>>12099142The methodology you're describing still doesn't let you determine causal links you fucking idiot.
With the vast number of genes there are inevitably going to be genes that are correlated by mere chance or due to non-genetic factors.
Scaling up the sample size does NOT let you completely eliminate these because the uncertainties on the input variables are correlated.
The methodology also implicitly assumes that phenotypes are a linear function of certain genes which is objectively incorrect unless you assume that the influence of those genes is very small.
>You are too retarted to notice how retarted that demand is. Twin studies can be used to identify genetic and social factors even when they don't compare between races.Twin studies show you the effect of environment in isolation from genes, NOT the effect of genes in isolation of environment.
Again, you can only make meaningful inferences if the effects are linear which they are NOT unless you assume they are very small.
Also learn how to write the word "retarded".
>>12099652That post just shows that you fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of the correlation coefficient.
The correlation coefficient (X% correlated) literally only measures how linear the relationship between two variables is; it tells you FUCKING NOTHING about how strong the relationship actually is.
Also go and actually read the study you posted, not just the abstract.
If the authors are even somewhat competent they will mention the possible biases from their sample and which parts of the population their findings can be accurately applied to.
The ratio of genes vs. environment strongly depends on the environment due to non-linearities: the children of poorfags are much dumber than the children of millionaires are smart.
Put simply: for poorfags the environment is more important while for richfags the genes are more important.
