/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11524016
Hey ho ol' dandy chap, a quite splendorous post but I do wish to humbly point out a few things my poor genes have noted:

>Of course, none of this would surprise you if you understood the nature of expression, and that is phenotype. The interaction between the genotype and the envirotype, nature and nurture are inseparable.

My poor genetics won't allow me to understand
Never said they were not linked, but then what is your point here?

Quotes are fine but as
>>11526586
This is indeed a strand of an interpretation of an ideology; The anon you replied to, wished to sully Plomin's research by implying his own comprehension is what Plomin states.

As the author of your supposed main cited text himself states, "Dr. Haier":
>Genes are not deterministic; as much as they are probabilistic
-In that he elaborates that his findings and future findings with genes and intelligence, may allow our species as a whole, to help raise intelligence.

He does, as you and we cite, not remove environmental factors and gene interplay esp. nutrition and wealth and socio-economic factors.
He certainly does not state
>There is an intelligence gene
or comment on
>>11525730
>But muh Race

Further, back to Plomin and Deary,

>For some areas of behavioural research—especially in psychiatry—the pendulum has swung so far from a focus on nurture to a focus on nature that it is important to highlight a second law of genetics for complex traits and common disorders: All traits show substantial environmental influence, in that heritability is not 100% for any trait. Acceptance of the importance of both genetic and environmental influences leads to interest in the interplay between genes and environment, such as their interaction (moderation) and correlation (mediation) in the development of complex traits, Plomin et al.6 pp 105–127.

so
>Do I need to continue, or have you been schooled enough yet, boy?

Yes lad.
Genetically, is it worth your time?