>No, it's not. There is no reason whatsoever that there has to be a positive manifold
Yes, there is. You didn't understand Taleb and Shalizi's point obviously. Look at the tweet.
>This ignores the enormous number of correlations (and causality, via PGSes in within-family settings) with everything from brain volume to longevity, and also the fact that adding education as a mediation does not eliminate those correlations. The only circularity here are the strawmans you are erecting.
"Adding education as a mediation" does a lot of work in this sentence here.
>The heritability of longevity is actually quite low. You should think about why your thought experiment didn't work.
Where in the world did I mention longevity?
>Birney is deeply ignorant.
Lol, so the head of the most prestigious center for genetics in the world is ignorant. Is Graham Coop ignorant as well? How many genomics professors are ignorant then? Also you didn't even bother to research what he actually said. He protested in response to the disillusion about GWASes from the community (again, we're talking about the community of academic geneticists with a PhD in biology, not social scientists or psychologists) and he was in favor of some of their predictive power.
>No, you don't. This is an extremely narrow conception of things.
Yes, you do. You have obviously never stepped in a single genetics lab or done any actual academic research if you think otherwise. That's how genetics works: you've got to show a genetic mechanism to show something is genetic. It's like the "all biologists are from Missouri" thing. GWASes suggest things, they may nudge in a direction, but they do not prove. This is like basic stuff.
>Preferring a specific type of fat in cooking is no more ludicrous than, say, preferring tea to coffee (which is heritable and the GWAS works fine for).
It's absolutely ridiculous and if you don't think otherwise I don't know what to tell you. The fact that you can GWAS for literally anything should be evidence against their predictive power, not for it.
>Passerbys should take into consideration the quality of evidence being cited by this throwaway account, and to what extent they appear to have not read a truly gigantic amount on the subject, when they read sweeping descriptions of what 'academic geneticists' think etc.
I use throwaway accounts because I can't be bothered to remember my password for this site. And, in case it wasn't obvious, and anyone may feel free to believe me or not: I happen to do genomics research for a living. It's literally my job, and I interact, for better or for worse, with hundreds of similarly minded people who do similar things. I didn't bother to read psych papers from 1983 but I do know the mainstream consensus, in 2019, in the genomics community (again, not in the social sciences).
>Results from SSGAC etc are extremely mainstream. They are published in Nature and similar outlets. Papers use IQ/EDU PGSes and the genetic correlations all the time for many purposes. Look at the reverse citations for papers like Okbay or Selzam. 'laughed out of the room' indeed!
Again, SSGAC is a social science institute. And again, doing a bunch of GWASes to "predict" (the word is used loosely) social outcomes is not how actual biology works. No, rallying behind the magic card "but I controlled for things!" does not work either. Biologists now how complicated things can be and are very hesitant to put forward causal mechanisms behind even minor, uncontroversial traits unless they're absolutely sure of what they're doing, and it usually involves tremendous amounts of money and often new technologies. That a bunch of social science guys put forward such very bold conclusions (involving, once again, a very distorted meaning of the word "predict") without batting an eye should tell you more about the researchers' bias than the "insight" they purported to discover.
Again, you just try to get a talk at the Biology of Genomes in CSHL or at the EMBL about the heritability of preference for cooking oil, see how that works.