5 ms·

the enriched population does not help as high IQ is not caused by rare variants. Rather it is the proportion of common variants that increase IQ to common varia

the enriched population does not help as high IQ is not caused by rare variants. Rather it is the proportion of common variants that increase IQ to common variants that decrease it. This is why we need millions of samples.

pcrh 7y ago
I think you perhaps misunderstand the study's conclusions (and that of most GWAS on intelligence). They conclude that high IQ (>170) is mostly not caused by genetic variants.
- ZhuanXia 7y ago
  >They conclude that high IQ (>170) is mostly not caused by genetic variants. The abstract does not mention that; they claim: "This study shows the utility of extreme trait selection for genetic study of intelligence and suggests that extremely high intelligence is continuous genetically with normal-range intelligence in the population." I don't think anyone would seriously claim that high IQ is mostly not caused by genetic variants, given the prior knowledge of the heritability of IQ.
  - pcrh 7y ago
    The full text is available here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5987166/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5987166/ In the conclusions section they state: >Focusing on the core 4-test g measure, we think that accounting for 1.6% of the variance of intelligence is exciting for several reasons. First, this effect size is greater than the effect sizes from previous GWA studies of the normal range of intelligence.45 The effect size of 1.6% represents >2.5% of the heritable variance of intelligence, which is comparable to the most robust effect sizes in behavioural research.46 That they are "excited" to account for at best 2.5% of high IQ through genetics suggests that genetics is not a large contributor to high intelligence. Previous studies demonstrating high heritability of IQ did not discriminate between genetic inheritance and social/cultural/environmental inheritance. Clearly, the latter are more significant contributors than is genetics.
    - ZhuanXia 7y ago
      >That they are "excited" to account for at best 2.5% of high IQ through genetics suggests that genetics is not a large contributor to high intelligence. Bit of a stretch there mate; that doesn't follow at all.
      - pcrh 7y ago
        Well... Accounting for 2.5% of the intelligence variation through genetics does lead to the conclusion that 97.5% of high IQ is not accounted for by (known) genetic variation.
        ericd 7y ago
        Doesn’t that just mean we don’t definitively know the vast majority of the causal factors? Which is not at all the same as saying we know it’s not genetically determined?
        pcrh 7y ago
        Depends on the weight you assign to "just". At the current level of knowledge it would mean that genetics is not an important contributor to the differences in "intelligence" between individuals in the general population. What the important factors are is obviously an interesting question.
    - alach11 7y ago
      > Previous studies demonstrating high heritability of IQ did not discriminate between genetic inheritance and social/cultural/environmental inheritance. This simply isn't true. Studies of twins not raised together provide evidence that IQ is more than 50% heritable. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/neu.10160 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/neu.10160
      - pcrh 7y ago
        Heritability is not only genetic, it includes a wide variety of social factors. Strict genetic heritability studies do not support a stong association of genetics with intelligence.
mlyle 7y ago
> the enriched population does not help as high IQ is not caused by rare variants. The enriched population tends to have a higher population of these common variants. Saying it "does not help" is kinda silly-- the authors and reviewers behind this Nature MP pub disagree with you, as do I ;) In the end, we have small randomized sample studies directly on IQ; enriched case-controlled studies like this one; and large studies looking at proxy variables (educational attainment). They have all come up with broadly similar estimates for the effects of polygenic variation on general intelligence. That is, we have enough information to be reasonably confident in an upper bound.
- ZhuanXia 7y ago
  I suppose I should have said it does not help much. You are right; it does help.

pcrh 7y ago

I think you perhaps misunderstand the study's conclusions (and that of most GWAS on intelligence). They conclude that high IQ (>170) is mostly not caused by genetic variants.

ZhuanXia 7y ago
>They conclude that high IQ (>170) is mostly not caused by genetic variants. The abstract does not mention that; they claim: "This study shows the utility of extreme trait selection for genetic study of intelligence and suggests that extremely high intelligence is continuous genetically with normal-range intelligence in the population." I don't think anyone would seriously claim that high IQ is mostly not caused by genetic variants, given the prior knowledge of the heritability of IQ.
- pcrh 7y ago
  The full text is available here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5987166/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5987166/ In the conclusions section they state: >Focusing on the core 4-test g measure, we think that accounting for 1.6% of the variance of intelligence is exciting for several reasons. First, this effect size is greater than the effect sizes from previous GWA studies of the normal range of intelligence.45 The effect size of 1.6% represents >2.5% of the heritable variance of intelligence, which is comparable to the most robust effect sizes in behavioural research.46 That they are "excited" to account for at best 2.5% of high IQ through genetics suggests that genetics is not a large contributor to high intelligence. Previous studies demonstrating high heritability of IQ did not discriminate between genetic inheritance and social/cultural/environmental inheritance. Clearly, the latter are more significant contributors than is genetics.
  - ZhuanXia 7y ago
    >That they are "excited" to account for at best 2.5% of high IQ through genetics suggests that genetics is not a large contributor to high intelligence. Bit of a stretch there mate; that doesn't follow at all.
    - pcrh 7y ago
      Well... Accounting for 2.5% of the intelligence variation through genetics does lead to the conclusion that 97.5% of high IQ is not accounted for by (known) genetic variation.
      - ericd 7y ago
        Doesn’t that just mean we don’t definitively know the vast majority of the causal factors? Which is not at all the same as saying we know it’s not genetically determined?
        pcrh 7y ago
        Depends on the weight you assign to "just". At the current level of knowledge it would mean that genetics is not an important contributor to the differences in "intelligence" between individuals in the general population. What the important factors are is obviously an interesting question.
  - alach11 7y ago
    > Previous studies demonstrating high heritability of IQ did not discriminate between genetic inheritance and social/cultural/environmental inheritance. This simply isn't true. Studies of twins not raised together provide evidence that IQ is more than 50% heritable. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/neu.10160 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/neu.10160
    - pcrh 7y ago
      Heritability is not only genetic, it includes a wide variety of social factors. Strict genetic heritability studies do not support a stong association of genetics with intelligence.

mlyle 7y ago

> the enriched population does not help as high IQ is not caused by rare variants. The enriched population tends to have a higher population of these common variants. Saying it "does not help" is kinda silly-- the authors and reviewers behind this Nature MP pub disagree with you, as do I ;) In the end, we have small randomized sample studies directly on IQ; enriched case-controlled studies like this one; and large studies looking at proxy variables (educational attainment). They have all come up with broadly similar estimates for the effects of polygenic variation on general intelligence. That is, we have enough information to be reasonably confident in an upper bound.

ZhuanXia 7y ago
I suppose I should have said it does not help much. You are right; it does help.