True. In that respect I think part of the problem might also be the Science News Cycle as it applies to genetics. The geneticists know what they mean by “a gene for X”—merely a shorthand, that the presence of the gene affects the expression of X along with umpteen other factors. But inevitably the news media report a “gene for intelligence” as though the gene was a switch to turn intelligence on or off. Probably that type of thing has undermined any & all innatist ideas.
True. In that respect I think part of the problem might also be the Science News Cycle as it applies to genetics. The geneticists know what they mean by “a gene for X”—merely a shorthand, that the presence of the gene affects the expression of X along with umpteen other factors. But inevitably the news media report a “gene for intelligence” as though the gene was a switch to turn intelligence on or off. Probably that type of thing has undermined any & all innatist ideas.
That’s primarily an issue in the titles (often set by editors). The body of the text usually has the standard litany of basic caveats.