Talk:Eric Turkheimer

Named chair, in the spotlight
Eric Nathan Turkheimer is the Hugh Scott Hamilton Professor of psychology at the University of Virginia.

It's admittedly a pet peeve of mine, but nothing is less informative to a general reader than a named chair. Short of the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, I'd happily be rid of their every mention.

This article is particularly funny, because the named chair seems like 50% of the entire lead. &mdash; MaxEnt 00:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Replications of Turkheimer 2003 study
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Turkheimer&type=revision&diff=846080180&oldid=846072552&diffmode=source However, this is an accurate description of the findings of the study, so I have reversed this. Perhaps User:Everymorning can explain his reasoning here? Note also that a recent, large scale study (Figlio et al 2018) also found no such effect in the USA (as I predicted), but this is recent primary literature and should perhaps not be cited unless secondary studies start referencing it. Deleet (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason I removed the discussion of the Tucker-Drob & Bates paper in question is that no secondary source was provided to support the claim that this is what the study found, and the study itself does not explicitly say that the effect they found in the US was 1/3 the size of Turkheimer et al.'s. I was concerned that the content violated WP:OR for this reason. I agree that we shouldn't cite Figlio et al., or the Tucker-Drob and Bates paper, until and unless they and their relevance to Turkheimer's research are discussed in reliable secondary sources. Some responses to critics of the Turkheimer 2003 study by Turkheimer and others can be found here, maybe this could be included (though it's certainly not an independent source) if we must re-add discussion of the Tucker-Drob paper. Everymorning talk to me 22:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the removal of TD paper as this itself is a major meta-analysis and itself secondary literature, published by mainstream authors in the main journal of the field. As for the 1/3 value, it's sort of OR (I derived it), but it's based on a taking a fraction of two values reported. Surely, one can do such things without it being violation of WP:OR's intended meaning, or do we really have to say something like "later meta-analysis found a smaller effect" i.e. an indefinite comparison (directional)? The TD paper has 76 citations on GS already (in 2 years), so if one were inclined, one could skim through these and see what citing literature says. --Deleet (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I did exactly that, and changed the wording to match what citing literature say. 73.118.228.57 (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Genetics and human agency
I feel like we should mention the Genetics and Human Agency project. It has received 3.5 million USD in funding from John Templeton Foundation and the university. It seems to be based on this 2011 paper by Turkheimer, at least judging by the title. The GHA project is also mentioned by other sites, here, here, and here (probably more). --Deleet (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)