Joseph has written what purports to be a refutation of studies of Twins Reared-Apart (TRAs) with a singular focus on the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared-Apart (MISTRA). I show, in detail, that (a) his criticisms of previous TRA studies depend on sources that were discredited prior to MISTRA, as they all failed the test of replicability, (b) the list of biases he uses to invalidate MISTRA do not support his arguments, (c) the accusations of questionable research practices are unsubstantiated, (d) his claim that MISTRA should be evaluated in the context of psychology’s replication crisis is refuted. The TRA studies are constructive replications. Like many other scholars, past and present, he has been misled by the variation introduced by small samples (sampling error) and the distortion created by walking in the garden of forking paths. His endeavor is a concatenation of elision and erroneous statistical/scientific reasoning.
