= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Azathoth123 comments on Open thread, September 8-14, 2014 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (295)
Keep in mind that the outside view of biological complexity is that
Or to phrase this another way:
I don't think the outside view is relevant here. We have coming up on a century of twin studies and behavioral genetics and very motivated people coming up with possibilities for problems, and so far the traditional estimates are looking pretty good: for example, when people go and look at genetics directly, the estimates for simple additive heritability look very similar to the traditional estimates. The other day offered an example of a SNP study confirming the estimates from twin studies, "Substantial SNP-based heritability estimates for working memory performance", Vogler et al 2014. If all these complexities were real and serious problems and the Outside View advises us to be skeptical, why do we keep finding the SNP/GCTA estimates look exactly like we would have predicted?
Ok, I confess I have no idea what SNP and GCTA are. As for the study Lumifer linked to, Razib Khan's analysis of it is that it suggests intelligence is a complex polygenetic trait. This should not be surprising as it is certainly an extremely complex trait in terms of phenotype.