Emile comments on Open thread for December 17-23, 2013 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: ciphergoth 17 December 2013 08:45PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (301)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (301)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Emile 31 December 2013 11:52:12AM 1 point [-]

Since everybody in this subthread is talking about the numbers without mentioning them, from Wikipedia:

Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance [of sexual orientation], the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and .64–.66 for unique environmental factors.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 02 January 2014 11:17:55PM 3 points [-]

Numbers like ".34–.39" imply great precision. In fact, that is not a confidence interval, but two point estimates based on different definitions. The 95% confidence interval does not exclude 0 genetic contribution. I'm getting this from the paper, table 1, on page 3 (77), but I find implausible the transformation of that raw data into those conclusions.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit