4 ms·
> To suggest that macular degeneration has genetic causes is to make an empirically testable proposal; to suggest that “grit” or “openness to experience” has ge
by car_analogy 5y ago
> To suggest that macular degeneration has genetic causes is to make an empirically testable proposal; to suggest that “grit” or “openness to experience” has genetic causes is to make a category mistake.
Oh please spare me. They are both empirically testable, it in fact was tested, and found that According to twin studies, the Big Five personality traits have substantial heritable components explaining 40–60% of the variance - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5068715/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5068715/
A few more sources:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8776880/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8776880/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Heritability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#He...
- a_shovel 5y agoOkay, what you've done here is you've responded to a criticism of a particular type of study by linking to two examples of that kind of study and a Wikipedia section that cites one of those same studies. Forgive me if I feel like the article's criticisms have not been addressed.
- car_analogy 5y agoBecause it's not criticism. It's evidence-free dismissal of solid empirical and theoretical (e.g. the sibling post's Downs example) results, hidden behind meaningless language like "category error". Is it a "category error" to claim cats are not as intelligent as humans because of their genes? And the real reasons are socio-economical? Or does it only become a category error once applied to humans? It's sad that over 160 years after On the Origin of Species, we are still trying to exempt ourselves from nature. How little has changed.