0
You don't sound mean, I try to be nice, but it's difficult when comprehension of the text is limited. I repeated myself because what I said is perfectly sufficient for the specific discussion, and I wanted to reiterate it. I told you that Bouchard's study may have serious methodological imperfections, I do not deny some of Jay Joseph's criticisms such as that for some of the twins the separation was only partial, but this does not deny that for another part of the twins, the separation was instead total, or in any case part of the sample was sufficiently separated to ensure that a shared environmental effect, if present, should at least emerge. Dimmed compared to the real one due to the aforementioned imperfections, but it should emerge. Instead, as in the example I've attached to you on sexual conservatism and militarism, the shared environmental effect is exactly zero. This occurs consistently for the other traits as well. But again, you are treating Bouchard's study as if it were central to the discussion, when it isn't. If you object to the argument I make, you need to criticize the mountain of studies on twins raised together and adoptee studies demonstrating zero shared environmental impact, not Bouchard's study, which is just an addendum. And unless it's outright fraud (which would make no difference to my conclusion), any of Jay Joseph's methodological critiques of Bouchard's study (I know them) don't debunk the expectation that twins raised apart should have a correlation on average at least subtly lower than twins raised together if environment counted as sustained in popular fiction, instead the impact is absolute zero.
Just go to https://match.ctglab.nl/ and look up the heritability of gene expression to realize that epigenetics itself is genetically predetermined for the vast majority, and transient environmental factors certainly explain much of the small environmental variance identified, and therefore the stable and real heritability is probably higher than the one already reported, which is very high.
You said that I did not criticize Bouchard's study, but I have already told you several times that I recognize some of Jay Joseph's criticisms and that I am focusing the discussion on the research as a whole and not on the work of an individual researcher, therefore I am not focusing much discussion on it.
I have replied to you every single point you have made to show you that it in no way debunks what I am arguing, just this.
Obviously I'm not keeping the argument rigorous that much, otherwise I would never finish writing and attaching links.
Bookmarks