Please show me one or two examples of this so I can understand your assertion better.

Most twin researchers acknowledge that the EEA is false, strictly speaking. They know that MZTs experience more similar environments than DZTs. However, many hold that this is because the former's identical genetic makeup elicits identical (or nearly identical) treatment from others. Basically, their argument is that, since MZTs' genetic similarity ultimately generates their behavioral similarity, the latter is caused by the former. But this is a circular argument. Here, the claim that genes are responsible for MZTs' behavioral simialrity is both assumed and concluded, with no intervening supporting evidence.

Other twin researchers similarly acknowledge that MZTs' environments are overall more similar than DZTs', but insist that the burden of proof lies on critics to demonstrate that this differential applies to "trait-relevant" factors. According to this view, while MZTs do in fact experience more similar environments in many respects, when it comes to factors that influence particular traits (e.g., personality) their environments are of comparable similarity to those of DZTs; it is therefore up to critics to show that these environmental factors are not actually experienced roughly equally by MZ and DZ twin pairs. However, this is not how science works. In science, the burden of proof lies on any researcher who proposes a claim. It is not the responsibility of others to refute just any proposed claim. The scientific community does not accept unsupported claims simply because they have not been shown to be false. Here, it is twin researchers' job to support their "trait-relevant" hypothesis. Their failure to honor this burden while demanding that we accept their hypothesis without evidence is blatantly unscientific.

you don't seem to not only be going against the grain on generally agreed genetic factors. You've never seen a pair of eyes roll backward into a fit of complete rage over mild to moderate disappointment.

First, this is an appeal to motive, which is a logical fallacy. Even if it were true that I am some kind of rebel without a cause who eschews any widely accepted idea simply because of its dominant status, this would not have any bearing on whether my position is true. Instead, my argument stands or falls depending on its own merit.

Second, this sort of response is common among most people, who have not studied the history of behavior genetics. While it is often thought that behavior genetics is a legitimate field of science like any other, in actuality it is unique in that it has faced scathing academic criticism since its inception, does not respond to or even acknowledge this criticism, functionally prohibits internal criticism, and has had a cozy relationship with wealthy conservative institutions and individuals. Science, of course, is a highly critical enterprise. Because it is a good-faith mechanism for discovering the truth, it thrives on criticism as a means of quality control and theoretical advancement. Behavior genetics' dogmatic aversion to criticism likens it to religion, which similarly ignores "worldly" views and forbids "heretical" ideas from within its ranks. It is therefore essentially a pseudoscience. Moreover, its financial ties with conservative donors, who have a special interest in promoting the belief that social inequalities are "natural" and therefore resistant to change via political action, further discredits its findings. (For a thorough treatment of the history of behavior genetics that demonstrates its corrupt, scandalous nature, I highly recommend UCLA sociologist Aaron Panofsky's Misbehaving Science: Controversy and the Development of Behavior Genetics.)

The following is a brief historical overview of prominent critics of behavior genetics, as reported by Joseph in The Trouble with Twin Studies:

Leon Kamin, 1974

Princeton psychologist Leon Kamin published a groundbreaking critical analysis of the four TRA studies published up to the early 1970s in his widely discussed 1974 book, The Science and Politics of I.Q. (Kamin, 1974). As seen in Chapter 2, Kamin played a major role in showing that Burt's TRA [twins reared-apart] IQ data could not be trusted. (p. 61, bold added to text, bold in original title, bold added to text)

Howard Taylor, 1980

Sociologist Howard Taylor published a major critical analysis of TRA studies in his 1980 book, The IQ Game (Taylor, 1980). In a statement that applies to personality research as well, Taylor argued that "the literature on IQ heritability" relies heavily on "assumptions that are arbitrary, implausible, or both" (p. 7). In greater detail that Kamin, Taylor showed that many MZA pairs in the classical studies grew up in similar environments, experienced late separation, had frequent reunions after separation, were brought up in different branches of the same family, and experienced similar educational and socioeconomic environments. (p. 63, bold in original title)

Susan Farber, 1981

Psychologist Susan Farber jumped into the TRA study debate with her amazingly detailed book Identical Twins Reared Apart: A Reanalysis. This book remains the most in-depth work ever published on the subject, and contained a wealth of thoughtful discussion and detailed statistical analysis. Although her work has been interpreted in various ways, Farber presented a devastating indictment of the logic and methods of the existing TRA studies. (p. 65, bold in original title)

Leon Kamin, in Eysenck vs. Kamin, 1981

In the 1981 book The Intelligence Controversy, Kamin squared off with hereditarian psychologist Hans Eysenck in a debate on the "genetics of IQ" question (Kamin, in Eysenck vs. Kamin, 1981). In his sections, Kamin reviewed for a wider audience the case against the TRA studies of Newman and colleagues, Shields, and Juel-Nielsen. He took this opportunity to review the evidence that [Cyril] Burt's data were not reliable, and updated the account to include Gillie's article and Hearnshaw's biography of Burt. (pp. 67-68, bold in original title)

Richard Rose, 1982

Behavioral genetic twin researcher Richard Rose published a 1982 review of Farber's Identical Twins Reared Apart: A Reanalysis in Science. Although an advocate of twin research and aspects of TRA research, in this review he raised some important cautions in relation to TRA research (Rose, 1982). "In principle," he wrote," separated twins permit a direct estimate of heritability; in practice, MZA data are so limited that, as Farber documents, any generalization is suspect." He believed that MZA data "generate many hypotheses but rarely if ever confirm them" (p. 960). Addressing the selected pairs that had been reported int he media and by researchers, Rose saw such "drama" as "good show biz but uncertain science" (p. 960). (pp. 68-69, bold in original title)

Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose, and Leon Kamin, 1984

Kamin teamed up with American evolutionary geneticist Richard Lewontin and British neurobiologist Steven Rose in their 1984 classic anti-hereditarian work Not in Our Genes (Lewontin, Rose, & Kamin, 1984). This book remains one of the most important statements against biological determinist ideology and the political implications that flow from it. Their discussion of TRA studies was based largely on Kamin's previous work. The authors provided an updated account of the Burt scandal, adding that "the implausibility of Burt's claims should have been noted at once by any reasonably alert and conscientious scientific reader" (p. 102). (p. 69, bold in original title)

Ken Richardson, 1998

In his 1998 book The Origins of Human Potential, British psychologist Ken Richardson questioned the degree of twin separation in TRA studies, and pointed to the fact that many MZAs were reared in different branches of the same family. Turning to the SATSA and the MISTRA, he pointed out that some SATSA pairs were reared together until age 11, and that the MISTRA "is far from a meticulously controlled investigation" (Richardson, 1998, p. 142). (p. 70, bold in original title)

Leon Kamin and Arthur Goldberger, 2002

Kamin and Arthur Goldberger published a 2002 analysis of more recent TRA research, focusing on problem areas in both the MISTRA and the SATSA (Kamin & Goldberger, 2002). Here I will highlight their critique of the MISTRA. Goldberger had written several papers in the 1970s challenging Jensen's calculations, the usefulness if heritability estimates in general, and the questionable assumptions underlying behavioral genetic models (for example, see Goldberger, 1978, 1979). (p. 71, bold in original title)

As you can see, behavior genetics has generated criticism for decades. This critical work is respectable scholarship and should not inspire disappointment, a response that would more properly be directed toward the shoddy arguments proposed by behavior genetics itself. Indeed, critical psychology, defined by UIS psychology professor Dennis Fox, UMF Dean of the School of Education Isaac Prilleltensky, and psychologist Stephanie Austin in Critical Psychology: An Introduction (Second Edition) as "a variety of approaches that challenge assumptions, values, and practices within mainstream psychology that help maintain an unjust and unsatisfying status quo" (p. 18), is a legitimate, thriving academic field with massive volumes of published works. To summarily dismiss it simply because it defies mainstream pseudoscientific orthodoxy is not only intellectually irresponsible, but also unwise and even socially harmful. Instead, consider taking a more charitable approach in assessing this work. You may come to realize that these dedicated, brilliant scholars have a point, after all.

You are intimating that I don't believe that an attempted suicide at age 10 probably has a longstanding secretive underlying "environmental" cause which was never addressed, along with a long list of other behaviors which suggest unresolved early traumatic experience.

Not at all. Actually, I am pretty sure you accept the genetic predisposition hypothesis, which holds that genes merely make specific psychological outcomes or more less likely to manifest in response to experience, like most people.

Sex is a pleasurable activity ..except when it isn't. When you are being used as a money-maker, at times in a genocidal sort of way, it is usually not. Same goes for porn.

It seems like you feel that sex work is a largely criminal enterprise. I do not buy this view. Regarding prostitution, in "The Sex Trafficking Panic Is Based On Myths" sociologist Jenny Heineman, who specializes in feminist and queer theories and has been researching the sex industry for about a decade, and sociologist Brooke Wagner, who as a professor in Wittenberg University teaches courses on the intersections of gender, sexuality, and crime, demonstrate that these concerns are for the most part baseless.

As for porn, I feel that a similarly irrational, moralistic panic is at play in exaggerating the criminality of the industry. I have not seen any convincing evidence that this panic is warranted. However, I am definitely open to changing my view if such evidence is presented to me.

I do indeed feel the same when I am pressured to use "preferred pronouns" at a place of employment, which go against my beliefs of nature, and for which I could quite possibly be reprimanded or fired for not obeying against my beliefs, be they personal, religious, or otherwise

I agree with you regarding the usage of gendered pronouns. As I stated, the usage of pronouns in reference to gender rather than biological sex merely reinforces the gender construct, when the goal is to eliminate it.

I do not follow. I think you need to explain your personal beliefs about the positive or negative nature of gender construct according to your opinion.

The social construct of gender is oppressive because it imposes strict behavioral norms on the basis of sex and forms a hierarchical relationship between the sexes. Violation of these norms inspires abusive, sometimes even brutal or violent censure and general social exclusion. Additionally, as literally thousands of studies have shown, social inequality generates considerable distress; hierarchical social relationships are necessarily oppressive.

Similar to Daniel, this is a very bold assertion. Are you willing to demonstrate the history of how this edict came to be the rule of law down through the ages for western society? I think I might like to explore this particular idea.

I delved into the history of statutory rape laws in my most recent thread here, titled "Another essay, this one about the stigma's history." Feel free to check it out.

Also, why do you not post with what I sense is your usual nic? Can others not handle taking all the potential flack with just their own 20-year file?

Not sure what you mean there in bold, but I actually only very briefly posted here about a decade ago and have since forgotten my old login info. I do remember you, though. :p