3 ms·

Depending on the twin study yes you can go into all kinds of sibling groups/measures too. However mapping it to something that must have had evolutionary pressu

by svnt 4y ago

Depending on the twin study yes you can go into all kinds of sibling groups/measures too. However mapping it to something that must have had evolutionary pressure on it in ways we still don’t clearly understand is not at all straightforward, so yes, in a sense, I think most psychologists, who have no evolutionary training, are doing this very wrong. You’re basically saying “some limits of cognition are heritable” which is so obvious as to be inarguable. The huge qualifier in what you quoted is “reliably measured psychological traits.” They also have to be defined within psychological language and linked to genetics through behavior or biological indicators. There are exceedingly few of these, and schizophrenia, autism, etc, are not them. Psychology as a whole without evolutionary considerations to articulate on is free-floating. There is a long history of psychologists justifying their approach, but the reality is that reproducibility in psychology is still at something like 35%.

svnt 4y ago
Edit to say the second paper is interesting, but it seems to me to have a number of flaws. If I understand this right, GWAS are capturing everything from the genome. This includes any genetic determination of appearance, food preferences, etc. Then the sample is only healthy twins from narrow genetic/cultural stock: England/Wales born over two years in the 90s. This means that in addition to sweeping up genetic factors associated with brain development, you are capturing all visible/inherent-behavioral inputs to a multi-stage developmental process that includes interactions with technology, other people, school systems, etc. Of course you can explain a majority of the outcome. It won’t replicate though, because it is dependent on that narrow time slice of culture, nutrition, parenting practices, technology, etc. If this study replicates in Asia, South America, or Africa, with similar genetic components in the PCA, I’ll admit I’m wrong. Heck if it even replicates in England with twins from the 1960s I’ll admit I’m wrong.

by svnt 4y ago

svnt 4y ago

Edit to say the second paper is interesting, but it seems to me to have a number of flaws. If I understand this right, GWAS are capturing everything from the genome. This includes any genetic determination of appearance, food preferences, etc. Then the sample is only healthy twins from narrow genetic/cultural stock: England/Wales born over two years in the 90s. This means that in addition to sweeping up genetic factors associated with brain development, you are capturing all visible/inherent-behavioral inputs to a multi-stage developmental process that includes interactions with technology, other people, school systems, etc. Of course you can explain a majority of the outcome. It won’t replicate though, because it is dependent on that narrow time slice of culture, nutrition, parenting practices, technology, etc. If this study replicates in Asia, South America, or Africa, with similar genetic components in the PCA, I’ll admit I’m wrong. Heck if it even replicates in England with twins from the 1960s I’ll admit I’m wrong.