4 ms·
>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
by 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 agoWell... 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 agoDoesn’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 agoDepends 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.