Values are heritable.🧵
The belief that ethics and values differ (both within and between populations) because of parenting, 'culture', or school indoctrination is widespread.
That genetics account for much of this variation, less so.
1. Moral beliefs aren't equally heritable:
Some of this is due to some moral questions being more emotionally charged than others; how you feel about abortion is more genetic than how you feel about capitalism.
2. Visceral convictions (intuitive beliefs) tend to be more genetic regardless of the question being asked:
3. What decisions you reach during moral reasoning, such as considering and answering dilemmas, are also quite heritable. This means that what seems like reasoning is just you prompting yourself into revealing genetic intuitions you already have:
4. When we speak of how moral someone is, we are mostly referring to their past conduct.
One study found that latent antisocial behavior in children (the component that was common in ratings given by the child, their parents, and their teachers) was 96% heritable:
So far we've observed that shared env. (parenting, schooling, etc.) has little to no influence on ethics or behavior. This doesn't exactly lend credence to the 'it's just how they were raised' position.
5. That said, a meta-analysis on ASB did find some shared env. effects:
6. This was only when considering studies that included weighted matrices (although those models had better fits) and even then most of the variance was explained by additive genetic factors.
7. This same analysis also found shared env. became increasingly irrelevant with age:
This drop in c^2 variance is less pronounced than in, say, IQ heritability studies, but noteworthy nonetheless.
8. Prosocial attitudes are also heritable, more so in men than women, with shared env. once again seeming to have zero influence (at least in males):
9. Why have proxies for latent ASB (murder rate) declined precipitously in Europe from the 14th-20th centuries?
Peter Frost hypothesizes much of this has to do with the state's monopoly on violence, and the most antisocial men being removed from the gene pool each generation:
Some of the change in moral conduct over longer periods of time may have to do with there having been selection for other psychological traits associated with propensity for violence, such as for intelligence and against schizophrenia:
Conclusion: most interpersonal differences in values and moral conduct are due to genetic differences. The median person probably overestimates importance of parenting, socioeconomic status, schooling, etc. by an order of magnitude.
weight matrices*, not weighted😅
sorry, did this reading and made the plots late last night
Source for polygenic score trends:
I included sources for the other stuff in subtext under each plot.researchgate.net/publication/37…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Aberrant sexual orientation/gender identity groups have far higher rates of mental illness. This gap is present across all categories, to varying degrees, and is uniform in direction. Non-heterosexual women and transexuals have especially elevated rates:
Interestingly, the mental illness gaps between non-heterosexual and heterosexual women tend to be larger than those between non-heterosexual and heterosexual men. Within-sex rate differences:
Why this is the case is unclear, as both behavioural patterns seem equally unadaptive. Nonetheless, the trend is present on the genetic level as well; perhaps this is due to the psychopathology factor threshold for women to deviate from normalcy being higher?
Do lesbians exist?
In one study, arousal to different sexual stimuli was close to identical between self-identified heterosexual and homosexual women, but pronouncedly differed between gay and straight men in the direction you’d expect. My guess is it is mostly LARP.
The largest recent physiological study I could find seems to replicate this. All orientation groups in the sample showed arousal to stimuli depicting both male and female models to similar degrees. The nominally significant findings do not survive basic statistical hygiene.
What about neurological evidence? In one study, sound processing regions lit up more in all women to female stimuli (though there was confounding due to the loud moaning in the female video) and especially so in lesbians. Somatosensory regions lit up more in all orientation groups when watching male over female stimuli.
Italians were an exception, as the gender ability profiles in their sample appear to be less differentiated. Strangely, Italian males even outperformed Italian females on some processing speed tasks.
Moving on, it’s immediately obvious that the cancellation subtest is a uniquely poor g proxy, and there is an intuitive way to demonstrate this: it is 2.79 standard deviations below the subtest mean correlation average.
On the individual level, higher intelligence has a protective effect against fatal car accidents, but does the same hold true when comparing populations?
It appears yes: national IQ correlates at r = -0.7 with country-level road-traffic death rates.
Is 'mansplaining' actually necessary?
It may well be, as women know much less than men in almost every domain. This is especially true for finance, the general factor of knowing about things, and science-related knowledge.
Evidently, men are not mansplaining enough:
You may be wondering "what's going on with factor 4?", and so did I. However, it ceases to be mysterious once you realize that factor 4 does not load at all on the second order general factor, and was also uncorrelated with factors 1 through 3. And look at the subtest loadings!
Despite being labeled 'humanities,' it is primarily defined by moderate negative loadings on Sport and Games, effectively indexing the absence of male-coded knowledge rather than humanities expertise. The former test is also the only one whose largest absolute loading was on F4.