effects that outweigh their benefits (& vice versa)
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread -
10/ I do have another IQ question. He argues strongly that it is largely innate & heavily genetic. But he does discuss the Flynn effect (pop mean IQs increasing over time). And he has an eg that makes this descendant of East Galway (Mc)Grealy's happy - the Irish.
5 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Replying to @HankGreelyLSJU
This is a great question and a subtle point. IQ is highly *heritable* within a given population (much of the variance is genetic in origin). But heritability only tells you what *does* vary and affect a trait, not what *could*...
2 replies 8 retweets 28 likes -
Replying to @WiringTheBrain @HankGreelyLSJU
So, high heritability within a given population does not preclude or contradict environmental effects between populations or over time. They are separate questions.
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likes -
Replying to @WiringTheBrain @HankGreelyLSJU
So high heritability of a trait in a given study does not imply "trait is genetic" in an exclusive or general sense. The study can only examine the variance (genetic or environmental) that exists in that sample.
1 reply 4 retweets 24 likes
Yep. This is why it's good to increase iodine access and decrease intestinal parasites in poor countries -- they both decrease IQ significantly. As health improves in these places (reducing environmental variance between rich & poor families), IQ heritability tends to increase.
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.