tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post899153176919720150..comments2024-03-14T09:50:44.315+00:00Comments on Psychological comments: Educational attainment, intelligence, and the relentless cracking of the genetic codeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-22697534022014445672013-06-03T00:09:39.918+01:002013-06-03T00:09:39.918+01:00Tim, many thanks. Sloppy writing on my part, so th...Tim, many thanks. Sloppy writing on my part, so thanks for correcting. van der Sluis very interesting. Aggregation is a problem, but the crudity of the educational measure makes it worse. As to measurement invariance, who actually achieves it? I think this is the fearsome Dolan once again, demanding a purity not yet attained by many psychometricians. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-65598681528956653932013-06-02T21:17:36.843+01:002013-06-02T21:17:36.843+01:00Hi James. It's not the case that "a score...Hi James. It's not the case that "a score derived from [three SNPs with genome wide significance] accounted for 2% of educational attainment and 2.5% of cognitive function. <br /><br />All SNPs regardless of significance accounted for 2%: The three significant SNPs accounted for 100th of that....just 02%.<br /><br />"Education" is a multidimensional aggregation. That aggregation likely reduces power dramatically, as Sophie van der Sluis has shown.<br /><br />van der Sluis, S., Verhage, M., Posthuma, D., & Dolan, C. V. (2010). Phenotypic complexity, measurement bias, and poor phenotypic resolution contribute to the missing heritability problem in genetic association studies. PLoS One, 5(11), e13929.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013929" rel="nofollow">pdf</a>timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12707381996365946983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-51528081774539578562013-06-02T12:31:00.843+01:002013-06-02T12:31:00.843+01:00"10% of the variance for height" seems t..."10% of the variance for height" seems to me to be reasonably successful. Or is it the case that "Height is just a social construct" and therefore they must be wrong? It's just so hard to keep up with the counterfactuals to which one is expected to make obeisance these days.deariemenoreply@blogger.com