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!***