Gift link:

Lots to say about this, but quickly: 1) It is not a scientific paper, it is a unreviewed report from a private company, with most of the methods proprietary. 2) The results are inflated by "correction for attenuation". 3) Accounting for 12% of the variance within families does not overthrow the GP.

I very much appreciate that Jay took the time to read and review the book. It is interesting to me that all of the published criticism of the book has come from the anti-hereditarian left. Mainstream BG, never mind the hereditarians, have scrupulously ignored it.

Jay's review is here:

This is how you get genetic 𝘷𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 without genetic 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮. Nice! Thanks.

This is how you get genetic variance, without genetic determinism. (Why don't these apps allow fonts? That sentence wants italics.)

I couldn't think of the outfit that runs this. It's the Noba Project: nobaproject.com/modules/the-...

Is my book more than you are looking for? At the other end of the spectrum, totally short and introductory, there is the following, which I wrote for a group developing free textbooks. I am a bit ambivalent by now because they have rewritten it many times without consulting me.

A link to the pdf from my own drive: drive.google.com/file/d/1Deyj...

Maybe someday you and I could write a historical review of the Intros and Discussions of behavioral GWAS papers. My guess is we would both have to give ground-- they may have been less deterministic than I remember, but more than you remember. Tracing the evolution over time would be interesting.

When those papers were published, I don't think they were presented in the spirit of "this shows that genetic determinism is misguided." Is that how RP or PV would characterize it? You sometimes forget that much of BG is not as anti-determinist as you are.

An introductory blog post is here: open.substack.com/pub/ericturk...