@BabygottBach I already defeated you

Show proof of that claim

You are just dogmatic

Won't change

No you haven't

Set piece

Your dogma is literally "sociology bad"

no proof

You haven't read any of the studies

you can't address the studies directly

Why are twin, separated at birth, so similar in every respect?

You still haven't confronted this

All you have are parthetic, pitiful, ad hom attacks on sociology

we show that many characteristics of objectively shared environments significantly moderate the effects of nonshared environments on adolescent academic achievement and verbal intelligence, violating the additivity assumption of behavioral genetic methods.

Oh my

this doesn't make any sense to me

nice deflection

***Separated at birth***

Your study is arguing that environment has a real effect, not that genetics dont

Nice deflection @TheUserNameofPeace

I've brought this up, as have others, dozens of times

Dozens

You just ignore

where's your devastating critique of the sociological studies

` Using monozygotic twin fixed effects models, which compare outcomes among genetically identical pairs, we show that many characteristics of objectively shared environments significantly moderate the effects of nonshared environments on adolescent academic achievement and verbal intelligence, violating the additivity assumption of behavioral genetic methods. `

I'm proving the opposite

there's your fucking sociological explanation

That genes are heritable and playing the major role

how can an (environment) moderating the effects of an (environment) on intelligence measures violate the additivity assumption of (genetics)?

can you answer this for me please?

Objectively shared environments moderate the effects of nonshared environment

Why don't you

READ

THE STUDY

those are both environments

Tell me what you think is wrong with it

at this point, I've not read the study

you've not read the study

how can an environment moderating the effect of another environment cause the genetic additivity to be broken?

^^^

**crickets**

@BabygottBach And twins separated at birth are experienced some rather big UNSHARED ENVIRONMENTS.
Yet, they are incredibly more similar to one another than a random sampling from their Shared Environment.

`he Additivity Assumption
Another key assumption in these models is that the variance in a given outcome may be decomposed additively. In contrast, high profile work in the last ten years has suggested that many individual-level outcomes are the results of gene-environment interaction processes (Boardman, 2009, Caspi, et al., 2003), which cannot be directly accounted for in this framework.`

That's points to genes and heritability

Please

Not only for IQ

For disposition

get fucked

Sociability

etc etc

Sexual orientation

Religiosity

All fucking of

That torpedoes your entire thesis

There's your additivity assumption.

Game over

You lost

Except there's also OBJECTIVE AND EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTS, @TheUserNameofPeace

Now, go get the shitlib off yoruself and become a based Chi-comm man

@Markomann jf was on a stream earlier where he defends incels and analyzes alex mineraians police confession 😄

MMW

WMM

we all know you incel researcher

you're a scholar

its an important field of study

it was his job to defend them

@TheUserNameofPeace

no, it was on a different show

It's adorable that you think you won

Now debunk this

@BabygottBach No

Same community

Fail

Twins

how is this a valid point

Pick random two people

Didn't read?

Compare

Guess you didn't read

Pick Twin and One person randomly

because they needed someone to take up the opposing side in a discussion about incels

Compare

yo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQLl4xRsuvo

Pick Twin and Twin separated at birth

you can compare monozygotic and dizygotic twins

They are remarkably more similiar

What's an objective shared environment and what's an effective shared environment

the difference is purely genetic at a lower bound

Good addition from Fug

yes 😄

Lmao, your PFP looks so different that I didn't immediately recognize you as MMW either.

its funny how these people all rationalize the same

a right wing creationist, a left wing biodiversity denier

yw

@fuguer, it's funny how you think the shared environment hypothesis is true

All points to the thesis of genes and those genes determining/influencing IQ and all sorts of other behaviors being heritable

they throw their integrity and ability to reason out the window if it goes against preconceived and cherished beliefs

its sad

I lost my pfp after playing dress up

but to err is human

It must be on some backup drive

it shows we're not rational beings by nature, we have to fight for it

You haven't addressed the homogenizing assumption, @fuguer

It is you who isn't rational

so now I'm a megadeath mineshaft planner

yes i have

Now address it

No

i just addressed it

you haven't

Nope

darth dawkins?

explain to me the difference @fuguer

monozygotic vs dizygotic twin

Do you even know what the effective and objective shared environment is?

Nope

That's not what it is

Go on, liar

tell me what the two are

ad hominem?

Since you apparently debunked it

Nope

Your sociology is weak son

that's not rational

Not an ad hom

it's a personal attack

I'm accusing you of being a liar

Bringing sociology into a science fight is like bringing a wet noodle to a nuclear battlefield

You claim to have addressed the homogenizing assuption

@TheUserNameofPeace, ad hom, damn

imagine being this pathetic

Your field is worthless

can't address the sociologists, can only ad hom

Good stuff

Only CIA sociologist who dgaf are worth anything

Your miserable worm

you can read this paper

You lost bro

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16790150

My twin setup is iron clad

So far, you've provided not a single claim against the sociologists

Nope

It covers all your points

Homogenizing assumption blows your twins out the fucking water

sorry bro

In the classic twin design, estimation of genetic and environmental effects is based on the assumption that environmental influences are shared to the same extent by monozygotic and dizygotic twins (equal environment assumption, EEA). We explore the conditions in which the EEA can be tested based on multivariate phenotypic data. We focus on the test whether the correlation between shared environmental factors in dizygotic twins (r(C)) is less than 1. First, model identification was investigated analytically in Maple and Mx. Second, statistical power was examined in Mx. Third, the amount of bias caused by violation of the EEA was evaluated. Finally, applications to empirical data concern spatial ability in adolescents and aggression in children. Bivariate and trivariate models include several instances in which the EEA can be tested. The number of twin pairs that is needed to detect violation of the EEA with a statistical power of .80 (alpha = .05) varied between 508 and 3576 pairs for the situations considered. The bias in parameter estimates, given misspecification, ranged from 5% to 34% for additive genetic effects, and from 4% to 34% for shared environmental effects. Estimates of the nonshared environmental effects were not biased. The EEA was not violated for spatial ability or aggression. Multivariate data provide sufficient information to test the validity of the EEA. The number of twin pairs that is needed is no greater than the number typically available in most twin registries. The analysis of spatial ability and aggression indicated no detectable violation of the EEA.

And proves the gene/heritability position

this is settled science

EEA is violated with power of 80%

@fuguer nope

how can you say that without reading the paper?

that quote makes no distinction between objective and effective shared environments

@BabygottBach how does the difference between the objective and the effective shared and nonshared environments mean that IQ is not heritable?

Tell me, what is the difference?

Because the two are conflated by classic twin models

Classic twin models ASSUME that nongene sources that make twins more similar are ALSO the shared environmental factors of those twins.

This is the homogenizing assumption

and how does the fact that they're conflated by the models mean that IQ is not heritable?

do you understand the difference between monozygotic and dizygotic twins?

I know the difference

i am not sure you do

Identical vs fraternal

Mono has 100%

Di has 50 of shared genes

Now

Do YOU know the difference between objectiv and effective shared environments?

so if identical twins have higher correlation on certain features than fraternal twins, what hypothesis are consistent with this observation?

I know your position

You don't know mine

@BabygottBach Yours is weaker

idk, i must have missed that part @Markomann

To the point of not even having utility

i know you're position its the last vestige of every science denier

i don't know about that.

Nice strawman

Ie it's false

In comparison

You are denying science right now

you create some false dilemma based on semantics and psuedoscience

Yep

It's sad the level of projection going on here

it's okay

Sometimes you have to read some sociology

lmao

then please explain how monozygotic and dizygotic twins differe in their objective and effective shared environments?

Your religious texts

under the effective lens, the shared environment relates to the 'similarity of the siblings' whatever that means, and the unshared environment relates to anything which makes the siblings dissimilar - under the objective lens, the shared environment relates to the environment shared by siblings, ie. the home environment and parenting, whereas the unshared environment relates to twins personal lives and lives outside of home @BabygottBach

@fuguer they don't need to differ.

can you please stop asking me what the difference is?

are you satisfied that I know?

Good

Now the two are conflated by twin studies

if neither of the environments differ, yet the correlation differs, then the difference does need to be genetic in origin

okay, so can you explain to me how the conflation of these two means that IQ isn't heritable?

They conflate the effective and the objective.

yes

ok

some of them

Because the two are not the same.

therefore...

it doesnt matter if theyre the same or not

therefore what

if you compare monozygotic with dizygotic

why does that mean intelligence isn't heritable

Therefore the founding assumption of twin studies is wrong.

it doesn't mean that

@BabygottBach I don't know the difference. Explain.

ok i guess we cant learn anything from twin studies

it casts DOUBT upon the methodology

@Markomann
Is it grammatically correct to say:
- "Er ist noch nicht fertig" or
- "Er ist nicht noch fertig" or
- "Er ist nicht fertig noch"

let all the scientists know

EXACTLY

YOU CAN'T LEARN ANYTHING FROM TWIN STUDIES

theyre dumb and babygottbach has it all figured out

DING DING DING

ok so it doesn't mean that intelligence isn't heritable, and you can't explain why it would...

ok thanks i heard all i need to

so why are you bringing it up?

Intelligence could very well be heritable

but twin studies aren't the way to show it

but you know sociology

that's a hard science

screencapped this

by your own standards, you can't just anything from sociology, because we don't understand it all

not in the same way that twin studies are faulty

but you can't explain why the fact that they conflate objective and effective environmental lenses (which is something I have never heard of btw) means that they don't prove heritability

Until they address their conflation

why does that fault mean that they can't show heritability?

***All holy tabula rasa. Defend at all costs against the unwashed biological realist. Praise Adorno! Praise Horkheimer!***

its not their job to address it

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4919929/

Twin studies are a special type of epidemiological studies designed to measure the contribution of genetics as opposed to the environment, to a given trait. Despite the facts that the classical twin studies are still being guided by assumptions made back in the 1920s and that the inherent limitation lies in the study design itself, the results suggested by earlier twin studies have often been confirmed by molecular genetic studies later. Use of twin registries and various innovative yet complex software packages such as the (SAS) and their extensions (e.g., SAS PROC GENMOD and SAS PROC PHREG) has increased the potential of this epidemiological tool toward contributing significantly to the field of genetics and other life sciences.

Because there are effective shared environments that aren't objective shaed.

its your job to explain why it means they don't show heritability

look

have you used SAS? I have

if two families ar enot the same genetically

I have not

then groups already exist

ok you've said that like fifty times and I painstakingly wrote out something explaining to you that I understand that @BabygottBach

I've actually done statistical analysis on genetic microarrays in SAS

because of genetic bottlenecks

what I'm asking is why that means that the studies don't prove heritability

can you explain that

?

what you're saying doesnt make sense to people who actually do science