I just realized that my full published Review of General Psychology review of "Understanding the Nature-Nurture Debate" is available at: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

...I hope people will read my review of your book and your response (which you posted) to see the full debate. The preprint version link to my Review of General Psychology review of "Understanding the Nature-Nurture Debate" can be found here: jayjoseph22.substack.com/p/behavioral...

...family, twin, adoption, and DNA-based studies to date provide no valid evidence in favor of direct genetic influences, and that the heritability concept should be discarded. I am, however, willing to look at recent DNA-based studies that Sasha says are relatively free of confounds...

Nice post, though of course I disagree with parts of it. Just to clarify, I do not take a "strictly zero-genetic-influence position" on behavioral differences in general (although I am sure there are no "genes for schizophrenia" or other major psychiatric conditions). What I do argue is that...

Which also leads to the question of why European racial hygienists of the 1920s and 30s were so obsessed with "criminal biology," if crime had been bred (hanged) out of the population by then?

Meehl was a strong supporter of genetic theories of behavioral differences, so it's hard to imagine anyone like that being able to understand how childhood and environmental experiences played an important role in their client's current problems.

I have been writing critically about twin studies of behavior for many years. Here is a brief overview article I published online last year.

www.madinamerica.com/2024/09/the-...

So there you have it, twin study estimates were greatly inflated, and molecular data sets the record straight. I walk through possible counter-arguments, but ultimately the uncomfortable truth is that genes contribute to traits much less than we always thought.

Wise people have been saying that for over 90 years.

Regardless of the original researchers' intent, this is what twin study junk science eventually leads to. Grok must not be aware that, after decades of attempts, researchers have failed to identify genes that cause (rather than being "associated with") any of these human behavioral differences.

Summers repeats the IQ fallacy. IQ tests are designed to produce male-female IQ equality, based on the assumption that they are equal in the population. If test makers find that female IQ is higher, they change test questions until scores are equalized. Smoke and mirrors.

Implying that correlation means cause, when it doesn’t. Seems like a new version of the 20-year behavioral “candidate gene” fiasco.