Lost in correlations, again. Sesardic has a great chapter on that. So, Peter Visscher's method generates a narrow heritability estimate that's not subject to these types of objections. It's a true estimate of the lower bounds of variance explained by additive genetics. That hasn't been getting through, I guess. For example, see "Does brain plasticity trump innateness?" a few post down. Does anyone know of a good critique of the Visscher method? Am I missing something.

For me, the most salient example of the usefulness of heritability research comes from examination of the heritability of IQ among children. Among high socioeconomic status families, the heritability tends to be high." If you look at studies from developing regions like Yunnan (PRC), you will see that the heritability of IQ is low in children too; but, by adulthood, it rises to .75. (It hopefully need not be said that if a lack of enriched environment had a lasting impact, then you would not have an adult heritability of 0.75 in these regions.)

"At first glance, there does indeed appear to be a paradox." Let's not forget that differences in brain plasticity themselves are partially under genetic control. As for rGE explanations for variance in traits like IQ, I don't by them. Why aren't GE correlations detected by multivariate analysis?

"buy" ben g, IQ is correlated with genes, brain volume, behavior, and the environment. An innatist model would say: genes --> brain volume --> IQ --> behavior --> environment. An rGE model would say: genes --> behavior --> environment ... or something along those lines with the environment mediating the relationship between genes and IQ/brain volume. One way to test the rGE model is to decompose the variance for IQ and brain volume and then look at the covariation. See the logic in Betjemann et al. "Genetic Covariation Between Brain Volumes and IQ, Reading Performance, and Processing Speed" or Leewenn et al "A genetic analysis of brain volumes and IQ in children."

"Personally, I find that spending too much time trying to partition variance precisely is a waste of time, as these figures are not biological constants but highly population-specific. The question is, biologically, what do these values mean? Gene x environment correlations are usually presented as two-hit models – the environmental factor only has an effect on people who are genetically vulnerable, for example. If the genes themselves are influencing the environment that people have, then that should show up as a genetic influence" I imagine that you don't spend any time trying to partition variance, so what you mean is that it's a waste of time for others to do so. Why would the population specific nature of heritability estimates make them worthless? Surely such estimates narrow the search for the cause of variance and point which way to look. Anyways, you might be interested in the following paper: Tal (2011) "The Impact of Gene–Environment Interaction and Correlation on the Interpretation of Heritability." It goes some way in (conceptually) clearing up the nature/nature x nurture debate. (Doesn't our discussing nature/nature x nurture instead of nature/nurture, say something about the utility of heritability estimates?)

"Calculating exactly what the percentages are in various populations doesn’t really help much – they are always going to be very rough estimates anyway. What I was trying to do here was show that experience can be affected by genetics, in individuals, in ways that tend to amplify initial differences." kjmtchl, According to Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy the consensus among philosophers of science (POS) is in agreement with you -- an ignominious distinction in my opinion : "There is something of a consensus in most fields (e.g. philosophy of biology, evolutionary biology, psychology and behavioral genetics) that heritability measures (particularly hb2 measures) only have a very limited use. The consensus among philosophers of biology is that broad heritability measures are uninformative but there are a few dissenting voices (e.g. Sesardic 1993 and 2005) (Heritability) I guess I am of Sesardic's mind in this matter. When it comes to heritability estimates there are two important questions related to the issue of "innateness": "Does broad heritability imply genetic causation?" and "Does high heritability imply environmental immalleability (give the range of environment prevalent during the time the estimates where made)?" The answer to these is dependent on whether the heritability estimates are "confounded" by gene-envrionement interactions and/or correlations. To the extent they are not, exact percentages are very informative. You can see an illustration of this here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/62132318/15/Lost-in-correlations-Direct-and-indirect-genetic-causes (Table 5.4 p.174, from Sesardic, Making Sense of Heritability.) Now, you are making the case that the estimates (frequently?) are: "The evidence on both sides is very strong. In general, for traits like intelligence and personality characteristics such as extraversion, neuroticism or conscientiousness, among many others, the findings from genetic studies are remarkably consistent.... I would argue that the effect of experience-dependent development is typically exactly the opposite....Our environment does not just shape us – we shape it." Here, you are referring to (active) GE correlations. Now my points would be: 1) Traits need to be evaluated on a one by one basis to determine the extent to which the genetic variance is independent of environmental variance. In the case of some traits, like IQ, the evidence suggests that the variance is mostly additive and therefore not a function of environmental amplification of the sort you seem to be thinking of. 2) Heritability estimates can be semi-informative as to the nature of possible GE correlations, since for there to be such correlations, genes need to be correlated with the environment. So, for example, if the shared environmental component (C) of an estimate is zero, as it is in the case of many traits, you can rule out, a priori, GE(c) correlations. 3) Even if there are signif
More....

"Maybe some rare language would be significantly more effective in using the bionic interface and those people would rule. What if I told the funniest joke in the world and everyone died laughing, except for those who did not understand? Has there every been a lingustic crisis in which language was the savior? Can anyone imagine a scenario in which a certain rare language might act as a mutant survival gene?" I can imagine a book about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash

is this Say's Law at work? supply creating its own demand?  
 
if fat chicks can't find clothes that fit them, that's another incentive for them to lose weight.

Eugene makes a very good point. This is a small sample and purely anecdotal, but I drive through Oklahoma to Texas often and have noticed that there are no porn outfits on I-35 or I-44. This contrasts Texas where porn stores on highways are relatively common. In this study, Oklahoma has higher porn subscription than Texas.

The Darwin fish is aggressive? What about the bumper stickers that say, roughly, "If you don't believe in Hell, when you die, YOU'D BETTER BE RIGHT!" Those last words are written in a crackling fire font indicating the unbeliever will be roasted on the eternal barbecue pit by a demented god who would roast someone FOREVER for making an honest decision about belief using the brain that God supposedly gave him or her.

Another thought. I honestly don't have quantifiable proof but I would suggest that many who sport Jesus fish on their cars also subscribe to the conservative notion that there's too much whining and hypersensitivity in our culture. Honestly, isn't it being just a little hypersensitive to take umbrage at some good natured ribbing using a well-known symbol? Besides, I don't think Christians should be above reproach. Most of them will not hesitate to criticize atheists, agnostics and freethinkers with unsparing severity. Remember that George Bush the Elder, for example, opined that perhaps atheists should not even be considered to be American citizens.

We see crosses, bumper stickers like I mentioned, WWJD key chains and other such symbols ad nauseam. Are those who hold opposing viewpoints to be begrudged a few symbolic representations of their viewpoint?

Am I to understand that, unless the Christians have a 100% monopoly on expressing their viewpoint, then they are being ruthlessly victimized? Will a few Darwin fishies hurt that badly? Do they make Christians the equivalent of St. Justin Martyr?

I plan to print up a bumper sticker of my own that says “No Jesus – Know Peace, Know Jesus – No Peace.” The First Amendment to the Constitution allows me to do this sort of thing with impunity, but if this nation ever becomes a theocracy…well, I’m not so sure.

I couldn't agree more, godlesscapitalist. I've always said if I'm ever appointed a judge (guffaw!!) that I'll adorn my courtroom with inverted crosses, crucifixes in bottles of urine, Satanic Pentagrams and other such like things. Should somebody not like this, I'll just defy whatever injunctions are applied. After all, it's just some stupid court blathering about the Constitution. Why should we pay any attention to that? Moreover, the idea of holding Black Sabbath rituals during the school day “moment of silence” has been repeated often enough that I know further explanation of this is unnecessary.

Christians and other religious types make up the vast majority of the populace here in the USA. In some places like my own Oklahoma City the church density is almost enough to initiate nuclear fission. Christians enjoy the privilege of broadcasting their message in countless media outlets from radio to billboards to cable TV and I’m sure if I could stand the smell I’d uncover quite a lot of it on the Internet as well. And even if you don’t go to church, often the church will come to you as I can personally testify by being awakened at the ungodly hour of 12:00 noon on Sundays by well-dressed and I’m sure well-meaning proselytizers who want to push pamphlets at me about how I’d better shape up or burn in Hell all the while I’m rubbing the sleep out of my bleary eyes trying desperately to focus on these indecently spic and span do-gooders. Do I get all bent out of shape that our money has printed on it paeans to the Almighty which are meaningless to me? Nah! Who gives a rat’s behind as long as the stuff spends?

Atheists have lived for many, many years with innumerable messages broadcast at them to the effect that they’re less than acceptable as citizens and human beings. Now this is something to be justifiably angry about. If I may indulge in a little pretension here, let me make like Martin Luther King Jr. and declare that I have a dream that one day I will have a conversation with a zealous Christian and tell him or her that I’m an atheist and the Christian will not immediately adopt the attitude that there’s something wrong with me that needs to be changed and not even concede the possibility that maybe s/he’s the one in error. I have a feeling this will remain a dream for the remainder of my lifetime but I still hold out hope.

I will admit to you that I was once the kind of person I now disparage. I once did get bent out of shape over the fact we have “under god” in the pledge of allegiance and “In God We Trust” on our money. Who’s to say I’m still not struggling with some of this now? But what I’m learning in my personal voyage of discovery is what liberals have been saying since the Pleistocene and that’s that, instead of getting angry, use your own voice and speak out! I think the nex
More....

I don't doubt there are racists. All you have to do is a little surfing to uncover a treasure trove of hate sites. Once the term was useful to delegitimize bigotry but now it seems to be used willy-nilly without thought. This is unfortunate because I believe it undermines some of the genuinely positive elements of liberal thought.

Once the left very effectively scored rhetorical points by the observation that some people looked for Communists under every rock. Now it seems the left seeks racists under every rock. How sad.