Post up the study invalidating additivity

>sociology

LOL

why do the twins have similar results?

All you have is variance, @Nerthulas

@BabygottBach

Exactly

@Nerthulas it conflicts with his world view so he has to invent some random "sociological mechanism" he cant explain

Sociology is literal Frankfurt School shit

```One of the most interesting developmental findings about intelligence is that its heritability as estimated in twin studies increases dramatically from infancy (20%) to childhood (40%) to adulthood (60%), while age-to-age genetic correlations are consistently high43,44. What could account for this increasing heritability despite unchanging age-to-age genetic correlations? Twin studies suggest that genetic effects are amplified through gene–environment correlation as time goes by45. That is, the same large set of DNA variants affects intelligence from childhood to adulthood, resulting in high age-to-age genetic correlations, but these DNA variants increasingly have an impact on intelligence as individuals select environments correlated with their genetic propensities, leading to greater heritability of intelligence.

Developmental hypotheses about high age-to-age genetic correlations and increasing heritability can be tested more rigorously and can be extended using GPS. Does the variance explained by GPS for intelligence increase from childhood to adolescence to adulthood? Are the correlations between GPS at these ages consistently high?```

They have identified many intelligence involved genes

Additivity is correlating with performance

if the twins have similar results in different environments, and that's broadly consistent across studies, then it must be heritable @BabygottBach

what else could be happening?

can you explain?

And you come in with a "maybe this or that" to counter actual positive data

`These are valid concerns – because genetics are rarely accounted for in sociological research on parental, neighborhood, and school influences on children, if genetic factors are related to shared environments and the outcomes, genetic confounding is a possibility. Because sociological and other social science research frequently concludes that these social environments are major determinants of educational prospects in early childhood (Alexander, et al., 2007, Fryer and Levitt, 2006, KewalRamani, et al., 2007), adolescence (Camara and Schmidt, 1999, Hedges and Nowell, 1999, Kobrin, et al., 2007) and beyond (Elman and O'Rand, 2004, Roscigno and Ainsworth-Darnell, 1999), it is important for sociological researchers to critically examine this literature to evaluate its conclusions.`

I don't care about naked theory

@Nerthulas it cant be the case that things could be heritable because that would be racist

@TheUserNameofPeace, have you actually looked into the sociological side?

therefore it must be something else

@BabygottBach yes

Or are you only familiar with the behavioral geneticist side?

I'm sorry you're majoring in sociology

Nice!

We're going to eliminate it

You've got no argument against the sociologists

@BabygottBach

Sociology has what 80 percent replication crisis

Lmao

Sociology has a huge body of evidence that IQ is social

@Deleted User, so does genetics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_heritability_problem

(((huge body of evidence)))

we've addressed this please stop posting it

that's dishonest

`The exponential fall in genome sequencing costs led to the use of GWAS studies which could simultaneously examine all candidate-genes in larger samples than the original finding, where the candidate-gene hits were found to almost always be false positives and only 2-6% replicate;[7][8][`

😄

Have you addressed this passage?

@BabygottBach

Epistasis is biologically real but generally insignificant for selection purposes
https://t.co/tPjSuuDw13?amp=1