> anon, if you take a population and run facial analysis on it, the sub population that is from countries where its ok to be gay are going to have a higher correlation than the people from nations where its not ok to be gay. but how is that relevant to the study anon? when you have 81% accuracy the results are so strong that they speak for them self. if you removed stigma/laws around homosexuality in those countries where that is a no-no, you would likely find numbers similar to those of this study. or do you have reason to believe there would be different results?  > which is obviously correct, since the twins are in the same womb.  it so obviously not correct.  (shrink today got flagged for spam) today /us/blog/looking-in-the-cultural-mi rror/201006/why-twin-studies-dont-s eparate-genes-and-environment > twin studies make the unjustified assumption that twins share the same prenatal environment. actually, fraternal twins develop two placentas that can fuse together and appear to be one, while most identical twins share the same placenta. clearly, two fetuses supported by the same placenta share a more similar environment than two fetuses supported by two different placentas. > in other words, identical twins in utero have identical genes and more similar prenatal environments and more similar prenatal gene-environment interactions.    science/twins-testosterone-women-ho rmones-success-study-research-a8828 401.html > girls born with male twins may have their lives profoundly altered thanks to early exposure to their brothers testosterone. i am sure we could find lots of more information in how the prenatal environment is different for the fetuses.
Norway