The author in the comments:

Scud: I never said it had to be wrong. I'm just saying that if you accept that there are no Big 5 SNPs, then the explanation must be either:

1) Personality is independent of genetics 2) The Big 5 is a poor measure of personality or 3) We just haven't found the personality SNPs yet because our sample sizes are too small or our stats aren't clever enough.

Or a mixture of those.

Also interesting:

I believe that the original post mistakenly implies that height SNPs have been replicated. Similarly, IQ SNPs haven't been replicated. Height and IQ have much higher retest correlation and much higher heritability than any big 5 factor. So option 3 is pretty reasonable. Option 2 might be true, but it doesn't help explain the data.

Fitness relevant variation should be hard to detect, because selection is purifying it. If personality is fitness-neutral, then it might be easier to detect.

Open Thread, July 16-31, 2012

by OpenThreadGuy 1 min read16th Jul 2012142 comments


If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, even in Discussion, it goes here.