3 ms·
Thousands? That is incorrect. The number of identical twins that have been raised separately (and studied) is tiny. With a sample size that small, it is diff
by lurquer 8y ago
Thousands?
That is incorrect.
The number of identical twins that have been raised separately (and studied) is tiny.
With a sample size that small, it is difficult to get statistically significant results. Obviously. I was just pointing out that one of the issues with which a researcher must grapple is the fact that not only is one shaped by one's environment, but one's environment is shaped -- to some degree -- by one's appearance... a tricky issue when dealing with two subjects who are identical in every outward respect.
- naasking 8y agoHundreds of such twins have been studied, and hundreds more of fraternal twins. Combined with data from thousands of other twins which have contact (UK twin registry alone tracks 12,000 twins), this enables significant comparative analysis. You're seriously underestimating the amount of data available.
- rusk 8y agoA single twin-study cited in this article [0] surveyed 8,280 twins. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4653279/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4653279/
- lurquer 8y agoThat is incorrect. The sample consisted of 8,280 monozygotic (identical) and dizygotic (fraternal) twins. Twins separated at birth were not involved, if I'm reading the study correctly. In any case, it's nothing worth arguing about. (I will say, though, that if there are 8,280 pairs of identical twins in Denmark who were raised separately, there is something very strange happening in Denmark.)