3 ms·

> Height is a univariate trait that does not change after the age of ~20. If you show me someone who can take a genome and predict adult height within a centime

> Height is a univariate trait that does not change after the age of ~20. If you show me someone who can take a genome and predict adult height within a centimeter, then I’ll believe they have a snowball’s chance of predicting something as nuanced and varied as “attractiveness” or “intelligence”. I don't know why that would be the standard, since the amount of variation in height that's attributable to environmental factors might make that fundamentally impossible. But we can get quite close to that standard nonetheless. And even if it's not possible yet, do you think that in 20 years we'll have no ability to predict height or intelligence from a genome? It seems very plausible to me, especially with how cheap genome sequencing is now.

cauthon 4y ago
> since the amount of variation in height that's attributable to environmental factors might make that fundamentally impossible Yes, that is my point. Both intelligence and attractiveness have a significant amount of variation attributable to environmental or other external factors, and have the additional complication that they cannot be measured by a single objective unit (like height can). > do you think that in 20 years we'll have no ability to predict height or intelligence from a genome The quantification of intelligence is notoriously confounded by socioeconomic factors. I do not think talking about predicting a feature makes sense while we are currently unable to describe it well. IMO dedicating funding to improving child care, healthcare+diet, and k-12 education will have a much greater impact on increasing a society's measures of intelligence and educational attainment. There's much stronger evidence that these factors are associated with improved outcomes. But, the work isn't "sexy" and doesn't come with a sci-fi flair. Kind of like ignoring climate work in favor of Mars colonization. There seems to be a cultural bias in tech towards moonshot panaceas vs doing the unglamorous grind. It makes me think of the Bill Gates quote that "a lazy person will find an easy way to do a hard job," and while that's valuable in some contexts I don't think it's universally applicable.
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  Show the military why this is needed and you might get some funding action, that is after all how we got a school lunch program. https://www.ilsna.net/resources/schoolnutrition/historyschoollunch#:~:text=Though%20school%20foodservice%20began%20long,of%20diet%2Drelated%20health%20problems https://www.ilsna.net/resources/schoolnutrition/historyschoo....
- scarmig 4y ago
  Have you applied the same statistical rigor to the evidence that improved child care, healthcare+diet, and k-12 education improve intelligence and educational attainment leads to intelligence increases as you do for genetic arguments?
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  > The quantification of intelligence is notoriously confounded by socioeconomic factors. I do not think talking about predicting a feature makes sense while we are currently unable to describe it well. If we are doing this selection of IVF embryos it is feasible to control for these confounding factors. > IMO dedicating funding to improving child care, healthcare+diet, and k-12 education will have a much greater impact on increasing a society's measures of intelligence and educational attainment. There's much stronger evidence that these factors are associated with improved outcomes. But, the work isn't "sexy" and doesn't come with a sci-fi flair. Source? Isn't intelligence in adulthood more correlated with your parents than any of these environmental factors? That was at least what I had recalled from twin adoption studies.
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  > IMO dedicating funding to improving child care, healthcare+diet, and k-12 education will have a much greater impact on increasing a society's measures of intelligence and educational attainment. Maybe if you do it in North Korea, but US/Europe are already pretty much "maxed out" here. You can always improve things on the margin, but you're not going to see substantial gains of even d = 0.5 magnitude.

cauthon 4y ago

> since the amount of variation in height that's attributable to environmental factors might make that fundamentally impossible Yes, that is my point. Both intelligence and attractiveness have a significant amount of variation attributable to environmental or other external factors, and have the additional complication that they cannot be measured by a single objective unit (like height can). > do you think that in 20 years we'll have no ability to predict height or intelligence from a genome The quantification of intelligence is notoriously confounded by socioeconomic factors. I do not think talking about predicting a feature makes sense while we are currently unable to describe it well. IMO dedicating funding to improving child care, healthcare+diet, and k-12 education will have a much greater impact on increasing a society's measures of intelligence and educational attainment. There's much stronger evidence that these factors are associated with improved outcomes. But, the work isn't "sexy" and doesn't come with a sci-fi flair. Kind of like ignoring climate work in favor of Mars colonization. There seems to be a cultural bias in tech towards moonshot panaceas vs doing the unglamorous grind. It makes me think of the Bill Gates quote that "a lazy person will find an easy way to do a hard job," and while that's valuable in some contexts I don't think it's universally applicable.

ROTMetro 4y ago
Show the military why this is needed and you might get some funding action, that is after all how we got a school lunch program. https://www.ilsna.net/resources/schoolnutrition/historyschoollunch#:~:text=Though%20school%20foodservice%20began%20long,of%20diet%2Drelated%20health%20problems https://www.ilsna.net/resources/schoolnutrition/historyschoo....
scarmig 4y ago
Have you applied the same statistical rigor to the evidence that improved child care, healthcare+diet, and k-12 education improve intelligence and educational attainment leads to intelligence increases as you do for genetic arguments?
whimsicalism 4y ago
> The quantification of intelligence is notoriously confounded by socioeconomic factors. I do not think talking about predicting a feature makes sense while we are currently unable to describe it well. If we are doing this selection of IVF embryos it is feasible to control for these confounding factors. > IMO dedicating funding to improving child care, healthcare+diet, and k-12 education will have a much greater impact on increasing a society's measures of intelligence and educational attainment. There's much stronger evidence that these factors are associated with improved outcomes. But, the work isn't "sexy" and doesn't come with a sci-fi flair. Source? Isn't intelligence in adulthood more correlated with your parents than any of these environmental factors? That was at least what I had recalled from twin adoption studies.
xyzzyz 4y ago
> IMO dedicating funding to improving child care, healthcare+diet, and k-12 education will have a much greater impact on increasing a society's measures of intelligence and educational attainment. Maybe if you do it in North Korea, but US/Europe are already pretty much "maxed out" here. You can always improve things on the margin, but you're not going to see substantial gains of even d = 0.5 magnitude.