19 ms·
> Contrast that with a finding from the other end of the genetic scoring scale: about 27 percent of those who score at the bottom quarter of the genetic index,
by bko 8y ago
> Contrast that with a finding from the other end of the genetic scoring scale: about 27 percent of those who score at the bottom quarter of the genetic index, but are born to high-income fathers, graduate from college.
Is this "genetic index" real and scientifically accepted? It sounds vaguely like eugenics.
> And their work has limitations, in addition to being limited to white people for now.
I guess you can use the idea of "genetic scoring" as long as you side step race, but the idea has a long dark history and strikes me as un-scientific.
- paulpauper 8y agoIt has nothing to do with eugenics. One can also create a genetic index/profile for heart disease risk or anything else.
- bko 8y agoPre-disposition to illness is fine. But that's not what the researchers are talking about when they talk about a superior "genetic score".
- why_only_15 8y agoThey talk about these things in the article. Somebody did a study on retirees, and 20,000 of them gave DNA samples as well. They used the DNA samples and did a broad test (i.e. not 1 gene but 1,000,000) and were able to correlate the genetic test at a significant level with educational attainment. The article says it explains 11% of the difference. It also mentions that it only explains these things for white people because most gene tests are on white people and attempting to correlate things in other ways can come up with bizarre findings. The test has reportedly been independently verified.