Профиль

His position is twin correlations are correct and the within family gwas estimes are also correct. Both are correct. But measures different things. He seems to agree gwas measures genetic effects. But question is what rMZ measures then in a reared apart twin study ?

Even just randomness can skew the final outcomes in quincunx.

Yeah, little change in environment variables drastically effects the final outcome. Turkheimer analogy doesnt explain the position he is holding, How that organisms with more similar SNPs in general wind up with more similar phenotypes in general, without environmental conditions being similar?

@jayjoseph22.bsky.social what is your response to turkheimer quincunx explanation for missing hertibility? @stairwaytokevin.bsky.social @stevepittelli.bsky.social If this is the case, then entire BG premise is false. High rMZ doesnt mean traits are genetic. But how does both ideas are true ?

On the contrary, even if he read relevant work; Nothing changes. You have been writing for years about the discussion section of gwas paper. As usual nothing changed. I dont know about majority of reserachers in the field, but the associated main public figures seem more like genetic determinists.

When researchers try to understand how dna is related to traits ( opening the black box ) you get DST researchers. And none of them endorse the BG view. The more people try to open black box the less sense BG view makes. Its as simple as that. The question people have to ask BG is " How ? "

As usual paper points to twin studies, hertibility of 70% something and ignores their own finding of less than 2 %.

My whole point is learning or education can change the behavior or how people think. I think it is one of the reason people like yourself write posts or blogs or books. Not for all but for many people.

Most of the discussion is around iq. But the behavior/ personality part is so malleable ( i have know some people, literally seeing a movie/book/discussion changed their behavior ). The twin h2 is around 50 % and the gwas within family around 1 %. I was interested in behavioral traits and learning.

Within family gwas h2 of less than 1 % for personality traits, Should raise a doubt on these studies. But i dont see it, I was actually seeing it reverse people using twin studies to continue gwas. ( Like old phrenology, when it is in shackles)

Plus most of them, after meeting discussed about their life for years, maybe influenced each other so much. I have seen a reared apart twins interview, where they are in video call everyday for years after meeting each other.

Yeah, Some of them. But when i read these study authors, they say like twins raised in different countries/ towns, met after 25 or 30 years and have similar scores in personality tests of various traits. What happening to their learning from experiences, different peer group interactions ?

@stairwaytokevin.bsky.social i have a doubt for years, how come the reared apart identical twins be so similar in personality ? I myself used to smoke, high bmi etc now not smoking, healthy bmi. Humans have remarkable capacity for learning (in right context). What's happening to learning in twins ?

Richard mentions within-family coefficient is 0.355. Is it within family gwas h2( where they do environment control by using siblings studies ) ? Or something totally different?

Is the 0.355 not r2 ?

But it is more than 2x, plus they are using error correction ( sort of) and making it near 4x. If 0.15 is study finding, which many papers quote.

Is the 0.355 within family figure accurate ? I have seen a 2022 paper where it says 0.15 within family estimate for iq.

Are these researchers delusional? The effect sizes are so small, that whether the person is male or female and demography (where the person lives) explains more than pgs.

If someone wants to know about genetic effects, the snp h2 is rigorous no ? Removing g x e interactions. Much better than twin studies where it just throws many other components into g.

Cant within family gwas tell us about variance due to genetics ? I guess it is the rigorous stuff. Assumptions dont really hold.