Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37694992›Full record

ArticleThe Behavioral and brain sciences2023

Burt uses a fallacious motte-and-bailey argument to dispute the value of genetics for social science.

Brendan P Zietsch, Abdel Abdellaoui, Karin J H Verweij

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Behavioral and brain sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Social Background Effects on Educational Outcomes-New Insights from Modern Genetic Science.Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Brendan P ZietschCentre for Psychology and Evolution, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia zietsch@psy.uq.edu.auhttps://psychology.uq.edu.au/profile/2404/brendan-zietsch.
Abdel AbdellaouiDepartment of Psychiatry, Amsterdam UMC - location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands a.abdelllaoui@amsterdamumc.nl https://researchinformation.amsterdamumc.org/en/persons/abdel-abdellaoui karin.verweij@amsterdamumc.nl https://researchinformation.amsterdamumc.org/en/persons/karin-j-h-verweij.
Karin J H VerweijDepartment of Psychiatry, Amsterdam UMC - location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands a.abdelllaoui@amsterdamumc.nl https://researchinformation.amsterdamumc.org/en/persons/abdel-abdellaoui karin.verweij@amsterdamumc.nl https://researchinformation.amsterdamumc.org/en/persons/karin-j-h-verweij.ORCID 0000-0001-9868-7821

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Burt's argument relies on a motte-and-bailey fallacy. Burt aims to argue against the value of genetics for social science; instead she argues against certain interpretations of a specific kind of genetics tool, polygenic scores (PGSs). The limitations, previously identified by behavioural geneticists including ourselves, do not negate the value of PGSs, let alone genetics in general, for social science.

Indexed as

Dissent and DisputesSocial SciencesFemaleHumans

Identifiers

PMID37694992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.