>>13181346Your post reads like you're trying very hard to sound knowledgeable, but it's not quite working. For example, how dense your bones are isn't purely genetically determined. In fact, that's a trait that's predominantly determined by environmental factors like nutrition.
>you really have no ideaI do. In case you missed it, I work in the field of transcriptomics.
I'm going to try this again because we're not quite there yet:
> genetic determinist What, exactly, does this imply, to you? Are all (behavioral) traits genetically determined (i.e. the minority of trait variance is due to environmental factors)? Is the majority of behavioral traits genetically determined? And if we take the example metric of educational attainment, is it your position that it is fully, or at least for the most part, determined by genetic factors?
Bringing up SNPs in this discussion makes very little sense as an argument for "determinism" (but again, please define) because they by definition in isolation account for little trait variance when considering polygenic traits (R-squared is typically < 0.5%). Moreover, their sum total (polygenic scores) are ~10% in the most optimistic estimates, leaving the vast majority (~90%) of trait variance unaccounted for by the genome. On top of all of that, most SNPs associated with these traits don't even have a strong heritable component to them (<1%). Sources are listed below.
It is my distinct impression that if people like you see the headline that a gene can account for some variance in a trait, that means that the trait is predominantly sculpted by genetic factors. But that's a fallacy. In the example you yourself chose, the genome contributes only a small fraction of the total variance.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6139/1467.abstract?casa_token=HRMryO7Z-I8AAAAA:M5eUwPIlYDX5g9bqEPTGMlPIMeQC4kxAZn4OtJBuePJKwXcgmcFNZbHCq7YTGFL33O8_GRlQ-2oOD7Lxhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6393768/ 
