Talk:Twin study

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as High-importance).

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article Twin study, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:

Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Twin study. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

stereotype threat

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This addition [1] by an IP adds some content that was removed later for not meeting POV and RS. They also added material on stereotype threat that uses only two sources - both advocacy material by educational groups pushing constructivist education - this does not meet RS. The pdf does not mention the word "stereotype" anywhere except for uncritically sourcing a single 2011 paper on stereotype threat - this is an argument from consequences pushed by advocates for increased educational spending.

The IP's edit tries to describe stereotype threat without naming it and without presenting any actual evidence for the claim - I'm going to remove the section.

-- Callinus (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Egregious lack of criticism

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There have been many criticisms of twin studies based on the view that they suffer from fundamental methodological flaws (especially classical twin studies); it is inexcusable that this criticism is not even mentioned in the lead of this article. I will try to address this problem soon. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree, and here is my criticism: it should be expected that most twins are going to have similar traits just as most people have similar traits due to regression to the mean. In other words, twins that share average traits are not good subjects for making claims about heritability, only outliers should be used to generate useful data. For example, the twin studies that show that twins have similar IQ levels should not be relevant if they have average IQs because any random sample of any population will show more people sharing average traits. So only twins that share high IQ scores or low IQ scores should be used to generate a heritability statistic, and that comes with it's own problem, that higher and lower IQ scores from the mean are less reliable than those at the mean. That means that twins who share average IQs should be ignored and twins who share rarer IQs (lower or higher than average) aren't very reliable. These two forces should act to drive the correlative value of twin studies down. 108.180.92.37 (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sexual Orientation in Twins

Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sexual Orientation in Twins: Evidence That Human Sexual Identity May Be Determined Five Days Following Fertilization PMID: 38161549 PMCID: PMC10757681DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51346 Narraburra (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Detection Problems section

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This seems to be about a general issue in behavioral research, not a criticism specific to twin studies. Unless I missed something I'd like to remove this. Agashlin (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic