4 ms·

I did. Here's another warning, from the journal Cell: http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(14)00286-4 http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(14)00

• DoreenMichele 9y ago
  It sounds to me like this piece indicates that the science is new and unproven, not that it is poisoned by ulterior motives of some sort. I have two sons who see the world through a very different mental framework from me. We often have lively discussions that give both sides. It keeps us aware that life is multidimensional. The debate about nature vs nurture often loses sight of the fact that, ultimately, the answer is both. Trying to follow a thread and understand it doesn't mean that one thread is the entirety of the fabric of life. But ignoring that thread doesn't work either.
  • ghostcluster 9y ago
    Except the psychometric traits that activists most want to be a product of nurture often have a genetic heritability of 80% or more.
    • DoreenMichele 9y ago
      And how is this assertion evidence that epigenetics generally and this study in specific, which posit heritability of various things, is really a diabolical plot to put some activist's evil wolf in sciency sheep's clothing?
      • ghostcluster 9y ago
        I'm generally a fan of Carl Zimmer. I liked his book on parasites quite a bit, but I also think it's important to bring up the context of how epigenetics have been repurposed for ideological battles when they're brought up in highly shared pop science articles.
        • DoreenMichele 9y ago
          There are better ways to do that than the framing you have used in this discussion. So, if you plan to keep bringing such things up, I hope you find a better way to do it. I don't disagree that understanding such contexts or pointing them out has value.