3 ms·

I reject the premise: I don't think it is possible to predict intelligence accurately from DNA. While some degree of intelligence is heritable, perhaps even a s

I reject the premise: I don't think it is possible to predict intelligence accurately from DNA. While some degree of intelligence is heritable, perhaps even a substantial degree, environmental factors still play a big role in intelligence. A poor prenatal environment, malnutrition, toxins like lead, and disease all negatively impact intelligence, none of which you could measure or account for from just DNA. But let's suppose this hypothetical test also accounts for environmental factors, and it can even calculate what the child's future intelligence would be based on how much financial support is provided. I don't think such a thing is actually possible, but I won't fight the hypothetical. Then I would say to allocate the money to provide the best net increase in intelligence: prioritize those with the most IQ points gained per dollar. I'd rather get 10 kids from 80 IQ to 100 IQ than 1 kid from 80 IQ to 140 IQ. Though I think you'll find that, if the goal is improving the intelligence of the average population, putting funds into prenatal care and lead abatement programs will probably have the same impact for a lot less money than college scholarships.

asianthrowaway 8y ago
I don't think you're very informed on the current state of IQ research (which is totally fine, not many people are, it's a very taboo subject). Perhaps you would gain from reading a bit on the subject (wikipedia has good articles on IQ). But I'll try to address your points. >I reject the premise: I don't think it is possible to predict intelligence accurately from DNA. While some degree of intelligence is heritable, perhaps even a substantial degree, environmental factors still play a big role in intelligence. A poor prenatal environment, malnutrition, toxins like lead, and disease all negatively impact intelligence, none of which you could measure or account for from just DNA That's true, but the degree of heritability here is important. If intelligence was 10 percent heritable, then I would agree that trying to predict intelligence from DNA would be an absurd endeavor since most of the variance in intelligence would be caused by environmental factors. But in fact, most recent studies converge towards the fact that IQ is 80 percent heritable. This leaves a lot of wiggle room for the 20 percent of environmental factors to either increase or decrease this genetic component, but I think you really overestimate the effect of environmental factors. Intelligence is predominantly determined by genes, with the environment having mild influences. In the USA they are especially mild since most children thankfully do not grow up starving or suffering from tropical parasites. >Then I would say to allocate the money to provide the best net increase in intelligence You can't influence intelligence through education. Study after study has shown that effect of education on adult IQ is exactly zero. The point would not be to increase a kid's intelligence, but rather to identify kids with potential and transfer them to an environment where they could flourish. >Though I think you'll find that, if the goal is improving the intelligence of the average population, putting funds into prenatal care and lead abatement programs will probably have the same impact for a lot less money than college scholarships. Oh definitely, my hypothetical scenario would not increase the average intelligence in the least, that was not the point of it. I agree that prenatal care and policies for a clean environment would probably raise the general intelligence.
- openasocket 8y ago
  I am aware of the current state of IQ research, and I think you overstate some of the conclusions. The biggest is that heritability of IQ is 80%, but that does not mean that it is entirely the consequences of genetics. Parents raise their children, and thus affect their child's environment, both in the womb and early life. That can't be accounted for in DNA.

asianthrowaway 8y ago

I don't think you're very informed on the current state of IQ research (which is totally fine, not many people are, it's a very taboo subject). Perhaps you would gain from reading a bit on the subject (wikipedia has good articles on IQ). But I'll try to address your points. >I reject the premise: I don't think it is possible to predict intelligence accurately from DNA. While some degree of intelligence is heritable, perhaps even a substantial degree, environmental factors still play a big role in intelligence. A poor prenatal environment, malnutrition, toxins like lead, and disease all negatively impact intelligence, none of which you could measure or account for from just DNA That's true, but the degree of heritability here is important. If intelligence was 10 percent heritable, then I would agree that trying to predict intelligence from DNA would be an absurd endeavor since most of the variance in intelligence would be caused by environmental factors. But in fact, most recent studies converge towards the fact that IQ is 80 percent heritable. This leaves a lot of wiggle room for the 20 percent of environmental factors to either increase or decrease this genetic component, but I think you really overestimate the effect of environmental factors. Intelligence is predominantly determined by genes, with the environment having mild influences. In the USA they are especially mild since most children thankfully do not grow up starving or suffering from tropical parasites. >Then I would say to allocate the money to provide the best net increase in intelligence You can't influence intelligence through education. Study after study has shown that effect of education on adult IQ is exactly zero. The point would not be to increase a kid's intelligence, but rather to identify kids with potential and transfer them to an environment where they could flourish. >Though I think you'll find that, if the goal is improving the intelligence of the average population, putting funds into prenatal care and lead abatement programs will probably have the same impact for a lot less money than college scholarships. Oh definitely, my hypothetical scenario would not increase the average intelligence in the least, that was not the point of it. I agree that prenatal care and policies for a clean environment would probably raise the general intelligence.

openasocket 8y ago
I am aware of the current state of IQ research, and I think you overstate some of the conclusions. The biggest is that heritability of IQ is 80%, but that does not mean that it is entirely the consequences of genetics. Parents raise their children, and thus affect their child's environment, both in the womb and early life. That can't be accounted for in DNA.