There's a certain sort of determinism involved in using past behavior to predict future behavior. That kind of thinking is prerequisite for a social credit system
For some reason, people really love to make these kinds of predictions. They sound true and are fun to talk about, and they make sense to pretty much everyone.
At the same time, the way we talk about something conditions how we see it, how we react to it, and consequently what it is
The environment being so carefully controlled to be the same is kinda one example. I don't think it's as identical as they are claiming — behavioral science is littered with these claims that are later shown to be false — but showing X percent of variance associated with the individual in the absence of environmental variation is not the same as showing X percent in the presence of significant variation. Let's say you tried to change some of the fish, for example.
It's an interesting paper but full of big-picture issues.
For some reason, people really love to make these kinds of predictions. They sound true and are fun to talk about, and they make sense to pretty much everyone.
At the same time, the way we talk about something conditions how we see it, how we react to it, and consequently what it is