3 ms·

i see - so you're talking about gene x environment interactions. it's true this isn't accounted for in the analysis. but i find it hard to believe that environ

i see - so you're talking about gene x environment interactions. it's true this isn't accounted for in the analysis. but i find it hard to believe that environmental effects of any sort could explain 99% of the variance that we see here, and I don't know how even a whole genome analysis could rule out GxE interactions. how exactly is that done?

xlnt 18y ago
as far as i know, no one has done it or has a good way to. all the studies like this suffer from this problem. i think the researchers should be a lot more careful with what they say their study shows or not. what can be done is to use arguments to determine which explanation is better. i think the most important argument is this one: we can explain how culture/memes (triggered by some detectable but unimportant effect of genes) would be able to affect intelligence, cause ADHD, and many other things. that is not a problem. no one has a good explanation of how genes have complex and lasting effects on human minds and personalities. of course for both points further elaboration is needed. but anyway, no one has made a strong case the other way. this may be of interest: http://settingtheworldtorights.com/node/269 http://settingtheworldtorights.com/node/269 edit: regarding 99%, i don't think it's a problem. why wouldn't highly adapted memes be able to cause effects reliably?
- botbooty 18y ago
  interesting discussion. but regarding 99%, I know of no environmental manipulation which can explain that much of individual differences. it's not just about reliability, it's also about explaining all the variance - two different things.
  - xlnt 18y ago
    if the memes cause effects in the presence of certain trivial traits caused by genes then that issue is solved, isn't it? the genes work as predictors like the study thinks, but don't actually do much of anything.

xlnt 18y ago

as far as i know, no one has done it or has a good way to. all the studies like this suffer from this problem. i think the researchers should be a lot more careful with what they say their study shows or not. what can be done is to use arguments to determine which explanation is better. i think the most important argument is this one: we can explain how culture/memes (triggered by some detectable but unimportant effect of genes) would be able to affect intelligence, cause ADHD, and many other things. that is not a problem. no one has a good explanation of how genes have complex and lasting effects on human minds and personalities. of course for both points further elaboration is needed. but anyway, no one has made a strong case the other way. this may be of interest: http://settingtheworldtorights.com/node/269 http://settingtheworldtorights.com/node/269 edit: regarding 99%, i don't think it's a problem. why wouldn't highly adapted memes be able to cause effects reliably?

botbooty 18y ago
interesting discussion. but regarding 99%, I know of no environmental manipulation which can explain that much of individual differences. it's not just about reliability, it's also about explaining all the variance - two different things.
- xlnt 18y ago
  if the memes cause effects in the presence of certain trivial traits caused by genes then that issue is solved, isn't it? the genes work as predictors like the study thinks, but don't actually do much of anything.