Comment by tptacek
4 hours ago
My sibling comment (unsuprisingly) goes into more depth and with more sourcing. The 0.4 result you've cited is from 2015, which is in the phlogiston era of this science given what we've learned since 2018. As he has aptly demonstrated: his authorities are sound, and he has thought carefully about this matter --- respectfully, far more than you seem to have. That's OK! We're just commenting on a message board. I wouldn't even bring it up, except that you've decided to make his grasp on the subject a topic of debate.
> he has thought carefully about this matter --- respectfully, far more than you seem to have
He was wrong in his guesses about me and what I've read, and wrong about the quote too (see sibling comment).
> is from 2015 ... what we've learned since 2018
You're saying the graph is somehow invalid, because of newer GWAS related research?
The blog he links to looks biased to me. Are there two camps that don't get along: looking at DNA (GWAS), vs looking at twin studies etc ... yes seems so. I'll reply to both of you in another comment
No. (Replied to your other reply.)