On Dec 16, 2013, at 2:41 PM, Philippe Gervaix wrote:
One of my students presented an end of school project on the sources of
happiness, and quoted a 50/40/10 proportion as being scientifically
established: 50% attributed to genes, 40% to us and 10% left to ouside
events.
On Dec 17, 2013,
Yes!
michael
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here:
It's a well worn story, but Donald Hebb attacked the heritability (H) concept
with the story of raising children in a barrel until 12 (per Mark Twain's
suggestion) after which their average IQ would be very low but heritability
would = 1 because there is no environmental variation, despite the
I agree with most of what John says below but I wonder about one of his reasons
for why H estimates can be useful. If Heritability estimates are dependent on
the amount of environmental variability in the population, does it make sense
to say that they will be useful for public policy by
Rick .. I suppose. Perhaps it depends on whether the environmental
manipulations are from the existing population, or totally new? I am also aware
that gene expression is not completely fixed. Gene expression is potentially
affected by environmental manipulations. But on the other hand I am
Environmental variability will almost always be larger in the population than
they are in a sample-- especially samples chosen as badly as they typically are
in psychological research. Thus, studies of this sort will almost always
over-estimate heritability.
Chris
-
Christopher D. Green
Hi
For me, the primary implication of heritability indices greater than 0, no
matter what the quality being studied, is that it is on the face of it
inconsistent with the notion that genes have nothing to do with the trait
(i.e., it is all environment). I say on the face of it simply because
On Dec 18, 2013, at 9:11 AM, rfro...@jbu.edu wrote:
Might the environmental manipulations have an impact on the heritability
estimate that couldn't be predicted from H before the intervention?
Yes, that's correct. A high heritability implies nothing about what a new
environmental
On Dec 18, 2013, at 11:25 AM, Jeffry Ricker, Ph.D. wrote:
I could dig through boxes of old articles/books to find some good examples,
but I don't have the time right now. Instead, I'll relate an incident
described in Cronbach (1975)--a paper many of you are familiar with--that I
use in my
This may be my third post? We shall see!
I am currently trying to locate some info (in between grading) in uterine
environments ... sometimes MZ crowd each other out. As far as Cooper and Zubeck
1958, it seems Jensen was integrating lots of information from numerous sources
.. these include
Hi
Here’s one reference showing an interesting placenta/chorion effect (if the
long link works).
On Dec 18, 2013, at 11:50 AM, John Kulig wrote:
Probably no such thing as H = 0 ...
This definitely is my third post today, so this is it for me.
One point I was trying to make in a previous email is that even a heritability
of zero for a trait in a particular population, if it ever occurs
Joining the crowd of those exhausting their posts for the day ... I offer
I was not using H = 0 in the statistical sense, but rather as a short-hand for
those who would deny (virtually) any role for genes in human behavior or indeed
in many walks of life. Daphne Koertge labeled this Biodenial
13 matches
Mail list logo
