3 ms·

> I trust my own observations and my conclusion Why would you decide to hold a position strongly based on a minuscule and extremely biased sample set and reje

by derriz 10mo ago

> I trust my own observations and my conclusion Why would you decide to hold a position strongly based on a minuscule and extremely biased sample set and reject even considering data and studies outside of your immediate experience? Unless you’re afraid your conclusion might be challenged? Wouldn’t it be interesting either way? Either to find out that your children are typical or to find out that you and they are special in some way? I understand many people are not interested in or curious about science, but don’t understand people who are both disinterested but also strongly hold particular positions on scientific questions.

nroets 10mo ago
What studies ? What data ? David Bessis basically says that there are so few twins reared apart that scientists can't make definitive conclusions.
- derriz 10mo ago
  I don't understand why you are challenging me here? Isn't your question exactly that addressed by the (admittedly too long) article? That the graph Paul Graham presented proving the dominance of inheritance wasn't based on any science or data?
  - nroets 10mo ago
    Your comment mentioned "studies" plural. There are many studies of twins that try to determine if genes influence intelligence. Some look at twins who are raised together. One [1] concludes that "MZ (identical) twins differ on average by 6 IQ points, while DZ (fraternal) twins differ on average by 10 IQ points". [1]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6202166/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6202166/
    - derriz 10mo ago
      > Your comment mentioned "studies" plural. Yes? I mentioned them because the article was about a bunch of studies? I was asking the poster why you would not be interested in the validity of such studies and just decide that "common sense" was enough to make a decision? The question was asked with genuine curiosity as this forum is mostly filled with people who appreciate science and empiricism. And I was hoping there could be a reasonable discussion. But I'm out. An interesting discussion should be possible here purely based on data and statistics but clearly - from the downvotes - that I've stepped into some toxic American identity politic minefield. I learned quite a time ago that it's risky to raise certain scientific subjects with USAians including my US relatives: biological evolution, the science of climate change, renewable energy or justifications for gun control - without the conversation getting emotional and heated. But I still find it weird.
pendenthistory 10mo ago
It's also just common sense. Everyone agrees that traits like height is heritable, but somehow whatever goes on inside the brain is not? The null hypothesis here is that it is heritable, and I see no proof whatsoever against that hypothesis. My personal experience raising my own kids and observing countless others confirms common sense. Your own child is not one data point, it's a million small data points, things you notice in what they're like as a baby, and how they develop over time. Only someone without kids would boil this down to a "single data point". I also deny that I have do anything to prove heritability, how about you prove the opposite? It's a conclusion that is so obvious to the impartial mind that to be confused about it is a sign of extreme ideological indoctrination. To deny heritability of personality and intelligence is to deny evolution itself.
- derriz 10mo ago
  > It's also just common sense. Centuries of success with empirical based science is a direct rejection of the approach of trusting "just common sense". > Only someone without kids would boil this down to a "single data point". Why are you personalizing this? I have a family and have observed children grow from emergence from the womb and I grew in a much larger family. I'm not sure what the relevance is to the points being discussed. This seems like argument by anecdotal fallacy. > I also deny that I have do anything to prove heritability, how about you prove the opposite? I didn't ask you to prove anything. I asked you why you have no interest in looking at a scientific question beyond "I trust my own observations and my conclusion"? And this question seemingly misses the point - it not a binary question about whether traits are inherited or not but about the degree of the role of inheritance. The author of the piece emphasizes this point extensively. The salient point of the too-long article was about flaws in a seminal paper on this subject where the author Bouchard presented carefully collected data for identical twins - showing remarkably low variance suggesting a high degree of inheritance. But he hid the data he had collected for non-identical twins, which would have provided us with a basis for judging the significance of the findings regarding identical twins. > It's a conclusion that is so obvious to the impartial mind that to be confused about it is a sign of extreme ideological indoctrination. Can we just discuss the science and statistics here?
- davidbessis 10mo ago
kelipso 10mo ago
It’s just Bayesian thinking. Too much open mindedness to scientific papers can have you frequently changing your beliefs based on some recent scientific paper that came out, or even worse based on a recent college graduate journalist’s summary of a recent scientific paper from some random university.. As opposed to holding on to a belief that has been reinforced via personal experience countless times until very strong evidence proves otherwise. You end up with a set of beliefs that have a much higher chance of being true this way.
- IAmBroom 10mo ago
  > You end up with a set of beliefs that have a much higher chance of being true this way. Or, confirmation bias gives a much higher chance of you believing so. People fight and die over beliefs reinforced via personal experience. It's not proof against incorrectness.
  - kelipso 10mo ago
    There is rarely proof this or that way. It’s usually evidence, sometimes strong, sometimes weak, and you use your experience and intelligence to decide what is true. Though honestly, if you end up with a process where you change your mind whenever a new scientific paper comes out opposite of what you used to believe, well, I guess you would either have not thought about it much or your thinking is deeply flawed.

by derriz 10mo ago

nroets 10mo ago

What studies ? What data ? David Bessis basically says that there are so few twins reared apart that scientists can't make definitive conclusions.

derriz 10mo ago
I don't understand why you are challenging me here? Isn't your question exactly that addressed by the (admittedly too long) article? That the graph Paul Graham presented proving the dominance of inheritance wasn't based on any science or data?
- nroets 10mo ago
  Your comment mentioned "studies" plural. There are many studies of twins that try to determine if genes influence intelligence. Some look at twins who are raised together. One [1] concludes that "MZ (identical) twins differ on average by 6 IQ points, while DZ (fraternal) twins differ on average by 10 IQ points". [1]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6202166/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6202166/
  - derriz 10mo ago
    > Your comment mentioned "studies" plural. Yes? I mentioned them because the article was about a bunch of studies? I was asking the poster why you would not be interested in the validity of such studies and just decide that "common sense" was enough to make a decision? The question was asked with genuine curiosity as this forum is mostly filled with people who appreciate science and empiricism. And I was hoping there could be a reasonable discussion. But I'm out. An interesting discussion should be possible here purely based on data and statistics but clearly - from the downvotes - that I've stepped into some toxic American identity politic minefield. I learned quite a time ago that it's risky to raise certain scientific subjects with USAians including my US relatives: biological evolution, the science of climate change, renewable energy or justifications for gun control - without the conversation getting emotional and heated. But I still find it weird.

pendenthistory 10mo ago

It's also just common sense. Everyone agrees that traits like height is heritable, but somehow whatever goes on inside the brain is not? The null hypothesis here is that it is heritable, and I see no proof whatsoever against that hypothesis. My personal experience raising my own kids and observing countless others confirms common sense. Your own child is not one data point, it's a million small data points, things you notice in what they're like as a baby, and how they develop over time. Only someone without kids would boil this down to a "single data point". I also deny that I have do anything to prove heritability, how about you prove the opposite? It's a conclusion that is so obvious to the impartial mind that to be confused about it is a sign of extreme ideological indoctrination. To deny heritability of personality and intelligence is to deny evolution itself.

derriz 10mo ago
> It's also just common sense. Centuries of success with empirical based science is a direct rejection of the approach of trusting "just common sense". > Only someone without kids would boil this down to a "single data point". Why are you personalizing this? I have a family and have observed children grow from emergence from the womb and I grew in a much larger family. I'm not sure what the relevance is to the points being discussed. This seems like argument by anecdotal fallacy. > I also deny that I have do anything to prove heritability, how about you prove the opposite? I didn't ask you to prove anything. I asked you why you have no interest in looking at a scientific question beyond "I trust my own observations and my conclusion"? And this question seemingly misses the point - it not a binary question about whether traits are inherited or not but about the degree of the role of inheritance. The author of the piece emphasizes this point extensively. The salient point of the too-long article was about flaws in a seminal paper on this subject where the author Bouchard presented carefully collected data for identical twins - showing remarkably low variance suggesting a high degree of inheritance. But he hid the data he had collected for non-identical twins, which would have provided us with a basis for judging the significance of the findings regarding identical twins. > It's a conclusion that is so obvious to the impartial mind that to be confused about it is a sign of extreme ideological indoctrination. Can we just discuss the science and statistics here?
davidbessis 10mo ago

kelipso 10mo ago

It’s just Bayesian thinking. Too much open mindedness to scientific papers can have you frequently changing your beliefs based on some recent scientific paper that came out, or even worse based on a recent college graduate journalist’s summary of a recent scientific paper from some random university.. As opposed to holding on to a belief that has been reinforced via personal experience countless times until very strong evidence proves otherwise. You end up with a set of beliefs that have a much higher chance of being true this way.

IAmBroom 10mo ago
> You end up with a set of beliefs that have a much higher chance of being true this way. Or, confirmation bias gives a much higher chance of you believing so. People fight and die over beliefs reinforced via personal experience. It's not proof against incorrectness.
- kelipso 10mo ago
  There is rarely proof this or that way. It’s usually evidence, sometimes strong, sometimes weak, and you use your experience and intelligence to decide what is true. Though honestly, if you end up with a process where you change your mind whenever a new scientific paper comes out opposite of what you used to believe, well, I guess you would either have not thought about it much or your thinking is deeply flawed.