1) On most human characteristics, 40-60% of the variation is accounted for by genes or some other biological factor.
2) We have very little understanding of the cause of the other 40-60%, though we do have plausible hypotheses.
3) Until we accept the first point, then we will make no real progress on truly understanding the second. You cannot control for a variable if you do not accept its existence.
4) Therefore, we cannot develop policies and practices that work until we get over our bias against genetic hypotheses. It will also seriously undermine medical research.
One of your most well written pieces in my opinion. It flows quite well.
My take on the subject is that:
1) On most human characteristics, 40-60% of the variation is accounted for by genes or some other biological factor.
2) We have very little understanding of the cause of the other 40-60%, though we do have plausible hypotheses.
3) Until we accept the first point, then we will make no real progress on truly understanding the second. You cannot control for a variable if you do not accept its existence.
4) Therefore, we cannot develop policies and practices that work until we get over our bias against genetic hypotheses. It will also seriously undermine medical research.
What do you think of Henry de Lesquen and his think tank?
Very illustrative, are you going to addres age of voting and youth transdisorders in your ageist saga?