> - The most surprising result for me is that across all the traits they compiled, the heritability is 49%. Which is much much lower than I would have expected.
But much much higher than almost all people would believe.
And the fact that all studied traits in all categories were found to have a significant degree of heritability strongly suggests that where groups obviously differ in traits that are easily visible, a similar degree of group difference in non-visible traits is to be expected.
This does not follow at all, because there is no evidence for any master mechanism that would correlate the group average of one trait with another. So simply because a group can be clustered by one trait there is no reason to expect they will differ from the population average in others.
For example, if you were to sort the population the length of their pinky finger, and then look at two groups of people, one the longest-pinky quintile and one the shortest, there is nothing in this study that would suggest those two groups would have different resting heart rates. This is true even though we can assume on the basis of this work that both pinky length and resting heart rate are about 50% heritable.
The only way they would be correlated would be if there was a single selection mechanism for both, and given that visible traits and non-visible traits tend to have completely different selection mechinisms you'd have to show positively and directly by experiment that such a common mechanism existed in any given case.
Ab initio there is simply no basis for the claim any random non-visible traits like resting heart rate will have different group averages for groups that are segregated from the general population by any random visible characteristics like pinky length.
No, the grouping I'm talking about is not by some arbitrary trait but by genetic relatedness. Two groups with recent common ancestry within the group and only distant common ancestry across groups.
Genetic similarity is the "master mechanism that would correlate the group average of one trait with another."
Ah ... you think so gwern? I would assume that most people would think that twins are incredibly similar. Or maybe I'm in an echo chamber and need to get out more.
> > The most surprising result for me is that across all the traits they compiled, the heritability is 49%. Which is much much lower than I would have expected.
> But much much higher than almost all people would believe.
People's casual usage of the term heritability doesn't match the way it's used in scientific contexts. For instance, people wouldn't normally say that the trait of "being a slave" is explained by genetics, but the heritability (in the technical sense) of being a slave in the mid 1800's USA was rather high.
> but the heritability (in the technical sense) of being a slave in the mid 1800's USA was rather high.
No, it wouldn't be. Monozygotic black twins would have the exact same chance as dizygotic black twins of being slaves, and slavery would cluster in families, with whole families tending to be free or slave, leading to very high shared/nonshared environment estimates.
Actually, "heritability" in the scientific context can be counterintuitive sometimes. I'd bet that the heritability of slavery in the 19th century was actually pretty low - I wouldn't imagine that monozygotic twin pairs are any more/less likely to be be slaves than same-sex dizygotic counterparts. Indeed, the majority of variation of the "is a slave" phenotype would be due to environment as slaves get set free.
Think of a trait like hair colour in East Asians. Having black hair is completely determined by genes, but heritability is pretty much zero since (with maybe a few extreme exceptions) variation in hair colour in that population is entirely environmental (use of hair dyes, etc.). In Europeans however, heritability is probably much higher due to greater variation in hair colour.