[tdpvb]

These studies are correlative but not casually conclusive. As in, yes there are genes that seem correlated with people who exhibit ADHD symptoms, but that doesn't mean the counterfactual is also true: "everybody with these genes will have ADHD, no matter what".

For example, if that were true then the DSM would describe a genetic test for ADHD, not an open-ended dragnet of multiple choice, "cherrypick from these 18+ descriptions of behavior".

[viraptor]

> These studies are correlative

Once you have population studies from millions and include separated/not twin studies to exclude environment differences, you really need strong arguments and theory why the inheritance is not the mechanism here.

> but that doesn't mean the counterfactual is also true: "everybody with these genes will have ADHD, no matter what".

Nobody claimed that. That's not how genes work. That's not how any(?) inheritable disease works. The whole paper is about quantifying the chances. Even the most basic thing like eye colour has a random element to it.

> if that were true then the DSM would describe a genetic test for ADHD

There's no simple mapping and the candidates for complex interactions are in 200+ range the last time I've seen. There's no "you have this one gene, you have ADHD" and nobody claimed that. The work on narrowing down how exactly the candidates interact / get expressed is still ongoing, so hopefully one day we will have a genetic test.

[tdpvb]

Right, so then "ADHD genes" are only correlated!

(You'd said, "it's [ADHD] very highly inherited" -- which sounds declaratively causal. But if you didn't mean this as a causal statement, then cool. No worries.)