Jocelyn Kaiser of sciencemag.org writes:
For height, DNA is largely destiny. Studies of identical and fraternal twins suggest up to 80% of variation in height is genetic. But the genes responsible have largely eluded researchers. Now, by amassing genome data for 4 million people—the largest such study ever—geneticists have accounted for a major share of this “missing heritability,” at least for people of European ancestry. In this group, they’ve identified nearly 10,000 DNA markers that appear to fully explain the influence of common genetic variants over height…
…By 2018, Visscher’s team and other members of a global consortium called GIANT had pooled DNA data for 700,000 people and found 3300 common markers that explained 25% of the variation in height. Now, by looking across DNA from 201 GWA studies with 4.1 million participants, GIANT has brought the total to roughly 9900 common markers, accounting for 40% of the variation. Other markers located nearby and likely inherited together account for another 10% of height variability.
That’s still short of the 80% predicted by twin studies. But last year, Visscher’s group drew on whole-genome sequencing data of a smaller number of people to demonstrate that rare variants—those carried by fewer than one in 100 people—should explain another 30% of height’s variation. (The result was released in a March 2019 preprint that the team is revising.)
Some geneticists say they aren’t surprised that heritability gaps can be filled once enough people had their DNA scanned. “It was expected,” says Aravinda Chakravarti of New York University. The problem remains that few of the height-linked DNA markers have been tied to specific genes that clearly alter the trait. “It’s mostly all still ‘missing’ in a biological sense,” says David Goldstein of Columbia University.
This is exciting news. Even though they still can’t say what genetic markers cause height, they will soon be able to predict it with incredible accuracy from just your DNA (at least for modern Westerners). If genomic markers explain 80% of the variation, the correlation between height and DNA would be 0.89! (the square root of 80%). In practical terms that means you could guess someone’s height just from DNA alone and be within 2.6 inches 95% of the time (at least for whites living in the West and eventually for all major populations).
Can we expect similar results for IQ? In the Minnesota study of twins reared apart, the square root of IQ’s heritability was about 92% as large as height’s. So if polygenic scores will one day correlate 0.89 with height, then perhaps a correlation of 0.89(0.92) = 0.82 can be expected for IQ (assuming a mental measure like IQ is analogous to a physical one like height).
This is about as high as the very best IQ tests correlate with each other, and implies they will be able to guess someone’s IQ based on DNA alone, and 95% of the time, those guesses will fall within 17 points of the correct IQ. In theory the precision could be increased if they predicted one’s composite IQ score on multiple high quality tests administered across the life span (thus cancelling out measurement error)
Of course none of this proves DNA causes most of the IQ variation but there is enormous practical value is predicting IQ, regardless of causation, even if said predictions are largely limited to specific nations and generations. Though if enough truly causal variants can be found, they will predict one’s cognitive rank in any society.
Peepee keep worshiping for oprah big brain and… “cognitive rank of society”.. aka IQ cult.
That’s why people thought you are a 17 years old girl. You look like this.. as well “hbd”ears (“lovers” of human biodiversity) and iqists.
Oprah big brain probably is smarter than all of us, isnt??
Even if was true about her supposed higher IQ, IQ is overrated but not in dumble way RR think.
Hey, Pumpkin, remember when you said JFK’s IQ was 119? According to a Quora post, that figure came from the original version of the Otis test, with S.D. 10, so on the WAIS scale he was actually 129 — close to your 130 estimate for U.S. presidents.
seeing as my estimate for presidents was based mostly on jfk 119 and nixon 143, if jfk is 129 that raises the average from 131 to 136. I need to look into this.
Just looked at my Genomelink results, 48% of SNPs were shorter than average, 26% percent were intermediate, and then 28% were a stronger tendency to be tall. All of the SNPs had very high reliability. For intelligence, I have 35% SNPs having a high tendency to be intelligent, 35% being intermediate, and 29% being weaker tendency for higher intelligence. All of these also showed a high reliability.
For memory, spelling and reading ability, and mathematical ability, all my SNPs showed high performance in these categories with less reliability. My working memory was poorer according to the SNP they tested.
Sorry meant to write 28% for intermediacy in terms of height compared to 48% for shorter and 28% taller.
Multitasking and brain arousal were intermediate and so was figural originality and performance intelligence, all with one SNP for each category with little reliability for each SNP’s ability to tell how I’d do in the respective categories.
couldn’t find the quora post but found this:
Choate had known a very different student in the eldest Kennedy son, Joe Jr., but it had nonetheless accepted Jack after he failed the school’s entrance exam for Latin. Twice. Still, he’d scored 119 on his IQ test, placing him in the top percent of Choate students, and that wasn’t the only reason they were interested in him. The Kennedys had generously donated a projector. “The School is thrilled Mr. Kennedy’s wonderful moving picture machine is to give its first performance this Saturday night,” St. John wrote to Mrs. Kennedy on April 14, 1932.
An IQ of 119 (SD 15) is around the top 10% of the general population, but to be the top 10% of an exclusive school suggests it may have indeed equated to 129. Unless whoever wrote that quote just assumed choate students have the same IQ distribution as America
https://www.quora.com/How-intelligent-was-John-F-Kennedy/answer/Joshua-Hill-396?comment_id=146150299&comment_type=2
Top responder: Andrew Anderson.
“Kennedy took the original version of the Otis Test, which was in vogue during the first half of the 20th century. The median on that test was 100, and the standard deviation was 10 points. Sometime later in the 20th century, the proprietors of the original test replaced it with a new version, called the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT). But scores between the two tests are not directly comparable, because the OLSAT has a standard deviation of 16.
As for the Wechsler – which is probably the most widely known and respected test – the median is 100, and the standard deviation is 15.
Hence, on that old, original Otis, a score of 119 corresponds with 96th or 97th percentile of all test takers. A Wechsler score of 128 is the 96th or 97th percentile of that test also.
If you want to learn more about those very old IQ and academic measurement tests, check out Psychological Abstracts, which is a giant, multi-volume database of all articles publishing on the subject of psychology from the year 1927 until the present.”
Thank you so much!
Thats funny. Im 5 ft 5 inches and from two sources (Genomelink and DNALand), I’m predicted to be even shorter than that. To top that off, my younger sister (shes 23 Im 24) is 5 ft 7, 5 ft 8 so thats a strange anomaly there.
DNALand put me at about 154 cm, or less than 1% of the male population who uploaded their DNA to the site according to their predictions based for height. Im waaay to the left in terms of height in that particular measurement (pun intended). And then Genomelink SNPs mainly turned out to be shorter than average, with a few being above average and more SNPs for average height than for taller than average height.
from a “class background” pov biden should be the man, but he’s a yuge sell out…and trump is actually more aligned with the 99%.
the guy fox (the “guy fox”) news hired to call…who called AZ…[redacted by pp, nov 5, 2020] .
the AZ biden win seems weird despite the mexicans…
there was a rap song…
https://abcnews.go.com/Elections/2020-us-presidential-election-results-live-map
still no explanation of how what blow reported can be true and trump lost ANY state he won in 2016.
1. what blow reported is FALSE or…
2. FRAUD
which one?
if trump gained in all demos…he could only lose if…a lot of VERY improbable stuff…
the poll blow refers to shows trump lost 5% of the white man vote.
media reported: bush 41 advised bush 43 hire cheney to help him decide who he’d choose as his vp…he chose cheney.
i heard there’s a NFLX dramatization of Queen’s Gambit and it mentions paul morphy frequently.
morphy is another example of how people haven’t gotten faster or smarter or whatever…
Perhaps the most accurate player who ever lived, he would beat anybody today in a set-match. He had complete sight of the board and seldom blundered even though he moved quite rapidly. I’ve played over hundreds of his games and am continually surprised and entertained by his ingenuity.
how is it people can be so autistic they don’t get this is kayfabe?
He think he is not “autist”
Can we have mercy on him??
Oldest forchan we have notice
Are you virgin??
i am a virgin with men.
I imagine the kind of woman you…
Stupid?
Mad?
…
It’s difficult imagine a high quality heterossex woman voluntarily like to engage with a categorical loser as you.
And i’m talking about CHARACTER and INTELLIGENCE and not empty barbies. What respectively you don’t know what it is and don’t know how to use..
it takes a few hours to count >= 80% of the votes and three days to count the remaining 20%.
really?
and then only in dribs and drabs from AZ?
and PA?
really?
Come out
I don’t know your age but everyone who is not autist already know. But don’t call me. I’m not psychiatrist or pathological altruist.
Step 1: Locate the single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with higher IQ; not necessarily all or even most of them, just a moderate number would be enough
Step 2: Use genetic editing to change a T here, a G there, and A or a C here… preferably on a genome from somebody who had a high IQ already for best results; this would probably create an individual with a higher genetic “compound score” for IQ than the randomness of natural breeding ever has
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit (after they earn all the million-dollar prizes from the Clay Mathematics Institute)
I guarantee you the Chinese government is already walking this path, and there’s still time to change the road we’re not on. I advise not to waste it.
Here’s an interesting and pertinent question. There are several genetic diseases associated with Ashkenazi Jews, such as Tay-Sachs and Niemann-Pick, which are thought to safely increase intelligence in heterozygotes but cause death or debilitation in homozygotes. If our hypothetical Kwisatz Haderach were simultaneously heterozygotic for multiple such diseases, would they experience ill effects therefrom? It’s conceivable, since these disorders apparently affect the same cluster of neurochemicals.
Chinese government is evil/corrupted and irrational. I also have no doubt they are looking for IQism. China is Champion in quantity… no in quality.
Fantasy.
This is what I’m really looking forward too, when everyone has accurate polygenic scores of themselves on their phones people will all become hereditarians again like in the good old days.
Even your estimate is not the maximum prediction accuracy possible I believe, since studies like this only look at additive heritability, right? Non-linear effects and gene-gene interactions aren’t looked for.
Maybe. Twin studies tell us the maximum heritability we can expect to find.
No they don’t.
Yeah, but don’t they all give somewhat different results?
And there’s some simplifying assumptions used in twin studies that are not quite 100% correct I believe.
Of course genetic prediction will probably never capture all heritability either, but better than within 17 points would be nice.
If the “simplifying assumptions” of TRA studies are false, then we should not accept genetic conclusions. The falsity of the EEA is devestating for “hereditarian” theorizing regarding twin studies.
What do you mean by “capture all heritability”?
“ The falsity of the EEA is devestating for “hereditarian” theorizing regarding twin studies”
No it’s not.
“What do you mean by “capture all heritability”?”
You don’t know what missing heritability is?
Why not?
The “missing heritability” was never there in the first place. Twin study assumptions are false therefore the conclusions drawn from them are false.
I didn’t say they were false, I said they’re not 100% accurate. What measurements are?
Looks like Biden has won. I’m a bit divided about it. At least the Iran deal is resurrected and there shouldn’t be another War of Zionist Supremacy In The MIddle East.
Puppy why won’t you tell me how the gays voted?
y’all voted for trump of course. His over the top hair, bravado and gaudy opulence makes him a YUGE gay icon right up there with Cher, Madonna, Judy Garland, Liza Minnelli, Lady Gaga and Liz Taylor.
Gays are zionist, too. W Hollywood, ground zero of the AIDS epidemic, passed one of the first anti BDS laws in Cali.
murray said trump loved gay men because it meant less competition for women. the same reason peepee thinks all men are gay and black.
funny thing about murray…his father’s native language was scots gaelic…he was from the outer hebrides.
Pill
Why more than a half of Lgbt younger french voted from Marine Le Pen in the last election??
Haha..
https://mobile.twitter.com/KathyBenjamin/status/1324737371628326912
that’s from Always Sunny in Philadelphia…
supposing there is fraud, what the fraudsters didn’t think of was that the defrauded may have detective power in the recounts.
Even if it was a fraud in a sane world a tremendously horrible mismanagement about the biggest sanitary crisis of 100 years as tramp administration would result in impeachment but in this Panis et Circensis…
i thought only black women had the name “jocelyn”.
PumpkinPerson, I have a question and forgive me in this one instance if I sound a bit like Rahul. In the SAT Math section, at least in the SAT I took, the math could be split into 4 parts: numbers & operations; algebra & functions; geometry & measurement; data analysis, statistics and probability. How would they rank (not asking for specific correlations) in terms of their correlation to verbal IQ and nonverbal IQ. Only requesting a rank order type of answer.
More info about my performance: I was worst at algebra and best at geometry.
the evidence for fraud that i know of is merely the course over time of % trump vs % biden.
the explanations for this i’ve read are lame.
that is, if you were a martian observing this election you would say, “that seems weird.”
it should be remembered:
1. trump declared fraud when it wasn’t clear he would lose the first/provisional count.
2. i forget this one in my cups.
Agreed. I think that lends credibility to the fraud claim. Trump is very devious and will do illegal immoral things to win, but his great strength is that he correctly assumes the other narcissists in power would do the same.
“Studies of identical and fraternal twins suggest up to 80% of variation in height is genetic.”
Nonsense.
I don’t see any reason to use causal language, such as “the genes responsible”.
See Joseph’s most recent writing on the MISTRA (in 2018) and https://www.madinamerica.com/2018/11/bad-science-minnesota-study-twins-reared-apart/
I wonder when “hereditarians” will reject genetic reductionism and embrace DST—never, I’d wager
Why bring up the MISTRA when Bouchard is hiding IQ test data? “Hiding” may be strong language, you say. But Bouchard has never released the other IQ test data to critical researchers like Jay Joseph—what does he have to hide?
Maybe he’s sensitive to criticism & doesn’t want to give critics even mild ammunition. But I agree he should release it
Can you ban RR? Hes trolling.
Genes are a necessary cause for expression of traits.
Why wouldn’t we use “causal language”?
Because I don’t think heritability estimates are useful and they’re gathered from studies with false assumptions. And genes don’t “cause.”
Why are they not useful? Do you know what heritability is used for?
So you’re saying genes are not necessary to the existence of organisms as we know them?
Enlighten me. And I’m pretty sure you know I’m attacking the concept of heritability.
RR did you even go college? You should disclose that on your website.
Jordan Peterson has a dweeb voice. It doesn’t match his look at all.
Salma Hayek looks great for a 50 something year old. May be the hottest 50+ celeb I can think of.
Brown people age better than whites.
Santo what male 50 something year old celeb do you think is hottest? Do men get better looking with age?
I really don’t know. I’m not a huge fan of celebs show.
What do you like??
For sure, because males are on avg more good looking than females.
Santo do you think Sean Connery was hotter as an older man than when he was making the james bond movies? I read somewhere that he aged very well according to women.
I prefer him as he is now in heaven. Naked and with White wings.
Playing borderlands DLC and I’m doing this psychonaut type thing where I’m in the mind of a mad person. What a weird level. Music is creepy.
If 80% of height is genetic how explain massive increase since the end of second world shit??
Suggest =/= it is.
I find funny the “80%” genetic..
Science is the distraction by precision
As arts is the distraction by fantasy
Only real philosophy that is not a distraction
That’s why people think philosophers are always cryin
Haven’t you heard the famous example of equal seeds grown in different soil? Within each group the height differences of the plants are 100% genetic. Between each group they’re 100% environmental. Something similar is going on when you compare height today vs 80 years ago:
I wonder if RR he ever seen this picture?
I’d imagine his concept of “hereditarianism” would probably be more accurate.
Of course height is also biologically determined but i always think dumb compare an organism which is literally connected with soil with humans or another walking beast. Vegetal environment dependence is significantly bigger than humans. Even thought different spécies have different predisposed designs.
The main question here is not height size “heritability” but how similar siblings and parents are one each other right?
Doesnt matter at all if nativedutch people increased its height from 172 cm from the beggining of the last century to 178 in 2020.
Shrinking family size may be another factor if first born child tend to score higher in IQ tests and if higher IQ tests are correlated with height.
Another problem for organism heritability is he number of possible combinations increases with its complexity levels .
Always speculating.
Something
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23347499/
Are you saying people have grown over 20 percent in height because of nutrition? I don’t think they have.
Furthermore, yeah we can talk about people who have had their legs cut off compared to those that haven’t, that’s definitely part of the environment, yet you aren’t mentioning that. The point being that we are talking about genes and environment within a certain framework
Of course they have
So….if sibling A had an IQ of 130, you could maybe assume that sibling b had an IQ of 107-108 with that 0.82 correlation number?
Needless to say, I’m horrible with mat.
when the environments are identical h^2 is 100% retards.
Duh!
Only if the environment is your house.
Studies of identical and fraternal twins suggest up to 80% of variation in height is genetic.
no retard! the h^2 of everything is up to 100%.
The heritability of any trait can in theory be up to 100%, but she’s saying actual twin studies in western countries report heritabilities up to 80%
I’m very concerned that you don’t have the reading comprehension to grasp such distinctions.
This should be a question on the verbal SAT. Are you listening college board?
Height is adaptable or plastic to different circumstances. I don’t think upper middle classes were poorly feed but they still had comparatively lower avg height with today.
You might want to check out Stephen Hsu’s blog. He’s a leading researcher in GWAS and pioneered the first very reliable height prediction study. He’s written some interesting things about how he believes that IQ is analogous to height and other quantitative traits, and with genetic modification you could get an IQ in the +10 SD range like what has been accomplished in agriculture. Indeed, the “ideal” genome, selecting for all the right variants in height leads to something crazy like +8 SD. He argues that if the same process were applied to IQ, the result would be a super genius far beyond the ability of anyone seen before.
This paper by him is quite interesting, particularly the “Beyond Man” section: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.3421.pdf
Quoting it:
“There is good evidence that existing genetic variants in the human population (i.e., al-leles affecting intelligence that are found today in the collective world population, but not necessarily in a single person) can be combined to produce a phenotype which is far beyond anything yet seen in human history. This would not surprise an animal or plant breeder –experiments on corn, cows, chickens, drosophila, etc. have shifted population means by many standard deviations relative to the original wild type.”
[…] (stuff about Von Neumann)
“The quantitative argument for why there are many SD’s to be had from tuning genotypesis straightforward. Suppose variation in cognitive ability is
1. highly polygenic (i.e., controlled by N loci, where N is large, such as 10k), and
2. approximately linear (note the additive heritability of g is larger than the non-additive part).
Then the population SD for the trait corresponds to an excess of roughly N^(1/2) positive alleles (for simplicity we suppress dependence on minor allele frequency). A genius like von Neumann might be +6 SD, so would have roughly 6N^(1/2) more positive alleles than the average person (e.g.,∼600extra positive alleles if N= 10k). But there are roughly +N^(1/2) SDs in phenotype (∼100SDs in the case N∼10k) to be had by an individual who has essentially all of the N positive alleles! As long as N^(1/2) >>> 6, there is ample extant variation for selection to act on to produce a type superior to any that has existed before. The probability of producing a “maximal type” through random breeding is exponentially small in N, and the historical human population is insufficient to have made this likely.The content of this basic calculation underlies the work of animal and plant breeders.