NancyLebovitz comments on Review: Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids - LessWrong

17 Post author: jsalvatier 29 May 2012 06:00PM

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

Comments (257)

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

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 30 May 2012 05:59:39AM 4 points [-]

Also, twins share their uterine environment.

This wouldn't apply to IVF twins reared apart, but I doubt there's much of that in the studies.

Comment author: taw 30 May 2012 10:23:13AM 2 points [-]

As we know from natural experiment of Dutch famine of 1944 mother's health is extremely important. This brief event had significant effects on two generations.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 30 May 2012 01:29:48PM 1 point [-]

I get the impression that multi-generational effects don't get into the popular press much. I'm guessing that people don't want to think about problems which would take a long time to get better.

Do you know whether two generations was enough to undo all the effects of the famine?

Comment author: tut 05 June 2012 03:55:06PM 1 point [-]

...whether two generations was enough to undo all the effects of the famine?

It didn't.

Comment author: gjm 30 May 2012 08:28:11AM 2 points [-]

Why's that relevant, when the question is what parents can change by how they treat their children? (It would be highly relevant if the question were "how much of these differences are genetic?", but on this occasion it isn't.)

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 30 May 2012 01:25:46PM *  0 points [-]

I'm addressing the piece taw linked to, which was about flaws in studies of twins separated at birth.

Some degree of topic drift is normal here. Have you been in venues where all comments are supposed to address the original topic?

Comment author: gjm 30 May 2012 03:48:46PM 1 point [-]

No, I have no problem at all with topic drift. It just wasn't clear to me that that was what had happened. My apologies for any unnecessary confusion.

Comment author: taw 30 May 2012 10:19:45AM 0 points [-]

Caplan's arguments are totally wrong, it doesn't make his thesis wrong. I'd expect his thesis to be very likely to be at least mostly correct.