The "warring camps" framing is very overstated. Greenberg, who doesn't practice in this space, believes it to be a vital concern, but giants in the twin-study practitioner field freely cite GWAS results, including the EA studies.
A 2015 twin study result is basically a citation to the phlogiston era of polygenic population-wide genetic surveys. Heritability estimates of that vintage basically define away indirect genetic effects, which subsequent work appears to have very clearly established; the work now is on characterizing and bounding it, not asking whether it's real.
"Blog post looks biased" is not a good way to address this unless you actually practice in the space, like the author does, and are in conversation with other practitioners in the space, like the author is. You find lots of --- let's generally call them pop science writers --- knee-jerk responding to the new rounds of heritability numbers, but those same authors often wrote excitedly about how GWAS results would bolster their priors in the years before the results were published. It's worth paying attention to the backgrounds of the people writing about this stuff!
> "warring camps" framing is very overstated ... twin-study practitioner field freely cite GWAS results
Ok, good to know :-)
> the work now is on characterizing and bounding it
Using GWAS I suppose, ok.
> "Blog post looks biased" is not a good way ... but those same authors often wrote excitedly about how GWAS results would bolster their priors
Ok, yes I think I agree. ... Interesting
Thanks for keeping the original comment text. (I had a super quick glance at the blog post it mentioned, this one, right: https://theinfinitesimal.substack.com/p/book-review-eric-tur..., maybe will read at some point. "But Turkheimer sets a trap for GWAS Guys" (in the blog post) made me smile :-))
A few posts ago you were alluding to heritability in the 0.7-0.8 range, as a reason to dismiss the writings of Einstein, Newton, Descartes and Grothendieck.
Now you're at 0.44. If you discount for a mild EEA violation correction, you'd easily get to 0.3 or below — a figure which I personally find believable.
Just FYI, I don't belong to any "camp". These aren't camps but techniques and models. Intra-family GWAS provide underestimated lower bounds, twin studies provide wildly overestimated upper bounds. I don't care about the exact value, as long at it doesn't serve as a distraction from the (much more interesting!) story of how one can develop one's ability for mathematics.
In any case, IQ is a pretty boring construct, especially on the higher end where it's clearly uncalibrated. And it's a deep misunderstanding of mathematics to overestimate the role of "computational ability / short term memory / whatever" vs the particular psychological attitude and mental actions that are key to becoming better at math.
Now that the smoke screen has evaporated, can we please return to the main topic?
> A few posts ago you were alluding to heritability in the 0.7-0.8 range, as a reason to dismiss the writings of Einstein, Newton, Descartes and Grothendieck.
No. This is what I wrote:
"Back when they were active, intelligence, IQ tests and the heritability of intelligence hadn't been well studied. They didn't have enough information, like we do today: ... twin studies ..."
And now that changes to: "like we do today: ... GWAS (and twin studies) ...". The precise numbers were not the point.
> you'd easily get to 0.3 or below — a figure which I personally find believable
That's interesting. I thought you were closer to zero. Well, 0.3 or 0.7 or 0.2 -- it's a little bit all the same to me, as long as it's not 0 or 0.0001.
> I don't care about the exact value
Ok, makes sense :-)
> as long at it doesn't serve as a distraction
Aha, so that's why you didn't like 0.7 or 0.8 and reacted to it. Yes that's maybe a bit depressingly high numbers, in a way.
And I don't like 0 or close to 0 because that'd indicate that this animal species was "stuck".
> ... how one can develop one's ability for mathematics ... psychological attitude and mental actions that are key to becoming better at math
Yes, to becoming better. If you have time, I wonder what's the level of maths you think most people on the planet can reach? If everyone had the right encouragement, time and attitude.
- High school maths in economy and finance programs? (needed for example for accounting and running one's own business)
- The most advanced maths classes in high school if you study natural sciences?
- Technical mathematics or theoretical physics a few years at university?
- General theory of relativity?
I'm wondering if you're saying that just as long as someone starts early enough, they can reach the highest levels?
But then what about today's topic:
California's most neglected group of students: the gifted ones
Thank you for taking the time to comment here!