Re:The perils of short-termism
by danaris on Monday September 30, 2019 @03:27PM
(#21118821)
Your argument is compelling.
I'm not completely convinced, but you certainly raise some good points.
However, I do have some questions. What, exactly, is it that you say "maintains its behavior" in that way? Because from my perspective, what we have is not obviously a single thing that can be said to track across all those shifts for a given individual or family, but rather a metric that maintains a high degree of stability from generation A to generation A+1—and thus, a moderate degree of stability to generation A+2, and so on.
Furthermore, my understanding of that 0.7 number is that it's true for the US, now, not something that's static worldwide and across history.
Finally, I would note that there's probably just as much publication in conclusively proving it is genetic.
I'm not completely convinced, but you certainly raise some good points.
However, I do have some questions. What, exactly, is it that you say "maintains its behavior" in that way? Because from my perspective, what we have is not obviously a single thing that can be said to track across all those shifts for a given individual or family, but rather a metric that maintains a high degree of stability from generation A to generation A+1—and thus, a moderate degree of stability to generation A+2, and so on.
Furthermore, my understanding of that 0.7 number is that it's true for the US, now, not something that's static worldwide and across history.
Finally, I would note that there's probably just as much publication in conclusively proving it is genetic.