IQ is around 50% heritable, the other 50% also matters, though.
This sounds like it’s written by a person who’s not quite clear what X percent heritable means. Apart from that making up numbers like this for rhetorical purposes and treating them as if they are factual is bad form.
The right answer to the nature vs. nature debate isn’t it’s 50-50 but: That’s a bad question and a bad frame for understanding reality.
Instead of debating nature vs. nature one should look at the empirical findings we have and build up a view on the world based on them.
I agree, that was a confused point for me to make that didn’t advance my main argument. The initial claim Anderson made was that the field of gender studies advocated total social determination of all observed differences between genders, I argued that this was not the case and provided an instance of a gender communications researcher discussing the biological influences on gendered behavior.
The point about IQ was a half remembered factoid from a metastudy I read a while back and I’ve been unable to find subsequently so it’s likely misremembered. It’s irrelevant to the discussion though, I think.
It was, as I admitted, a mistake. I was being inexact as it was not critical for my central point, if it was I would have looked it up, failed to find it, and adjusted my approach (or more likely, left out IQ altogether). I’m unsure what continuing to belabor this accomplishes aside from chastising me for insufficiently respecting numbers.
You admitted a mistake but it wasn’t the mistake for which I was criticizing you. I don’t have a problem with people misremembering numbers. This prompted me to explain my criticism.
This sounds like it’s written by a person who’s not quite clear what X percent heritable means. Apart from that making up numbers like this for rhetorical purposes and treating them as if they are factual is bad form.
The right answer to the nature vs. nature debate isn’t it’s 50-50 but: That’s a bad question and a bad frame for understanding reality.
Instead of debating nature vs. nature one should look at the empirical findings we have and build up a view on the world based on them.
I agree, that was a confused point for me to make that didn’t advance my main argument. The initial claim Anderson made was that the field of gender studies advocated total social determination of all observed differences between genders, I argued that this was not the case and provided an instance of a gender communications researcher discussing the biological influences on gendered behavior.
The point about IQ was a half remembered factoid from a metastudy I read a while back and I’ve been unable to find subsequently so it’s likely misremembered. It’s irrelevant to the discussion though, I think.
Exactly 50-50 would be very surprising result for a meta-study. “50% heritable” has an exactness that “around half heritable” doesn’t have.
Treating both of those the same way is what I would expect from people who don’t respect actual numbers.
It was, as I admitted, a mistake. I was being inexact as it was not critical for my central point, if it was I would have looked it up, failed to find it, and adjusted my approach (or more likely, left out IQ altogether). I’m unsure what continuing to belabor this accomplishes aside from chastising me for insufficiently respecting numbers.
You admitted a mistake but it wasn’t the mistake for which I was criticizing you. I don’t have a problem with people misremembering numbers. This prompted me to explain my criticism.