Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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 peo…
Re: Why The Pentagon run the best schools and the safest nuclear program
#101Some 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.