Why would I ? I was just trying to explain something to you, but apparently you are to stubborn to want to. Why don't you look it up yourself ?
No problem Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Do you really expect me to go look it up, while it is clear as day ? If you want to know how genetics work you should educate yourself on it. Anyway, I have to go now.
My prediction would be that if you do that with 50 pairs of identical twins and 50 pairs of fraternal twins and 50 pairs of age-matched unrelated infants, twenty years later the identical twins will show more intra-pair similarity of behavior than the fraternal twins, who will in turn show more intra-pair similarity of behavior than the unrelated pairs, on average. By behavior I mean measurable differences in response to stimuli, physical and social. What would your prediction be?
I would hesitate to support such a prediction for three reasons: 1. language affects cognition and hence behaviour 2. there is insufficient information on womb learning (except some information for smell and taste) 3. the concept of heritability of behaviour assumes that our ancestors lived in a closed system rather than a diverse one. The concept of a genetically fixed human nature completely ignores the effects of circumstances and experiences in modulating behaviour.
the studies show that what is most important for correlation is that twins shared the same uterus. Doesn't matter if they are identical or not.
It does rather, if you've met anyone who was born and bred in another culture (entirely), you'll realise how simplistic such an assumption is.
It points, rather, to your simplistic assumptions about what is meant by genetic influence. To assume someone who posits genetic influence on behavior must necessarliy be ignoring cultural and environmental influences is a bit goofy.
