7 ms·

This study measures academic performance in non-identical twins with identical twins as the control group. It finds a significant difference in outcomes between

This study measures academic performance in non-identical twins with identical twins as the control group. It finds a significant difference in outcomes between non-identical twins than identical twins suggesting the role of genes in academic outcomes. I am not a genetic researcher, more of a layman in this line of study. Some academics in social media (twitter) handwave and dismiss this research as inaccurate and they also feel its dangerous for such a study into genes (which might have ethical implications when applied to social policy) to be done without adequate interdisciplinary collaborations. Irrespective of their motivations, I am interested in knowing whether such criticisms hold good for this study.

21 8y ago
It goes further, a Twitter verified PhD in molecular biology calls it "deeply disturbing and unacceptable": > This study is so deeply disturbing and unacceptable. Studies that link genetics to intelligence/achievement are so deeply dangerous. Yet scientists jump into them without taking into account the social context in which they're doing their work. https://twitter.com/webmz_/status/1053353974764634112 https://twitter.com/webmz_/status/1053353974764634112
- zarkov99 8y ago
  Amazing. E pur si muove.
- tenaciousDaniel 8y ago
  Without a more in-depth analysis of where the study goes wrong, I'm afraid I can't simply take someone's word for it merely because they have a PhD next to their name.
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    Not that I necessarily agree with what she's saying, her comment isn't on where "the study goes wrong", but rather about the fact of the study itself. In the same way that, for instance, an evil genius can be said to have created a "good" bomb, the "good" here refers to its efficiency, the number of people it can kill, the speed at which it can be activated etc. but these qualities speak nothing of whether the bomb is a good thing - for that question you need to consult the context in which it was made, and the question is of course different and mostly irrelevant to the technical parameters of the bomb. The ethics of killing have nothing to do with how long the blade of your knife is.
    - tenaciousDaniel 8y ago
      Fair point, although I feel that your interpretation may be a bit too charitable. If she had said that the paper should take into account the possible interpretations/implications of the research, then I can understand that. However, she said that the paper itself was unacceptable. I can only conclude that she would prefer no research be done if there could be negative ethical implications.
      - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
        Actually she says the paper is bad science, and says why in her Twitter feed. She's actually calling for more research, supporting more complex narratives. Meanwhile here, we're seeing that correlation does not imply causation except when it supports common prejudices and simplistic narratives. Then it absolutely does.
        tenaciousDaniel 8y ago
        She states simply that it didn't look for proper controls or caveats. As I said in my original comment, I would need an in-depth analysis of why the study is bad. Merely mentioning controls is not enough to convince me, even if the person has a PhD. And as for her "calling for more research", that is simply not true: This is one open access article the world does not need right now. She is literally saying here that it should not have been published.
        gwern 8y ago
        I don't know what she could possibly mean by 'proper controls'. They're twins. They are better controls for each other (full siblings raised simultaneously of exactly the same age) than you see in 99.9% of sociology or education studies; in some respects they are the best controls that are possible, since you can't run a person through school multiple times to see if they get into college or not. And this study also came with polygenic scores so you can check the genetics directly if you've fallen for handwavy criticisms like of the EEA. (Heck, she's not even right when she mouths 'correlation != causation', because if you used the PGS to compare siblings, their PGS differences are randomized at conception and the correlation = causation! As far as I can tell, OP didn't do this, just scoring unrelated individuals, but they could have, many other studies have, and she doesn't seem to've checked herself.)
  - apathy 8y ago
    As my advisor used to say when I hit low motivation phases, “stupid people get PhDs all the time. What’s taking you 5 years?”
- laughingman2 8y ago
  Yeah, I was referring to that thread. Without explicitly stating what's wrong with the study (in which many factors could go wrong), Or stating how/why environmental factors could still derail the study despite twin control, the twitter thread derails into "social responsibility" etc. I have a political bias towards the left (equality, more democratic control etc), but I would never say scientific truth should be subservient to my ideology. That kind of a view has a huge stench of the postmodernist ideology on how even science is subjective like literary criticism. Any ethical axiom is cannot be contingent on facts due to the is-ought problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem). But the moment some the moral axioms are used to make decisions in the real world, the decisions have to be consistent with the axioms. The effect of decisions is contingent on facts aka Science. So given a belief in induction, science can help inform what you "ought" to do with respect to your axioms. Contrary to the subset of people in the left who blindly believe the Blank Slate hypothesis, or fear that genetic studies will change their ethical assumptions, I argue that more knowledge (genetic, sociological etc ) through science would only help you to be more committed to you ethics by allowing you to exercise it properly. I think Steven Pinker's argument against (part of) left's obsession with blank slate rings true https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_... I think Peter Singer (of Animal Liberation fame) alludes to the same point in the Darwinian Left https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Darwinian_Left https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Darwinian_Left (haven't read it yet)
- dgut 8y ago
  It's her maternal instinct kicking in. I know some female scientists who wouldn't want to hear anything about attributing differences to IQ or genes and become very emotional if the topic is ever mentioned. "I don't want to think of my friends from X as N".
  - laughingman2 8y ago
    I think by calling someone's error out as "maternal instinct" instead of arguing against it rationally, you have become the very caricature that makes their argument more valid.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Why not 'her social responsibility' kicking in? Because there it is, attributing 'weak' motivations to women, because of course women are all the same. This would be funny, a comment that exhibits precisely why the argument it 'refutes' is true. If it wasn't sexist and demeaning as well.
    - dgut 8y ago
      This is not social responsibility. It's an emotional reaction to a scientific study. There is nothing irresponsible about the study. Science doesn't have to care for the emotions of specific groups. Then we're doomed. And yes, neurotypical women are close to identical at the meta level I'm talking about. Same for men.
      - claudiawerner 8y ago
        >Science doesn't have to care for the emotions of specific groups. Then we're doomed. What's your opinion on the idea of scientific ethics?
        ThrowawayR2 8y ago
        > What's your opinion on the idea of scientific ethics? Neither harm to the subjects of the research nor the ones conducting it is occurring, so it's unclear how scientific ethics comes into play. Are you genuinely attempting to suggests that there some truths about the universe which are so inimical to the human spirit that we dare not reveal them? If so, the quote which springs immediately to mind is PKD's "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
thrower123 8y ago
I feel like we must have done enough twin studies over the years at this point to conclusively say that genetic heritage is the most significant factor for a whole host of ourcomes. Environmental factors are alluring, because they offer the potential that something can be done, through toil and good works, to achieve improvements, rather than the more Calvinist tyranny of genetics.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  They are also alluring because of the fear that policies could be put in place which excludes people based on the factors that are pre-determined; this idea is offensive to both those in favor of "meritocracy" and those who believe in the equality of opportunities. It also challenges the idea of human worth, since many people (mistakenly, in my opinion) believe human worth is (or should be) tied to mental and physical abilities.
  - mmirate 8y ago
    How does > if you believe so, then you believe that human worth is predetermined constitute a challenge to > human worth should be tied to mental and physical abilities ? Is there some implicit negative value attached to the hypothesis that human worth could be predetermined? (Edit -- counterarguments are more educational/enlightening than downvotes.)
    - claudiawerner 8y ago
      >Is there some implicit negative value attached to the hypothesis that human worth could be predetermined? I think so, yes. It runs counter to the idea of a free and equal society, and necessitates setting up standards (subjective ones imposed by an authority) as to which qualities are good and which are bad; this very easily leads to narrow-minded elitism, for instance, preferring mental abilities over physical ones, or general intelligence over emotional intelligence etc. The notion of social equality is important, in my opinion.
      - 8y ago
pickpuck 8y ago
Speaking of motivations: > These findings suggest young adults select and modify their educational experiences in part based on their genetic propensities and highlight the potential for DNA-based predictions of real-world outcomes, which will continue to increase in predictive power.
- zarkov99 8y ago
  This does not say anything about motivations, which, in any case, are irrelevant in assessing the value of the scholarship.
  - tenaciousDaniel 8y ago
    Exactly. It's either valid research or it isn't.
liftbigweights 8y ago
Excellent point. The study of genetics and its influence seems to be trapped between two extremes due to racial horrors of the 20th century. 100 years ago, social darwinists claimed genetics (race/blood) was everything. It was destiny. And as a result the world endured senseless horrors. As a reaction to the horrors of ww2, another extreme has taken hold - the side that claims genetics has no influence. To proclaim otherwise would make you are nazi. The more sensible and correct middle ground, that genetics isn't destiny but a major component of many contributing factors to your life and success, seems verboten in academia and the public in general. It's both obvious that genetics plays a role and it's equally obvious that environment plays a role. But due to historical baggage, scientists have to tread lightly. If michael jordan grew up in the congo, he wouldn't have been one of the greatest basketball players. If einstein grew up in iraq in the late 1800s, he wouldn't have been one of the greatest scientists. Both nature and nurture play a part in success.
nabla9 8y ago
What the genes that correlate with academic success mean is easy to misunderstand. Some may assume that those who succeed have 'smart' genes, but it can be that they are healthier. Just having better immune system can lead to better academic success. So can avoiding depression.
- WalterSear 8y ago
  Why do you think that the form of the genetic advantage makes any difference? The difference is the difference.
  - justtopost 8y ago
    I think making someone healthier (protecting from a known defect in this case) is more understood, and therefore more probable and actionable than making them 'smarter'. We can't stop at treating just the symptom of injustice, without begeting our own injustice. History is bearing that out clearly. I feel, the difference is signifigant, and worthy of investigation beyond a doubt.
  - nabla9 8y ago
    One form can be potentially changed with policy, the other may not be.

21 8y ago

It goes further, a Twitter verified PhD in molecular biology calls it "deeply disturbing and unacceptable": > This study is so deeply disturbing and unacceptable. Studies that link genetics to intelligence/achievement are so deeply dangerous. Yet scientists jump into them without taking into account the social context in which they're doing their work. https://twitter.com/webmz_/status/1053353974764634112 https://twitter.com/webmz_/status/1053353974764634112

zarkov99 8y ago
Amazing. E pur si muove.
tenaciousDaniel 8y ago
Without a more in-depth analysis of where the study goes wrong, I'm afraid I can't simply take someone's word for it merely because they have a PhD next to their name.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  Not that I necessarily agree with what she's saying, her comment isn't on where "the study goes wrong", but rather about the fact of the study itself. In the same way that, for instance, an evil genius can be said to have created a "good" bomb, the "good" here refers to its efficiency, the number of people it can kill, the speed at which it can be activated etc. but these qualities speak nothing of whether the bomb is a good thing - for that question you need to consult the context in which it was made, and the question is of course different and mostly irrelevant to the technical parameters of the bomb. The ethics of killing have nothing to do with how long the blade of your knife is.
  - tenaciousDaniel 8y ago
    Fair point, although I feel that your interpretation may be a bit too charitable. If she had said that the paper should take into account the possible interpretations/implications of the research, then I can understand that. However, she said that the paper itself was unacceptable. I can only conclude that she would prefer no research be done if there could be negative ethical implications.
    - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
      Actually she says the paper is bad science, and says why in her Twitter feed. She's actually calling for more research, supporting more complex narratives. Meanwhile here, we're seeing that correlation does not imply causation except when it supports common prejudices and simplistic narratives. Then it absolutely does.
      - tenaciousDaniel 8y ago
        She states simply that it didn't look for proper controls or caveats. As I said in my original comment, I would need an in-depth analysis of why the study is bad. Merely mentioning controls is not enough to convince me, even if the person has a PhD. And as for her "calling for more research", that is simply not true: This is one open access article the world does not need right now. She is literally saying here that it should not have been published.
        gwern 8y ago
        I don't know what she could possibly mean by 'proper controls'. They're twins. They are better controls for each other (full siblings raised simultaneously of exactly the same age) than you see in 99.9% of sociology or education studies; in some respects they are the best controls that are possible, since you can't run a person through school multiple times to see if they get into college or not. And this study also came with polygenic scores so you can check the genetics directly if you've fallen for handwavy criticisms like of the EEA. (Heck, she's not even right when she mouths 'correlation != causation', because if you used the PGS to compare siblings, their PGS differences are randomized at conception and the correlation = causation! As far as I can tell, OP didn't do this, just scoring unrelated individuals, but they could have, many other studies have, and she doesn't seem to've checked herself.)
- apathy 8y ago
  As my advisor used to say when I hit low motivation phases, “stupid people get PhDs all the time. What’s taking you 5 years?”
laughingman2 8y ago
Yeah, I was referring to that thread. Without explicitly stating what's wrong with the study (in which many factors could go wrong), Or stating how/why environmental factors could still derail the study despite twin control, the twitter thread derails into "social responsibility" etc. I have a political bias towards the left (equality, more democratic control etc), but I would never say scientific truth should be subservient to my ideology. That kind of a view has a huge stench of the postmodernist ideology on how even science is subjective like literary criticism. Any ethical axiom is cannot be contingent on facts due to the is-ought problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem). But the moment some the moral axioms are used to make decisions in the real world, the decisions have to be consistent with the axioms. The effect of decisions is contingent on facts aka Science. So given a belief in induction, science can help inform what you "ought" to do with respect to your axioms. Contrary to the subset of people in the left who blindly believe the Blank Slate hypothesis, or fear that genetic studies will change their ethical assumptions, I argue that more knowledge (genetic, sociological etc ) through science would only help you to be more committed to you ethics by allowing you to exercise it properly. I think Steven Pinker's argument against (part of) left's obsession with blank slate rings true https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_... I think Peter Singer (of Animal Liberation fame) alludes to the same point in the Darwinian Left https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Darwinian_Left https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Darwinian_Left (haven't read it yet)
dgut 8y ago
It's her maternal instinct kicking in. I know some female scientists who wouldn't want to hear anything about attributing differences to IQ or genes and become very emotional if the topic is ever mentioned. "I don't want to think of my friends from X as N".
- laughingman2 8y ago
  I think by calling someone's error out as "maternal instinct" instead of arguing against it rationally, you have become the very caricature that makes their argument more valid.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Why not 'her social responsibility' kicking in? Because there it is, attributing 'weak' motivations to women, because of course women are all the same. This would be funny, a comment that exhibits precisely why the argument it 'refutes' is true. If it wasn't sexist and demeaning as well.
  - dgut 8y ago
    This is not social responsibility. It's an emotional reaction to a scientific study. There is nothing irresponsible about the study. Science doesn't have to care for the emotions of specific groups. Then we're doomed. And yes, neurotypical women are close to identical at the meta level I'm talking about. Same for men.
    - claudiawerner 8y ago
      >Science doesn't have to care for the emotions of specific groups. Then we're doomed. What's your opinion on the idea of scientific ethics?
      - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
        > What's your opinion on the idea of scientific ethics? Neither harm to the subjects of the research nor the ones conducting it is occurring, so it's unclear how scientific ethics comes into play. Are you genuinely attempting to suggests that there some truths about the universe which are so inimical to the human spirit that we dare not reveal them? If so, the quote which springs immediately to mind is PKD's "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

thrower123 8y ago

I feel like we must have done enough twin studies over the years at this point to conclusively say that genetic heritage is the most significant factor for a whole host of ourcomes. Environmental factors are alluring, because they offer the potential that something can be done, through toil and good works, to achieve improvements, rather than the more Calvinist tyranny of genetics.

claudiawerner 8y ago
They are also alluring because of the fear that policies could be put in place which excludes people based on the factors that are pre-determined; this idea is offensive to both those in favor of "meritocracy" and those who believe in the equality of opportunities. It also challenges the idea of human worth, since many people (mistakenly, in my opinion) believe human worth is (or should be) tied to mental and physical abilities.
- mmirate 8y ago
  How does > if you believe so, then you believe that human worth is predetermined constitute a challenge to > human worth should be tied to mental and physical abilities ? Is there some implicit negative value attached to the hypothesis that human worth could be predetermined? (Edit -- counterarguments are more educational/enlightening than downvotes.)
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    >Is there some implicit negative value attached to the hypothesis that human worth could be predetermined? I think so, yes. It runs counter to the idea of a free and equal society, and necessitates setting up standards (subjective ones imposed by an authority) as to which qualities are good and which are bad; this very easily leads to narrow-minded elitism, for instance, preferring mental abilities over physical ones, or general intelligence over emotional intelligence etc. The notion of social equality is important, in my opinion.
    - 8y ago

pickpuck 8y ago

Speaking of motivations: > These findings suggest young adults select and modify their educational experiences in part based on their genetic propensities and highlight the potential for DNA-based predictions of real-world outcomes, which will continue to increase in predictive power.

zarkov99 8y ago
This does not say anything about motivations, which, in any case, are irrelevant in assessing the value of the scholarship.
- tenaciousDaniel 8y ago
  Exactly. It's either valid research or it isn't.

liftbigweights 8y ago

Excellent point. The study of genetics and its influence seems to be trapped between two extremes due to racial horrors of the 20th century. 100 years ago, social darwinists claimed genetics (race/blood) was everything. It was destiny. And as a result the world endured senseless horrors. As a reaction to the horrors of ww2, another extreme has taken hold - the side that claims genetics has no influence. To proclaim otherwise would make you are nazi. The more sensible and correct middle ground, that genetics isn't destiny but a major component of many contributing factors to your life and success, seems verboten in academia and the public in general. It's both obvious that genetics plays a role and it's equally obvious that environment plays a role. But due to historical baggage, scientists have to tread lightly. If michael jordan grew up in the congo, he wouldn't have been one of the greatest basketball players. If einstein grew up in iraq in the late 1800s, he wouldn't have been one of the greatest scientists. Both nature and nurture play a part in success.

nabla9 8y ago

What the genes that correlate with academic success mean is easy to misunderstand. Some may assume that those who succeed have 'smart' genes, but it can be that they are healthier. Just having better immune system can lead to better academic success. So can avoiding depression.

WalterSear 8y ago
Why do you think that the form of the genetic advantage makes any difference? The difference is the difference.
- justtopost 8y ago
  I think making someone healthier (protecting from a known defect in this case) is more understood, and therefore more probable and actionable than making them 'smarter'. We can't stop at treating just the symptom of injustice, without begeting our own injustice. History is bearing that out clearly. I feel, the difference is signifigant, and worthy of investigation beyond a doubt.
- nabla9 8y ago
  One form can be potentially changed with policy, the other may not be.