Kostas Kampourakis

Your Genes Are Simply Not Enough to Explain How Smart You Are Seven years ago, I took a bet with Charles Murray about whether we’d basically understand the genetics of intelligence by now.

In 2018, Charles Murray challenged me to a bet: "We will understand IQ genetically—I think most of the picture will have been filled in by 2025—there will still be blanks—but we’ll know basically what’s going on." It's now 2025, and I claim a win. I write about it in The Atlantic.

This is a lovely review of my (brief) history of alchemy by Kit Chapman. As Kit says, I wanted neither to duck the esoteric/spiritual aspects of the alchemical tradition & make it out to be *just* early chemistry, nor to over-emphasize those things as some books have.
www.nature.com/articles/d41...

All about why we get Mendel wrong and why it matters. Watch the video where I explain the issues, or read excepts from several book reviews.

kampourakis.com/how-we-get-m...

When to trust scientific claims This is what we should be teaching in schools!

When to trust scientific claims
open.substack.com/pub/kostaska...

Book cover of “The Scope of Evolutionary Thinking” by Thomas A. C. Reydon, in the Cambridge Elements: The Philosophy of Biology series. Against a black background, the title is surrounded by Ernst Haeckel’s illustrations of marine organisms—radial, symmetrical forms in vivid blues, oranges, reds, and greens.

New Cambridge Element in the Philosophy of Biology series—fully #openaccess! @thomasreydon.bsky.social explores how evolutionary theory crosses over from biology into other fields, showing how these crossovers embody a broader style of reasoning: 'evolutionary thinking' bit.ly/48z3h36 #HPbio #evosky

Here is the Greek edition of my book Ancestry Reimagined. If you happen to be in Athens, Greece, on November 3, there will be a book discussion at the publisher's main bookstore. More info to come.

cup.gr/book/ethniki...

Why studies about reconstructing the past based on contemporary DNA makes me think of the streetlight effect

open.substack.com/pub/kostaska...

Pure bloodlines? Ancestral homelands? DNA science says no. — Harvard Gazette Geneticist explains recent analyses made possible by tech advances show human history to be one of mixing, movement, displacement.

“The big perspective change from ancient DNA study is that people living today are almost never the descendants of the people in the same place thousands of years before”

news.harvard.edu/gazette/stor...

Why studies about reconstructing the past based on contemporary DNA makes me think of the streetlight effect

open.substack.com/pub/kostaska...

Interesting! (To say the least).

Check out my latest book Trusting Science, using the attached 30% discount code, and let me know what you think!

Excited to participate in this very interesting conference: zasb.unibas.ch/de/veranstal...

Some scientists also think that historians do not know enough about the science to write about its history, which of course is not the case for good historians. Same for philosophers.

For an individual on average, or the average individual perhaps, but not for any two specific individuals. It is one thing to made a mathematical calculation and another to make sense of it.

Indeed.

My point was that I do not think we can make any legitimate inferences for individuals. Anyway, this may be of interest: plato.stanford.edu/entries/heri...

The statistic refers to a particular population as a whole.

90% heritability for height means that 90% of the variance in height across individuals in that specific population, place, and time is statistically associated with genetic differences. What it does not mean is that your height, or my height, or any individual's height is 90% genetic.

Worse, "heritability" is often taken by non-experts to mean, or to at least imply, "inheritability", that is, how much "inherited" a trait is...

Here is a substack post about heritability, related to my comment below:
kostaskampourakis.substack.com/p/today-esti...

Glad my point is clear. I have no doubt that you and these authors know what you are talking about. I am rather concerned about how such poor expressions (such as the one in that article) may be misunderstood by laypeople, or - worse - be quoted while used for ideological purposes.

Here is a substack post about heritability, related to my comment below:
kostaskampourakis.substack.com/p/today-esti...

What I am uncomfortable with is that a statement about populations (heritability of height in contemporary human populations is high = genetic variation explains the majority of inter-individual variance, as you nicely put it) is transformed misleadingly to a statement about individual development.

Genes are of course important and they do have a major impact on inter-individual differences. But statements such as the one I criticized make laypeople think that genes are all-powerful, notwithstanding the environment. There are of course various studies in psychology and education on this.

I respectfully disagree. This is clear among experts, and they may use such expressions as shorthand. But this is not what laypeople perceive. Rather, they interpret such statements as showing the power of genes. Laypeople do not read this journal, but imagine a journalist quoting these authors....

Scientists should be more careful in how they describe the findings and conclusions of genetic research!

@sashagusevposts.bsky.social @wiringthebrain.bsky.social @kevinlala.bsky.social @adamrutherford.bsky.social

The genetic basis of human height - Nature Reviews Genetics Genetic factors that influence human height encompass rare monogenic variants as well as common and rare polygenic variants. In this Review, Bicknell et al. summarize our current understanding of the ...

"Today, estimates from twin studies attribute up to 90% of an individual’s height to their genetic makeup."

This is not corrrect! What heritability studies show is that at the population level 90% of the differences in height are due to genetic differences.

www.nature.com/articles/s41...

And here is access to a chapter:

For those interested in my latest book, Trusting Science, here is a 30% discount code: