3 ms·
> Looks are subjective. There isn't and will never be a SNP for "attractive". Tall yes, but not hot. There are already successful GWASes for attractiveness: ht
by gwern 7y ago
> Looks are subjective. There isn't and will never be a SNP for "attractive". Tall yes, but not hot.
There are already successful GWASes for attractiveness: https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1007973 https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/jo... This should not be shocking, since a lot of it is just tapping into weight/obesity phenotypes, which are very obviously heritable.
- searine 7y agoThat result is pretty weak statistically and the phenotype is vague. (Yes it passes GWAS threshold but a lot of associations do that are later found to be false positives). Symmetry would be an easy "attractive" metric, but these are all complex traits that we aren't really close to narrowing down the mechanism for.
- gwern 7y ago> That result is pretty weak statistically and the phenotype is vague. As one would be expected from GWASes with current sizes and noisy measurements. Yet, that's very different from 'never'. > Yes it passes GWAS threshold but a lot of associations do that are later found to be false positives That's not true. Genome-wide statistically-significant hits have excellent replication rates, when calculated properly.