I'm not making up that lipstick is heritable; it is a classic example of a non-genetically-determined heritable trait, as is hand count (in the other direction). I think you need to do some more reading: you are clearly using the term as a synonym for "genetically determined", and that is simply not what the heritability statistic tells you.
For what it's worth, you can mechanistically work out lipstick and hands from first principles; just plug rough numbers into the formula.
Re:Marshmallow Test Fails to Replicate
by somenameforme on Monday August 05, 2024 @11:22PM
(#41167528)
When you say things like lipstick wearing is a classic example of a non-genetic heritable trait, you sound like a guy claiming that a cat is a classic example of a non-reptilian reptile. It's a completely nonsensical word salad.
"Heritability is a statistic used in the fields of breeding and genetics that estimates the degree of variation in a phenotypic trait in a population that is due to genetic variation between individuals in that population."
You are using the term in a colloquial or folk sense. Do you think accents are highly heritable? After all, a child will almost always share the accent of their parent. So in the colloquial sense this would be a 'heritable' trait, but in the genetic sense the heritability of an accent is zero.
---
"The concept of heritability can be expressed in the form of the following question: "What is the proportion of the variation in a given trait within a population that is not explained by the environment or random chance?"[2]"
---
The within a population part is critical. I'd encourage looking up twin studies to understand one way this percentage is estimated. I assume you think you know how they are done - you do not, because it directly leads into an understanding of how things like lipstick wearing would be near 0% heritable, while things like handcount at birth would be near 100% heritable.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability