Yeah, one of the tell-tale signs of non-additive genetic influences is that MZ twins are still extremely similar, but DZ twins and more distant relatives are more different than you’d otherwise expect. (This connects to PGSs because PGSs are derived from distantly-related people.) See §1.5.5 here, and also §4.4 (including the collapsible box) for some examples.
Mkay.… I’m gonna tap out for now, but this is very helpful, thanks. I’m still pretty skeptical, though indeed
I am failing (and then I think later succeeding) at significant chunks of basic reading comprehension about what you’re saying;
I’m still confused, so my skepticism isn’t a confident No.
As a bookmark/trailhead, I suggest that maybe your theory of “personality has a high complexity but pretty deterministic map from a smallish number of pretty-genetically-linear full-brain-settings to behavior due to convergent instrumentality” and some sort of “personality mysteriously has a bunch of k-th order epistases that all add up” would both predict MZ being more similar than DZ, but your theory would predict this effect more strongly than the k-th order thing.
Another: there’s something weird where I don’t feel your argument about a complex map being deterministic because of convergent instrumentality ought to work for the sorts of things that personality traits are; like they don’t seem analogous to “draws out bishop in xyz position”, and in the chess example idk if I especially would there to be “personality traits” of play.… or something about this.
Another bookmark: IIUC your theory requires that the relevant underlying brain factors are extremeley pinned down by genetics, because the complicated map from underlying brain stuff to personality is chaotic.
Yeah, one of the tell-tale signs of non-additive genetic influences is that MZ twins are still extremely similar, but DZ twins and more distant relatives are more different than you’d otherwise expect. (This connects to PGSs because PGSs are derived from distantly-related people.) See §1.5.5 here, and also §4.4 (including the collapsible box) for some examples.
Mkay.… I’m gonna tap out for now, but this is very helpful, thanks. I’m still pretty skeptical, though indeed
I am failing (and then I think later succeeding) at significant chunks of basic reading comprehension about what you’re saying;
I’m still confused, so my skepticism isn’t a confident No.
As a bookmark/trailhead, I suggest that maybe your theory of “personality has a high complexity but pretty deterministic map from a smallish number of pretty-genetically-linear full-brain-settings to behavior due to convergent instrumentality” and some sort of “personality mysteriously has a bunch of k-th order epistases that all add up” would both predict MZ being more similar than DZ, but your theory would predict this effect more strongly than the k-th order thing.
Another: there’s something weird where I don’t feel your argument about a complex map being deterministic because of convergent instrumentality ought to work for the sorts of things that personality traits are; like they don’t seem analogous to “draws out bishop in xyz position”, and in the chess example idk if I especially would there to be “personality traits” of play.… or something about this.
Another bookmark: IIUC your theory requires that the relevant underlying brain factors are extremeley pinned down by genetics, because the complicated map from underlying brain stuff to personality is chaotic.