4 ms·
It's more clear to just say "There's no such thing as a gene for a trait", especially since the title of the article says the opposite, and is wrong. That's why
by quantadev 2y ago
It's more clear to just say "There's no such thing as a gene for a trait", especially since the title of the article says the opposite, and is wrong. That's why I corrected it.
- benatkin 2y agoYou’re arguing semantics. It doesn’t make it more clear. The gene has been shown to have a causation or at least an interesting correlation in orange cat probability. That’s enough for it to say behind which is not very specific, likely chosen deliberately for that property.
- quantadev 2y agoWhat was wrong was the singular form of the word "gene". That means "The Gene", and that's wrong. Richard Dawkins talks about this in his Selfish Gene book. People often say "the gene for this" or "the gene for that" and it's not how things work. But the word "behind" also does imply causation rather than correlation, which is also wrong.