Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 638991615699976192
Prove that
@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***
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?