[Dylan16807]

> I think if you read the thread history you'll see that I said nothing of the sort.

You said "the sort we have numbers from peer-reviewed articles on" is "not genetically causal". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45624902

That's not true. There is peer-reviewed evidence for genetic causation.

[tptacek]

I don't know what you think that means, but if you took "peer reviewed evidence" from the 1990s as scientific truth, you'd arrive at an answer that is outside the mainstream of even hereditarian scientists today. Further, things like twin studies can't be evidence of genetic causation. I gave an example of why not upthread.

I think we are way too deep in the weeds for this to be productive, and we're the only two people reading this. If it wasn't clear, I was trying 1-2 exchanges ago to find an off-ramp for this. I'm not telling you what to believe, I'm just saying that twin study heritability statistics don't settle the question. We should be able to agree comfortably there.

[Dylan16807]

Some of the studies linked are from the last ten years, but whatever I think we've explained our positions well enough at this point and there's not much use in continuing.

[tptacek]

(I inadvertently edited my comment after you wrote yours --- I just forgot to hit the "update" button. The first graf is the same, but the second graf appeared on the thread after you wrote yours. Just for the record, for anybody that might happen to read this.)

Have a good weekend!