3 ms·

Yes. Behavioral data is in most cases far more useful to them than DNA. No need to go all the way of using the non-coding SNPs in a genealogical test to infer y

Yes. Behavioral data is in most cases far more useful to them than DNA. No need to go all the way of using the non-coding SNPs in a genealogical test to infer your coding DNA, to infer your propensity for smoking, when they can just find out if you smoke instead.

abbotcabbot 1y ago
It may have been the lower hanging fruit. But they already have all the tools and behavior analysis is no longer the competitive edge. They can ask for your smoking status and deny your claim for fraud later, but (any genetic data on behavior is an update to fraud investigation value and) they can't know your propensity to non-smoker cancers.
sidewndr46 1y ago
The data that 23andme goes far beyond DNA. It goes into explicit family history. Which as it turns out is pretty close to behavioral information
filoleg 1y ago
> Yes. Behavioral data is in most cases far more useful to them than DNA. Makes perfect sense to me, to be honest. Outside of certain genetic deceases, the behavioral aspect is what ultimately matters. And afaik in terms of the US, a large proportion of the population dies due to behavioral aspects (which I would count obesity rates as an outcome of that). A simple example: yes, I would say I am genetically predisposed to have addictive habits, suffer from liver failure due to alcohol+drugs, and/or deal with lung problems from smoking (given that this was the fate of multiple males up my ancestry tree from both sides of the family). Naturally, I believe that it is more valuable for an insurance company to know whether I actually engage in those harmful behaviors vs. my genes dictating the likelihood of me engaging in those behaviors. In the absence of the former, the latter could be pretty useful, but otherwise there is no competition at all. Sure, genes can give you a probability of those behavioral aspects occurring, but going for the primary metric you are looking for vs. a weak predictor of it clearly makes way more sense.

abbotcabbot 1y ago

It may have been the lower hanging fruit. But they already have all the tools and behavior analysis is no longer the competitive edge. They can ask for your smoking status and deny your claim for fraud later, but (any genetic data on behavior is an update to fraud investigation value and) they can't know your propensity to non-smoker cancers.

sidewndr46 1y ago

The data that 23andme goes far beyond DNA. It goes into explicit family history. Which as it turns out is pretty close to behavioral information

filoleg 1y ago

> Yes. Behavioral data is in most cases far more useful to them than DNA. Makes perfect sense to me, to be honest. Outside of certain genetic deceases, the behavioral aspect is what ultimately matters. And afaik in terms of the US, a large proportion of the population dies due to behavioral aspects (which I would count obesity rates as an outcome of that). A simple example: yes, I would say I am genetically predisposed to have addictive habits, suffer from liver failure due to alcohol+drugs, and/or deal with lung problems from smoking (given that this was the fate of multiple males up my ancestry tree from both sides of the family). Naturally, I believe that it is more valuable for an insurance company to know whether I actually engage in those harmful behaviors vs. my genes dictating the likelihood of me engaging in those behaviors. In the absence of the former, the latter could be pretty useful, but otherwise there is no competition at all. Sure, genes can give you a probability of those behavioral aspects occurring, but going for the primary metric you are looking for vs. a weak predictor of it clearly makes way more sense.