5 ms·
> The question is to what extent culture serves to magnify any underlying differences. This sounds like irrelevant bikeshedding between genotypes and phenotype
by centimeter 6y ago
> The question is to what extent culture serves to magnify any underlying differences.
This sounds like irrelevant bikeshedding between genotypes and phenotypes. It also doesn't have any bearing against my claims, c.f. my original comment about "significant population-level phenotypic differences between ethnic groups".
- joshuamorton 6y ago> This sounds like irrelevant bikeshedding between genotypes and phenotypes. It also doesn't have any bearing against my claims, c.f. my original comment about "significant population-level phenotypic differences between ethnic groups". Of course it does: if the only concrete support for phenotypic differences is based on twin data (or similar), and that data is subject to magnification due to cultural factors, the underlying phenotypic impact is smaller.
- centimeter 6y agoThat's not what "phenotypic" means. Phenotypic environment includes any "cultural amplification" or similar factors. Almost all genetic competitions are subject to some sort of king effect, e.g. hypergamy and concomitant GMV in non-monogamous species. We still consider the results of these effects to be phenotypic.
- joshuamorton 6y agoOk then I'm really unclear what you're point is. Yes, there are observable performance differences that align across observable ethnic boundaries. No one in this thread questioned this (keep in mind stereotype threat is a phenotypic difference). If that's the only claim you're making, I'm not sure why you felt the need to cite Rushton of all people, who was specifically arguing that these differences were genotypic in nature.