Lower heritability from molecular methods likely reflects their assumptions—additive effects only, no assortative mating, exclusion of rare/structural variants, and treating genome‑wide relatedness as a proxy for trait‑causal similarity—rather than a failure of genetics. Family‑based designs (twins, adoptees, extended kin) broadly agree on higher heritability, suggesting the 'gap' is a measurement artifact in newer tools.
— If true, common critiques that genetics 'doesn’t explain much' rest on miscalibrated methods, affecting policy arguments in education, health, and social inequality.
2025.10.07
50% relevant
Rutherford highlights moving beyond twin studies to 'galactically vast' genomic datasets and sophisticated stats to parse genes vs environment, aligning with the idea that methodological choices shape what genetics appears to explain.
Aporia
2025.09.02
84% relevant
The piece responds to Sasha Gusev’s critique by arguing GWAS underestimates IQ heritability because intelligence is influenced by vast numbers of tiny-effect variants that current samples can’t detect—aligning with the claim that molecular methods are miscalibrated relative to family-based designs.
Sebastian Jensen
2025.08.19
100% relevant
The author’s meta‑analysis of 1,250 kin correlations and his critique of GREML/GCTA, RDR, and sib‑regression assumptions (plus the sibling trait vs. genome‑similarity example).
Tim Lantin
2025.05.11
56% relevant
By foregrounding Plomin’s replicated twin/family-based heritability and polygenic small effects across cognition and personality, the article implicitly backs the view that genetic influence is strong even when molecular methods undercount it—aligning with the claim that low SNP-based heritability reflects method limits, not absence of genetic causality.
← Back to All Ideas