University of Rochester Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry, 300 Crittenden Blvd., Rochester, NY 14642, USA.
Psychol Bull. 2011 Sep;137(5):829-33. doi: 10.1037/a0024678.
In the target article (Dar-Nimrod & Heine, 2011), we provided a social-cognitive framework which identified genetic essentialist biases and their implications. In their commentaries, Haslam (2011) and Turkheimer (2011) indicated their general agreement with this framework but highlighted some important points for consideration. Haslam suggested that neuroessentialism is a comparable kind of essentialist bias and identified similarities with the genetic essentialism framework. In response, we acknowledge similarities but also identify qualitative and quantitative differences between genetic essentialism and other kinds of essentialist biases. Turkheimer challenged us to extend our discussion to address the question of how should people respond to genetic etiological information, critiqued the use of heritability coefficients, and identified a new construct (1 - rMZ), which may be termed a free-will coefficient. In response, we emphasize the need to transform interactionist explanations from being empty platitudes to becoming the default conceptual framework; we wholeheartedly accept his critical view of heritability coefficient estimates (but acknowledge a more limited utility for them); and we are intrigued by his conceptual interest in identifying free-will coefficients yet warn against falling into pitfalls similar to those that were stumbled into in the past.
在目标文章（Dar-Nimrod & Heine，2011）中，我们提供了一个社会认知框架，该框架确定了遗传本质主义偏见及其含义。在他们的评论中，Haslam（2011）和 Turkheimer（2011）表示他们基本同意这个框架，但强调了一些需要考虑的重要观点。Haslam 认为神经本质主义是一种类似的本质主义偏见，并确定了与遗传本质主义框架的相似之处。对此，我们承认存在相似之处，但也确定了遗传本质主义与其他本质主义偏见之间的定性和定量差异。Turkheimer 要求我们扩展讨论，以解决人们应该如何应对遗传病因信息的问题，批评了遗传力系数的使用，并提出了一个新的建构（1-rMZ），可以称为自由意志系数。对此，我们强调需要将互动解释从空洞的陈词滥调转变为默认的概念框架；我们衷心接受他对遗传力系数估计的批评观点（但承认它们的实用性有限）；我们对他在确定自由意志系数方面的概念兴趣感到好奇，但警告不要陷入过去曾经陷入的陷阱。
