53. Research Without Explanations

Research and studies should offer more explanations. They conduct experiments and try to replicate them. They then guess what is going on "backed" by statistical tools. Unfortunately, this guess is not properly explanatory. It does not meet the criteria of a good explanation (i.e. a hard-to-vary explanation) and sometimes no explanation is offered, just a statement. Maybe psychology degrees should include a course on epistemology and critical rationalism.

What should happen is to form a hard-to-vary explanation through several iterations of guesswork and criticism. Once achieved only then you test. Experiments only help you choose between rival theories but it does not influence how good your theories are.

An example of research lacking explanations is The Four Laws Of Behavior Genetics. Steven Stewart-Williams tweeted about The Four Laws Of Behavior Genetics a few days ago. The four laws mentioned in his substack are (the main article is for paid subscribers):

1^st Law: All psychological traits are partially heritable

Representative evidence: Identical twins reared apart are more similar than fraternal twins reared apart, who in turn are more similar than non-relatives reared apart.

2^nd Law: The effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effect of genes

Representative evidence: Identical twins reared together aren’t much more similar than identical twins reared apart, at least by adulthood. Likewise, adopted siblings reared together aren’t much more similar than non-relatives reared apart.

3^rd Law: A lot of individual differences in psychological traits aren’t attributable to either genes or the family environment

Representative evidence: Identical twins reared together aren’t identical, despite sharing all their genes and their family environment.

4^th Law: Most complex traits are shaped by many genes of small effect

Representative finding: There are no common gene variants that increase or decrease IQ by, say, 5 points. However, there are hundreds or even thousands of gene variants that increase or decrease IQ by a tiny fraction of a point.

Each of these generalizations is supported by a large mountain of studies. Indeed, the Four Laws are among the best-replicated findings in psychology.

I tweeted the following in response to try an add explanations to them:

Let's try to make these "laws" better by adding explanations to them:

@DavidDeutschOxf differentiates between genetic knowledge (encoded in our DNA), memetic knowledge (cultural information passed through imitation), and explanatory knowledge (our understanding of the world through hard-to-vary explanations).

Restating the laws:

1. Human behavior is partly shaped by genetic knowledge. 

2. Genetics often outweigh the memetic impacts of family environments. 

3. Influences on behavior extend beyond genes and family memes. 

4. The impact of genetic knowledge is cumulative. 

My take: 

Behavior is shaped by knowledge in all its forms. Although memes evolve faster than genes, suggesting their increasing influence, it seems family-specific memes may not be as impactful as broader genetic traits (Might be saying more about family than genes). Yet, explanatory knowledge remains the most potent force. So please provide explanations!

My explanations may be wrong but they are filled with detail. If they are true they offer more insight. Our goal should be to create knowledge but first, we need to know how knowledge is created.