I don't know what previous commenter you're referring to.
You wrote this, to the parent I replied to.
tptacek 14 days ago | parent | prev | next [–]
Every time someone here mentions the heritability of IQ, I
wonder what they think that term means, because it clearly
does not mean what most people intuitively think it does.
The "issue" you are talking about has already been addressed ; it is not something that has an effect large enough to be relevant, at least for a small number of generations. We could talk about the very long-term effects, and the necessity of territory/environment control but that's an even more politically loaded subject and it doesn't change what I say.
You seemed even more confused about probability than you think I am about genetics, even if you lack that intuition, it does not make its effect go away.
Then again, since you seemd to have "forgotten" a previous comment of yours, I am inclined to think that you are either arguing in bad faith or don't really understand what you are saying.
I would be happy to argue those things with a trained geneticist but since my argument is probabilistic it wouldn't even matter that much. Research seems to say the same thing I do, abeit with a lot more politicaly correct wrapping.
What effect size are you talking about? The heritability effect size? What is the "effect size" of a simple ratio of genetic variance to trait variance? What confounding effect do you think I'm suggesting to you?
You wrote this, to the parent I replied to.
The "issue" you are talking about has already been addressed ; it is not something that has an effect large enough to be relevant, at least for a small number of generations. We could talk about the very long-term effects, and the necessity of territory/environment control but that's an even more politically loaded subject and it doesn't change what I say. You seemed even more confused about probability than you think I am about genetics, even if you lack that intuition, it does not make its effect go away.Then again, since you seemd to have "forgotten" a previous comment of yours, I am inclined to think that you are either arguing in bad faith or don't really understand what you are saying. I would be happy to argue those things with a trained geneticist but since my argument is probabilistic it wouldn't even matter that much. Research seems to say the same thing I do, abeit with a lot more politicaly correct wrapping.