A few left-wing biologists are trying to spread the meme that highly polygenic traits are unstable: they might play out entirely differently in a different environment, presumably in a way that zeroes or reverses any trait differences that they don’t like. This is a defensive play: they’re trying to prepare you to disbelieve in the logical implications of likely near-future research results.
As I have pointed out before, there is no reason to believe that polygenic traits are especially unstable,. Since most products of natural selection are polygenic, if this were true you’d all the time be seeing complex adaptations go screwy when you moved the species to a new continent or whatever: this doesn’t often happen. On the other hand, it does happen when you move Pak from Pak-home to Earth: tree-of-life root doesn’t grow here, due to the thallium shortage. Maybe that’s what they’re thinking of. But that’s a typical product of insidious tnuctipun genetic engineering, not natural selection: it was a designed-in failure mode.
One interesting example: how do hits for educational attainment work in men vs how they work in women? Despite what feminists may say, those are substantially different environments – hormonally quite different, for example, and with a fair amount of differences in the central nervous system – like brain volume, relative amounts of grey and white matter, etc.
So, what are the differences in how EA snps work in the two sexes ( yes, there are only two)?
Apparently, there are no such differences.