Commenter Mug of Pee was mentioning professor James Lee, who was recently interviewed by Spencer Wells and Razib Khan.

The interview describes a study where a genomic formula predicted 11-13% of the variance in educational attainment (highest degree or diploma obtained).

Taking the square root, it implies that known common genetic variants correlate 0.35 with education, however Lee cautions that population stratification can inflate these numbers. He cites the cliché that chopstick use would seem highly genetic if the sample were a mix of Chinese and non-Chinese people, but the heritability would be misleading because it’s not that many genomic variants are causing chopstick use, but rather they’re signaling Chinese ancestry, which in-turn causes chopstick use.

To avoid the problem of population stratification in the study Lee co-authored, they looked at within family data (I guess because siblings all belong to the same sub-population) but found that the effect size of their predictors were 40% smaller. I guess that means instead of common SNPs correlating 0.35 with education, they correlated 0.21, now explaining only 4% of the variance?

I wonder if these numbers are distorted by range restriction because families have less variance than the general population and that’s known to depress correlations.

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

Bruno

said:Pumpkin, loosely related, but I think we have a wonderful example of relation among IQ and research wich is this one :

4 medal fields are awarded every 4 years. The chances of a master graduate on math to gain the medal fields are 1 among all master graduates in math (thousands ).

Olympiad of math is a competition based on secundzrh math wich is opened only to people who are not attending university.

There are 50 gold medal each year and on average 2 got perfect score (42 points out of 42, gold threshold is usually 29). The difficulty is based on speed more than deep thinking and is unrelated to knowledge. So really an IQ test for people into math.

So between 1994 and 2018, there were at most 50 perfect scorers, and 8 out of 24 people, got the medal. Wich is 16% chances. You can’t have a better example of IQ predictive power. Most university professors I know despize math Olympiad though it’s not like mathematician are taking laureates scores into account.. That fact should help promote testing .

Bruno

said:Perfect scores is more 4 a year (around 240 since 1959).

So the chances for a perfect scorer to get the field medal are still an astonishing high 8%. Knowing that the knowledge required is high school. It also means that tests can safely use some knowledge and catch something far deeper than mere crystallized intelligence.

illuminaticatblog

said:If 12% is genetic. What is the other 88%?

If 4% is genetic. What is the other 96%?

I completed one semester at my local university. But I had mental health issues and dropped out. Brother and sister dropped out of high school.

name redacted by pp, aug 3, 2018

said:i thought lee was referring to the effect sizes of individual alleles. so the effect on the polygenic score would be affected how?

[redacted by pp, aug 3, 2018]