Scott examines a new genetic study on missing heritability that both hereditarians and nurturists claim vindicates their position, concluding that despite the study's advances, the fundamental debate over how heritable traits like IQ actually are remains unresolved. Longer summary

This post discusses a new genetic study that attempted to resolve the "missing heritability" debate - the gap between high heritability estimates from twin studies (50-80%) and low estimates from molecular genetic studies (10-20%). The study used whole-genome sequencing to include rare genetic variants and found they could account for about 88% of expected heritability, but the actual heritability estimates themselves were only medium (30-40%). Both hereditarians and nurturists claimed victory: hereditarians because the gap was closed (proving the genes exist), nurturists because the total heritability found was still lower than twin studies suggested. Scott examines both sides' arguments, including measurement error corrections and various confounders, and concludes that despite everyone's claims, the debate remains fundamentally unresolved as different methods continue producing different estimates with no clear explanation why. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments and criticism on his earlier post about 'Missing Heritability', discussing issues like gene-environment interactions, sequencing technology limitations, and the use of polygenic scores across ancestry groups. Longer summary

This post compiles and responds to notable comments on Scott's earlier post about 'Missing Heritability'. The post is structured in four sections, starting with responses from experts named in the original post, particularly Sasha Gusev who critiques the treatment of gene-environment interactions and cross-population polygenic scores. The second section features detailed technical comments from knowledgeable readers about topics like genetic interactions and sequencing technology limitations. The third section addresses specific corrections to the original post, while the final section covers various other interesting comments and discussions. Throughout, Scott engages with the criticisms and new perspectives while maintaining his original position on most key points. Shorter summary