9 ms·
They end up remarkably similar, but it turns that remarkably similar isn't nearly similar enough to be useful in most contexts. In fact, I think the biggest les
by solveit 8y ago
They end up remarkably similar, but it turns that remarkably similar isn't nearly similar enough to be useful in most contexts. In fact, I think the biggest lesson of the social sciences is a deeper intuitive understanding of how individual variation will completely dominate any other statistical factor in anything made of people, and how fortunate we were that the physical sciences were much simpler.
- 1_over_n 8y agoExactly. "Remarkably similar" != "Identical" (using the truest version of the word identical - exactly the same)
- philipov 8y agoStanford's Youtube channel has a series of lectures for Robert Sapolsky's class on Human Behavioral Biology, and he spends a good amount of time on genetics there. The view he presents there is that there is no such thing as a gene FOR something, because the effect of a gene is a function of the environment in which it is expressed. For example, it's incorrect to think in terms of a gene for depression, but it is more reasonable to think of a gene that will make you vulnerable to depression if you are exposed to strong stressors during childhood. I recommend watching the entire playlist, but I've linked to the punchline at the end of Behavioral Genetics II. I've linked to him discussing the heritability of plant IQ, followed by the heritability of depression example I alluded to earlier. https://youtu.be/RG5fN6KrDJE?t=3200 https://youtu.be/RG5fN6KrDJE?t=3200 Again, I recommend watching the entire lecture if you have an hour and a half, both lectures if you have 3 hours, or all the lectures if you have, like, 40 hours.