4 ms·

because as we know, human behavior is primarily genetic

tuatoru 2y ago
Perhaps you thought you were being ironic. You weren't. "Common knowledge" is seriously behind the state of the science.
- orwin 2y ago
  Can we have links to "the state of science"?
  - tuatoru 2y ago
    Some popularisations: "A Troublesome Inheritance" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00G3L7VFM/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00G3L7VFM/ref=kinw_myk_ro... "A Farewell to Alms" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001EQ4OLA/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001EQ4OLA/ref=kinw_myk_ro... "Human Diversity" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07Y8K5FX8/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07Y8K5FX8/ref=kinw_myk_ro... Read the citations and go from there.
    - orwin 2y ago
      Sadly, i am pretty close with a population geneticist (Dr Mallard, worked for the CNRS and INRAE before retiring ~20 years ago, we had regular, very informative dinners for years), and while i cannot judge "A farewell to Alms (which seems great), i can tell you that we talked "A Troublesome Inheritance". It was not good. The context was about the lack of science popularization, and he took the example of this book and his author, which he copiously insulted, and said it was exactly the reason why scientists do not trust journalists and avoid them, because while being ignorantly misquoted and misunderstood isn't a good feeling, being approached with bad intentions and being misread and misquoted on purpose in order to push political agenda is worse. I would have to research more on why this book in particular was on his mind, but i would bet that most geneticists think this book is hogwash.
      - tuatoru 2y ago
        Nice social dominance/purity display, bro, but irrelevant. I said "read the citations and go from there", meaning: you'll find the names of researchers, the names of journals, and keywords to search for; and looking up citation indices will help further.
        orwin 2y ago
        My main issue is the state of the science in 2019 was that epigenetic had a way stronger influence on genetics than previously thought, so i thought you had a new twin study showing that behavior was so overwhelmingly decided by genetics that epigenetic influence did not matter. I did not find any relevant twin study in your book citations, also, they are all old and not up to date (i'm not either, my last meaningfull dive into that subject was pre-covid). To be honest, I mostly asked because i thought i had missed a new study between 2019 and today, so giving me pre-2015 books wasn't helpfull :/
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Perhaps you thought you were being ironic. You weren't. "Common knowledge" is seriously behind the state of the science.

orwin 2y ago
Can we have links to "the state of science"?
- tuatoru 2y ago
  Some popularisations: "A Troublesome Inheritance" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00G3L7VFM/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00G3L7VFM/ref=kinw_myk_ro... "A Farewell to Alms" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001EQ4OLA/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001EQ4OLA/ref=kinw_myk_ro... "Human Diversity" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07Y8K5FX8/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07Y8K5FX8/ref=kinw_myk_ro... Read the citations and go from there.
  - orwin 2y ago
    Sadly, i am pretty close with a population geneticist (Dr Mallard, worked for the CNRS and INRAE before retiring ~20 years ago, we had regular, very informative dinners for years), and while i cannot judge "A farewell to Alms (which seems great), i can tell you that we talked "A Troublesome Inheritance". It was not good. The context was about the lack of science popularization, and he took the example of this book and his author, which he copiously insulted, and said it was exactly the reason why scientists do not trust journalists and avoid them, because while being ignorantly misquoted and misunderstood isn't a good feeling, being approached with bad intentions and being misread and misquoted on purpose in order to push political agenda is worse. I would have to research more on why this book in particular was on his mind, but i would bet that most geneticists think this book is hogwash.
    - tuatoru 2y ago
      Nice social dominance/purity display, bro, but irrelevant. I said "read the citations and go from there", meaning: you'll find the names of researchers, the names of journals, and keywords to search for; and looking up citation indices will help further.
      - orwin 2y ago
        My main issue is the state of the science in 2019 was that epigenetic had a way stronger influence on genetics than previously thought, so i thought you had a new twin study showing that behavior was so overwhelmingly decided by genetics that epigenetic influence did not matter. I did not find any relevant twin study in your book citations, also, they are all old and not up to date (i'm not either, my last meaningfull dive into that subject was pre-covid). To be honest, I mostly asked because i thought i had missed a new study between 2019 and today, so giving me pre-2015 books wasn't helpfull :/

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]