8 Comments
User's avatar
David Sepkoski's avatar

Why did you cite flawed twin studies, then? How are you any better than Arthur Jensen?

Expand full comment
Simone Hochgreb's avatar

Brilliant, thank you! Really like the comics.

Expand full comment
Ian Simbotin's avatar

You couldn't get it published in Nurture... so, you published it in Nature. That's okay.

Expand full comment
Jay Joseph's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Nick Tordoff's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Jacob Lea's avatar

Wonderful stuff

Expand full comment
Gary Amer's avatar

Thank you for the clear description of most of the true story

Expand full comment
Ngm's avatar

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.

Expand full comment