This week we published a big paper about nature and nurture, genes and socio-economic status. We think it’s important and deserves a broad audience, so here it is in graphic novel format.
The paper cites reared-together twin IQ studies based on the implausible assumption that MZ and DZ twin environments are "equal." Thomas Bouchard (who is cited) omitted DZ-apart control group data to find above-zero "IQ heritability" in his 1990 "reared-apart" twin study. False assumptions, p-hacked omission of key data, and spurious/non-causal GWAS hits help create the illusion that the rich and powerful got that way because of their superior genes. The comics merely reproduce this fallacy in a different format.
This looks like hardcore hereditarian garbage to me, co-authored with a guy who retweets Richard Haier and attends ISIR conferences and gives interviews to Razib Khan. I thought Adam Rutherford was better than this.
The authors say that it may be hard to translate their results across populations.
So while their results may be valid for the population of America, that doesn't mean that they translate to the population of , say, Australia, or Canada.
I was wondering how Richard Reeves “Glass Floor” phenomenon would play into this. Logically it should act as a counterweight, introducing social barriers to protect less talented members of a particular social stratum.
Brilliant, thank you! Really like the comics.
Why did you cite flawed twin studies, then? How are you any better than Arthur Jensen?
You couldn't get it published in Nurture... so, you published it in Nature. That's okay.
Wonderful stuff
The paper cites reared-together twin IQ studies based on the implausible assumption that MZ and DZ twin environments are "equal." Thomas Bouchard (who is cited) omitted DZ-apart control group data to find above-zero "IQ heritability" in his 1990 "reared-apart" twin study. False assumptions, p-hacked omission of key data, and spurious/non-causal GWAS hits help create the illusion that the rich and powerful got that way because of their superior genes. The comics merely reproduce this fallacy in a different format.
This looks like hardcore hereditarian garbage to me, co-authored with a guy who retweets Richard Haier and attends ISIR conferences and gives interviews to Razib Khan. I thought Adam Rutherford was better than this.
There should be a word of caution here.
The authors say that it may be hard to translate their results across populations.
So while their results may be valid for the population of America, that doesn't mean that they translate to the population of , say, Australia, or Canada.
Further research is needed!
Wow! This is a fantastic article, which explains why genetic differences and difference in life prospects and success are so deeply intertwined.
I was wondering how Richard Reeves “Glass Floor” phenomenon would play into this. Logically it should act as a counterweight, introducing social barriers to protect less talented members of a particular social stratum.
Thank you for the clear description of most of the true story