8 ms·

You appear to be quite confused on what heritability is, how it is estimated, and the assumptions that underpin those estimates. This article is a reasonable s

You appear to be quite confused on what heritability is, how it is estimated, and the assumptions that underpin those estimates. This article is a reasonable summary of the issues with heritability: https://academic.oup.com/ije/article-pdf/35/3/525/2195546/dyl064.pdf https://academic.oup.com/ije/article-pdf/35/3/525/2195546/dy... The tl;dr is that the people who trot out additive models of heritability as evidence of anything in particular are by and large those invested in the notion of genetic determinism.

gwern 9y ago
Rose's ancient paper is balderdash and wrong and even Turkheimer wouldn't agree with his claims now. Heritability has been repeatedly vindicated empirically as a guideline to selective breeding, GWAS power and results, genetic correlations, evolutionary development of traits and split between additive & epistasis variance based on selective pressures, and so on. Even human sperm donor donations affect height of offspring exactly as predicted by the breeder's equation - which rests entirely on the concept of heritability! The results of projects like UK Biobank and SSGAC have been a vindication of the entire behavioral genetics research programme, not any kind of refutation.