So perhaps a clearer three-way partition (assuming that basically all significant environmental influences are themselves influenced by family environment) would be:
1. Heredity
2. Family-influenced environment
3. Random noise
I guess it shouldn't be surprising that there's a fair element of randomness in how we turn out.
This seems like a semantic complaint rather than a substantive one. Harris’s position might be summarized (I’m guessing) as: taking family environment as given, the coefficient on peer effects’ influence on outcome is A; taking peer environment as given, the coefficient of family environment on outcome is B. A >> B.
Even your contention that family environment determines peer group (again, it’s a purely semantic criticism. When people are talking about family environment, choosing where or in what subculture to raise their kids isn’t what they have in mind) can be flipped: your decision to raise your kids in an orthodox Jewish community is determined more by the fact that you grew up around orthodox Jewish peers. Peer effects therefore determine family environment. Thinking about it intergenerationally, it’s arbitrary of course which one is said to cause the other, basically a chicken or egg question. Which is why it’s only meaningful to compare the two in the sense of comparing which has a higher coefficient on outcome controlling for the other one.
Any imprecisions in the measurement instruments should be a substantial part of NSE. I don’t believe in metaphysical free will, but also believe that behavioral genetics should not diminish one’s belief in personal responsibility. Just use the common sense definition: you have free will if not under gunpoint.
Maybe not free will so much as in utero effects. Twin births tend to be more difficult than singeltons, and often one twin is disproportionately affected by poor placental performance or more severe issues like ttts. Perhaps we may be overestimating the ransom noise effect given twins are more likely to experience these adverse but random events in utero.
Regarding the awesome metaphysical power of free will: Let’s imagine two genetically identical individuals leading parallel lives in identical universes, so that their shared and non-shared environments and experiences are identical in every detail. Despite this, they begin to diverge in their paths. Suppose we attribute this divergence to free will. This Implies, naturally, that their wills differed. The question then arises: where did this difference originate? Random quantum phenomena? The constitution of their souls? As I see it, in this thought experiment it would be impossible for the paths of the two individuals to diverge, unless random quantum phenomena could cause such divergence, but then (libertarian) free will would have nothing to do with it.
The link to the Sacerdote study doesn’t seem to work but assuming this is it (https://www.jstor.org/stable/25098839), it finds that: “shared family environment explains 14 percent of the variation in educational attainment, 35 percent of the variation in college selectivity, and 33 percent of the variation in drinking behavior.” That seems pretty significant to me.
But interestingly it also finds: “large effects on adoptees' education, income, and health from assignment to parents with more education and from assignment to smaller families. Parental education and family size are significantly more correlated with adoptee outcomes than are parental income or neighborhood characteristics.” So this suggests that Harris’s argument for peers>parents might be wrong (assuming peers are the key part of “neighborhood characteristics”) and really parents matter more than peers (which makes sense to me, children spend way more time with parents than peers especially when they are the youngest and most impressionable).
And this Korean adoptee study is pretty range-restricted since all adopting families had to meet minimum income and family stability requirements.
1. Peer groups probably are partly determined by the family environment, yet doesn’t experience also tell us, that we find friends who might be more or less accepted or aligned with our family environment, the wishes and ways of our family? Why do we prefer some friends over others - I’d say it’s hugely determined by our genes, by the emotions awakened through the interactions with them. Why is Robin Brian’s best friend?
2. Peer groups can’t completely be a product of the family environment, since we are not free to choose our peer groups. We might wish to join a peer group, but might not be accepted. Maybe because we weren’t funny, clever or beautiful enough, maybe the opposite. Thus - who chooses us, affects who we can be. Why do we get accepted or rejected by a peer group - I believe their is a lot of randomness and serendipity in that, but also the simple fact that we are, who we are, because of our genes. Again - your peer group is also decided to a large extent by your genes.
"If heredity fully explains trait A, which interacts with a complex environment to produce trait B, the math says that heredity fully explains trait B as well."
This is not even close to true. You should reconsider your just so stories. Yes, super beautiful people are treated differently and that affects them. So what's 100% hereditary (in this 100% hereditary beauty world) is some vague catch all "effects of differences in treatment due to beauty". What those are will vary by...the interaction with a complex environment. IOW, they are not 100% hereditary.
Harris was inspired to conclude that peer effects are more important than "nurture" by observing that immigrants retain their accents if they immigrate as adults, but wind up with the accent of their host country if they immigrate when young. In contrast, "the metaphysical power of free-will" makes no useful predictions.
So perhaps a clearer three-way partition (assuming that basically all significant environmental influences are themselves influenced by family environment) would be:
1. Heredity
2. Family-influenced environment
3. Random noise
I guess it shouldn't be surprising that there's a fair element of randomness in how we turn out.
This seems like a semantic complaint rather than a substantive one. Harris’s position might be summarized (I’m guessing) as: taking family environment as given, the coefficient on peer effects’ influence on outcome is A; taking peer environment as given, the coefficient of family environment on outcome is B. A >> B.
Even your contention that family environment determines peer group (again, it’s a purely semantic criticism. When people are talking about family environment, choosing where or in what subculture to raise their kids isn’t what they have in mind) can be flipped: your decision to raise your kids in an orthodox Jewish community is determined more by the fact that you grew up around orthodox Jewish peers. Peer effects therefore determine family environment. Thinking about it intergenerationally, it’s arbitrary of course which one is said to cause the other, basically a chicken or egg question. Which is why it’s only meaningful to compare the two in the sense of comparing which has a higher coefficient on outcome controlling for the other one.
Any imprecisions in the measurement instruments should be a substantial part of NSE. I don’t believe in metaphysical free will, but also believe that behavioral genetics should not diminish one’s belief in personal responsibility. Just use the common sense definition: you have free will if not under gunpoint.
Mainly the "non-shared environment" AKA everything else is: 1) errors and biases in measurements, 2) random biological noise. These E influences are not stable over time and not of much importance. See e.g. https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/getting-personality-right and https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/heritabilities-are-usually-underestimated Peers and teachers are not important, as shown in school separation twin studies, twins that go to the same classroom are just as similar as those that go to different classrooms or even schools. https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/school-factors-are-not-important-evidence-from-classroom-separation-studies
Maybe not free will so much as in utero effects. Twin births tend to be more difficult than singeltons, and often one twin is disproportionately affected by poor placental performance or more severe issues like ttts. Perhaps we may be overestimating the ransom noise effect given twins are more likely to experience these adverse but random events in utero.
Interesting post.
Regarding the awesome metaphysical power of free will: Let’s imagine two genetically identical individuals leading parallel lives in identical universes, so that their shared and non-shared environments and experiences are identical in every detail. Despite this, they begin to diverge in their paths. Suppose we attribute this divergence to free will. This Implies, naturally, that their wills differed. The question then arises: where did this difference originate? Random quantum phenomena? The constitution of their souls? As I see it, in this thought experiment it would be impossible for the paths of the two individuals to diverge, unless random quantum phenomena could cause such divergence, but then (libertarian) free will would have nothing to do with it.
The link to the Sacerdote study doesn’t seem to work but assuming this is it (https://www.jstor.org/stable/25098839), it finds that: “shared family environment explains 14 percent of the variation in educational attainment, 35 percent of the variation in college selectivity, and 33 percent of the variation in drinking behavior.” That seems pretty significant to me.
But interestingly it also finds: “large effects on adoptees' education, income, and health from assignment to parents with more education and from assignment to smaller families. Parental education and family size are significantly more correlated with adoptee outcomes than are parental income or neighborhood characteristics.” So this suggests that Harris’s argument for peers>parents might be wrong (assuming peers are the key part of “neighborhood characteristics”) and really parents matter more than peers (which makes sense to me, children spend way more time with parents than peers especially when they are the youngest and most impressionable).
And this Korean adoptee study is pretty range-restricted since all adopting families had to meet minimum income and family stability requirements.
Concerning peer groups and their importance:
1. Peer groups probably are partly determined by the family environment, yet doesn’t experience also tell us, that we find friends who might be more or less accepted or aligned with our family environment, the wishes and ways of our family? Why do we prefer some friends over others - I’d say it’s hugely determined by our genes, by the emotions awakened through the interactions with them. Why is Robin Brian’s best friend?
2. Peer groups can’t completely be a product of the family environment, since we are not free to choose our peer groups. We might wish to join a peer group, but might not be accepted. Maybe because we weren’t funny, clever or beautiful enough, maybe the opposite. Thus - who chooses us, affects who we can be. Why do we get accepted or rejected by a peer group - I believe their is a lot of randomness and serendipity in that, but also the simple fact that we are, who we are, because of our genes. Again - your peer group is also decided to a large extent by your genes.
"If heredity fully explains trait A, which interacts with a complex environment to produce trait B, the math says that heredity fully explains trait B as well."
This is not even close to true. You should reconsider your just so stories. Yes, super beautiful people are treated differently and that affects them. So what's 100% hereditary (in this 100% hereditary beauty world) is some vague catch all "effects of differences in treatment due to beauty". What those are will vary by...the interaction with a complex environment. IOW, they are not 100% hereditary.
Well . . .
The variation of human life only adds to 1 if there is no free-will.
Free will has no cause other than will of the person.
Of course, most don’t use much of their free , uncaused choice.
That doesn’t prove free will doesn’t exist.
Einstein never accepted bohr’s quantum physics.
Same data, different choice.
Thanks
Clay
Thanks, Parent of a 14-month-old. Great food for thought.
Harris was inspired to conclude that peer effects are more important than "nurture" by observing that immigrants retain their accents if they immigrate as adults, but wind up with the accent of their host country if they immigrate when young. In contrast, "the metaphysical power of free-will" makes no useful predictions.
In terms of of your own parenting, how important are your children’s peers? What actions do you actually take in your own life?