If you only had twin studies to work with, then you could still keep this position. The fact, though, is that genetic studies have not supported the conclusions of twin studies. Whether you want to call that an absolutist position or quibble about the validity of even the tiny correlations found in a typical GWAS, they strongly contradict the high heritability claims from twin studies. This is all without looking at it the other way, which is that twins often have wildly divergent personalities even with an identical genetic makeup. The fact that people born at the same time can have very different personalities and fates was the central argument for Cicero to reject astrology, so one can ask who the astrologers are when logic is stretched to explain the differences in identical twins? If one MZ twin has Huntington’s Chorea, the other will have it 100 percent of the time. Looking for some wobbly stochastic explanation is only a response to failed genetic studies. What we really have here is a philosophical question about human nature. Taking tiny findings (which, as we know, don’t generally hold up) and bolstering them, often to major media outlets, promotes a deterministic fantasy of what humans are, but if there was no philosophy here, scientists would be calling behavioral genetics a failed hypothesis. The fact that identical twins are found to be more alike than fraternal twins in studies (leaving aside that any pair of twins we know individually have obvious differences), is an interesting “paradox”, but we already know that the reason is not that they share causal genetic variants. There is no point in holding onto the idea that genetics are going to explain who we are as human beings other than ideology.
I don’t particularly have a concern about a child who had alcoholic parents. Probably the bigger issue, based on experiences with people close to me, is how the knowledge that they were adopted will affect them. I am not as big of a debunker of twin and adoption studies as Jay Joseph, although I think he has made great points in an atmosphere where his points are dismissed with disdain and mockery and I can certainly relate. Truth is, I don’t care about those studies here in 2024, when actual genetic studies are available. But since we are asking questions, can you give me an explanation for your contention that twin studies show high heritability, but genetic studies can’t confirm it? How do you explain that? You don’t appear to be in the missing heritability will be found camp, so what is your explanation? What do you see as the future of behavioral genetics? (Haven’t read your book yet, if you discuss that in more detail)
I realize, by the way, that you are far from Plomin in that sense, but I’m talking about the general ideology of most in your field, and the fact that Jay Joseph (and I) are the ones being called absolutists.
The evidence for a prominent genetic etiology for schizophrenia is abundant. It is the dominant paradigm in the relevant fields of research. There is active work being published within this model in high-impact scientific journals all the time. Daniel H. Geschwind's lab is a great example of this type of work (an example ref -> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aad6469)
There are also well known genomic loci associated with schizophrenia incidence, e.g. 1q21.1 where odds ratio for SCZ risk is >11 for deletions and >6 for duplications (PMID: 33542195, 18668038, 18784092, 28680393, 22424231). There is also animal modeling that recapitulates phenotypes consistent with human SCZ (PMID: 29187755), which also implicates mesolimbic dopamine transmission it the physiology of the condition.
There are also well-known familial instances of SCZ where essentially Mendelian inheritance patterns are observed. A famous example is the Galvin family of Colorado. Six of the families 12 children received SCZ diagnoses with all affected individuals carrying a particular variant that was absent in unaffected carriers (PMID: 27001614 - p1274 is the Galvin pedigree and there are several other families in the study).
This is all before we get to the robust study of polygenic contributions, which are beyond the point as we know that rare and common variant effects tend to converge. When we find the rare stuff, it is just a matter of statistical power to find the SNPs.
You seem to have just incuriously walked by the wealth of genetic evidence I highlighted.
I was eager to highlight 1q21.1 and the Galvin family as opposed to other evidence for you because I'm aware you are also one of those types who likes to claim "there's no gene for schizophrenia" and so on. Subsequently, with 1q21.1, I highlighted a very specific locus that is quite evidently a cause of schizophrenia beyond reasonable doubt. The animal model is a recapitulation of the evidence from human genetic studies. It's not essential to my claim.
Additionally, it is quite bizarre to wantonly impugn the credibility of the claims of a particular family by implying their claims are driven by monetary incentives when the genetic etiology of the Galvin case was elucidated well before they received much media attention. There is also a wealth of documentation from clinicians and institution that support the family's claims. Again, it is hard not to analogize this to how RFK feels about the assassination of his father. It is abundantly clear who was responsible but RFK jr wants to insist otherwise.
You misunderstand a lot of genetics and are making antiquated arguments, which have rejoinders I've already presented above succinctly. You ignored them. Trying to dodge the realities of important genetic inputs on neurodevelopmental and psychiatric conditions by hiding behind nosology isn't going to convince any scientist that actually studies these things.
If you only had twin studies to work with, then you could still keep this position. The fact, though, is that genetic studies have not supported the conclusions of twin studies. Whether you want to call that an absolutist position or quibble about the validity of even the tiny correlations found in a typical GWAS, they strongly contradict the high heritability claims from twin studies. This is all without looking at it the other way, which is that twins often have wildly divergent personalities even with an identical genetic makeup. The fact that people born at the same time can have very different personalities and fates was the central argument for Cicero to reject astrology, so one can ask who the astrologers are when logic is stretched to explain the differences in identical twins? If one MZ twin has Huntington’s Chorea, the other will have it 100 percent of the time. Looking for some wobbly stochastic explanation is only a response to failed genetic studies. What we really have here is a philosophical question about human nature. Taking tiny findings (which, as we know, don’t generally hold up) and bolstering them, often to major media outlets, promotes a deterministic fantasy of what humans are, but if there was no philosophy here, scientists would be calling behavioral genetics a failed hypothesis. The fact that identical twins are found to be more alike than fraternal twins in studies (leaving aside that any pair of twins we know individually have obvious differences), is an interesting “paradox”, but we already know that the reason is not that they share causal genetic variants. There is no point in holding onto the idea that genetics are going to explain who we are as human beings other than ideology.
Could you respond to my question about the adopted child?
And you know I have never said anything like, "genetics are going to explain who we are as human beings" That's Plomin not me.
I don’t particularly have a concern about a child who had alcoholic parents. Probably the bigger issue, based on experiences with people close to me, is how the knowledge that they were adopted will affect them. I am not as big of a debunker of twin and adoption studies as Jay Joseph, although I think he has made great points in an atmosphere where his points are dismissed with disdain and mockery and I can certainly relate. Truth is, I don’t care about those studies here in 2024, when actual genetic studies are available. But since we are asking questions, can you give me an explanation for your contention that twin studies show high heritability, but genetic studies can’t confirm it? How do you explain that? You don’t appear to be in the missing heritability will be found camp, so what is your explanation? What do you see as the future of behavioral genetics? (Haven’t read your book yet, if you discuss that in more detail)
I realize, by the way, that you are far from Plomin in that sense, but I’m talking about the general ideology of most in your field, and the fact that Jay Joseph (and I) are the ones being called absolutists.
Isn't Jay Joseph the psychologist that argues that genetic variation plays no role in schizophrenia? Bit of an RFK Jr position there...
What role does it play, in your opinion, Stetson?
The evidence for a prominent genetic etiology for schizophrenia is abundant. It is the dominant paradigm in the relevant fields of research. There is active work being published within this model in high-impact scientific journals all the time. Daniel H. Geschwind's lab is a great example of this type of work (an example ref -> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aad6469)
There are also well known genomic loci associated with schizophrenia incidence, e.g. 1q21.1 where odds ratio for SCZ risk is >11 for deletions and >6 for duplications (PMID: 33542195, 18668038, 18784092, 28680393, 22424231). There is also animal modeling that recapitulates phenotypes consistent with human SCZ (PMID: 29187755), which also implicates mesolimbic dopamine transmission it the physiology of the condition.
There are also well-known familial instances of SCZ where essentially Mendelian inheritance patterns are observed. A famous example is the Galvin family of Colorado. Six of the families 12 children received SCZ diagnoses with all affected individuals carrying a particular variant that was absent in unaffected carriers (PMID: 27001614 - p1274 is the Galvin pedigree and there are several other families in the study).
This is all before we get to the robust study of polygenic contributions, which are beyond the point as we know that rare and common variant effects tend to converge. When we find the rare stuff, it is just a matter of statistical power to find the SNPs.
If you are relying on “animal models” of schizophrenia and one family’s claims in a profitable book, I wouldn’t be throwing stones at Jay Joseph.
You seem to have just incuriously walked by the wealth of genetic evidence I highlighted.
I was eager to highlight 1q21.1 and the Galvin family as opposed to other evidence for you because I'm aware you are also one of those types who likes to claim "there's no gene for schizophrenia" and so on. Subsequently, with 1q21.1, I highlighted a very specific locus that is quite evidently a cause of schizophrenia beyond reasonable doubt. The animal model is a recapitulation of the evidence from human genetic studies. It's not essential to my claim.
Additionally, it is quite bizarre to wantonly impugn the credibility of the claims of a particular family by implying their claims are driven by monetary incentives when the genetic etiology of the Galvin case was elucidated well before they received much media attention. There is also a wealth of documentation from clinicians and institution that support the family's claims. Again, it is hard not to analogize this to how RFK feels about the assassination of his father. It is abundantly clear who was responsible but RFK jr wants to insist otherwise.
http://unwashedgenes.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-genetics-of-schizophrenia.html?m=1
If you’d like a different opinion, including to your claim above, feel free to read my blog post on the subject.
You misunderstand a lot of genetics and are making antiquated arguments, which have rejoinders I've already presented above succinctly. You ignored them. Trying to dodge the realities of important genetic inputs on neurodevelopmental and psychiatric conditions by hiding behind nosology isn't going to convince any scientist that actually studies these things.