Why do identical twins have such similar personalities?
Is it because they're reared together? Is it because people treat them alike due to their visual similarity?
Nope! Neither theory holds water.
Despite looking as similar as identical twins and being reared apart, look-alikes are not similar like identical twins are. In fact, they're no more similar than unrelated people.
This makes sense: they're only minimally more genetically similar than regular unrelated people.
The other thing is that twins reared apart and together have similarly similar personalities.
In fact, there might be a negative environmental effect going on, where twins reared together try to distinguish their personalities more!
This data also came with data on dizygotic twins reared together and apart, delivering heritabilities of 0.76, 0.66, or 0.56, depending on which group is used as the comparison.
And as an aside, the traits of same-sex and opposite-sex dizygotic twins are similarly correlated.
Twins who are perceived to be fraternal rather than identical and vice-versa also seem to be aligned as predicted genetically, not by perceptions.
That is, people seen as identical (fraternals) but who are not are as similar as fraternals (identicals).
If being reared apart or together doesn't matter, and looking alike doesn't matter, misperception of zygosity doesn't matter, and even sex doesn't matter (mostly excepting sex-linked traits), there's just not much room for twin methods to be biased by a lack of equal environments
link.springer.com/article/10.100… (amazing this holds given the sources of misperception and genetic variation ostensibly correlating with it for DZs!)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Smart people tend to earn higher educations and higher incomes, and to work in more prestigious occupations.
This holds for people from excellent family backgrounds (Utopian Sample) and comparing siblings from the same families!
This is true, meaningful, and the causal relationship runs strongly from IQ to SES, with little independent influence of SES. Just look at how similar the overall result and the within-family results are!
But also look at fertility in this table: quite the reverse!
The reason this is hard to explain has to do with the fact that kids objectively have more similar environments to one another than to their parents.
In fact, for a cultural theory to recapitulate regression to the mean across generations, these things would need to differ!
Another fact that speaks against a cultural explanation is that the length of contact between fathers and sons doesn't matter for how correlated they are in status.
We can see this by leveraging the ages parents die at relative to said sons.
The internet gives everyone access to unlimited information, learning tools, and the new digital economy, so One Laptop Per Child should have major benefits.
The reality:
Another study just failed to find effects on academic performance.
This is one of those findings that's so much more damning than it at first appears.
The reason being, laptop access genuinely provides people with more information than was available to any kid at any previous generation in history.
If access was the issue, this resolves it.
And yet, nothing happens
This implementation of the program was more limited than other ones that we've already seen evaluations for though. The laptops were not Windows-based and didn't have internet, so no games, but non-infinite info too
So, at least in this propensity score- or age-matched data, there's no reason to chalk the benefit up to the weight loss effects.
This is a hint though, not definitive. Another hint is that benefits were observed in short trials, meaning likely before significant weight loss.
We can be doubly certain about that last hint because diabetics tend to lose less weight than non-diabetics, and all of the observed benefit has so far been observed in diabetic cohorts, not non-diabetic ones (though those directionally show benefits).
The reason why should teach us something about commitment
The government there has previously attempted crackdowns twice in the form of mano dura—hard hand—, but they failed because they didn't hit criminals hard enough
Then Bukele really did
In fact, previous attempts backfired compared to periods in which the government made truces with the gangs.
The government cracking down a little bit actually appeared to make gangs angrier!
You'd have been in your right to conclude 'tough on crime fails', but you'd be wrong.
You have to *actually* enforce the law or policy won't work. Same story with three-strike laws, or any other measure
Incidentally, when did the gang problems begin for El Salvador? When the U.S. exported gang members to it