> "warring camps" framing is very overstated ... twin-study practitioner field freely cite GWAS results

Ok, good to know :-)

> the work now is on characterizing and bounding it

Using GWAS I suppose, ok.

> "Blog post looks biased" is not a good way ... but those same authors often wrote excitedly about how GWAS results would bolster their priors

Ok, yes I think I agree. ... Interesting

Thanks for keeping the original comment text. (I had a super quick glance at the blog post it mentioned, this one, right: https://theinfinitesimal.substack.com/p/book-review-eric-tur..., maybe will read at some point. "But Turkheimer sets a trap for GWAS Guys" (in the blog post) made me smile :-))