3 ms·

Yes, that's gene x environment interaction, and it isn't ruled out. By taking DNA as input, it DOES rule out environment. People DID argue it's environment, and

Yes, that's gene x environment interaction, and it isn't ruled out. By taking DNA as input, it DOES rule out environment. People DID argue it's environment, and they should retract that.

joshuamorton 6y ago
This doesn't follow. The output is still socially influenced. If you look at my DNA, and my DNA makes me brown-eyed, and people discriminate against brown-eyed people, such that I perform worse, my DNA will predict worse performance. But this is entirely due to environmental factors. In fact, from my reading of the paper, their major conclusion was only for those of European ethnicity (and even then only accounted for a small percentage of the overall difference in attainment), so they didn't try to address questions about racial influence, for example. Specifically, for people of European descent, their method is about as predictive as a socio-economic predictor. For a multi-ethnic group, their method is 3-5x less predictive than a socio-economic predictor. Saying that people should retract claims of environmental heritability is ridiculous: those methods are still far more predictive.
- sir_bearington 6y ago
  Yes, language and religion are heritable. Environmental biases can have an effect. No kidding, Sherlock. The researchers are aware of this that's why they look for correlations across different environments. To use your example, if a gene still has the same correlation even among non-brown eyed people or the same correlation appears even in societies that don't discriminate against people with brown eyes that's a different story. Thats what these researchers are doing. These observations aren't made in one environment. They happen across different cultures, different classes, different societies, etc. Factors like parental educational attainment can be adjusted for.

3 ms·

Yes, that's gene x environment interaction, and it isn't ruled out. By taking DNA as input, it DOES rule out environment. People DID argue it's environment, and

by sanxiyn 6y ago

Yes, that's gene x environment interaction, and it isn't ruled out. By taking DNA as input, it DOES rule out environment. People DID argue it's environment, and they should retract that.

joshuamorton 6y ago
This doesn't follow. The output is still socially influenced. If you look at my DNA, and my DNA makes me brown-eyed, and people discriminate against brown-eyed people, such that I perform worse, my DNA will predict worse performance. But this is entirely due to environmental factors. In fact, from my reading of the paper, their major conclusion was only for those of European ethnicity (and even then only accounted for a small percentage of the overall difference in attainment), so they didn't try to address questions about racial influence, for example. Specifically, for people of European descent, their method is about as predictive as a socio-economic predictor. For a multi-ethnic group, their method is 3-5x less predictive than a socio-economic predictor. Saying that people should retract claims of environmental heritability is ridiculous: those methods are still far more predictive.
- sir_bearington 6y ago
  Yes, language and religion are heritable. Environmental biases can have an effect. No kidding, Sherlock. The researchers are aware of this that's why they look for correlations across different environments. To use your example, if a gene still has the same correlation even among non-brown eyed people or the same correlation appears even in societies that don't discriminate against people with brown eyes that's a different story. Thats what these researchers are doing. These observations aren't made in one environment. They happen across different cultures, different classes, different societies, etc. Factors like parental educational attainment can be adjusted for.