On Nov 22, 2007, at 1:37 PM, Miles Jackson wrote:
> I'm not sure if I understand the distinction. If something is
> influenced by genetics, then it is heritable by definition. (Genetic
> transmission is the basis of heritability.)
Of course; I know the basics of genetics. But there is enormous variation between parents and children, and from one sibling to another. It's a big leap from comparing twins to comparing other kinds of relatives, even first-degree ones.
> Here's the chain of reasoning: if genetics has nothing to do with IQ
> performance, then the correlation in IQ scores between biological
> parents and the children they have no contact with should be zero.
> The
> observed correlation is around .20. Yes, I agree that this is a
> relatively weak predictive relationship; however, it does exist. This
> does provide some evidence for genetic influence.
Ok, .20. That was my guess. That's well above 0, but it still leaves 80% of the story to be explained. For popular consumption, it's barely worth talking about.
This genetics shit is getting sinister in pop culture. The NYT's Amy Harmon has now gotten her genome done and she's looking to explain her life with it. This level of determinism seems almost un-American.
Doug