3 ms·

Your 40-50% variance range isn’t supported by recent literature, as far as I can tell. Secondly, per my understanding you can only get a sense of embryonic PG

by nis0s 11mo ago

Your 40-50% variance range isn’t supported by recent literature, as far as I can tell. Secondly, per my understanding you can only get a sense of embryonic PGS via PGT, and that doesn’t necessarily relate to intelligence. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8280022/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8280022/

polski-g 11mo ago
You shouldn't like papers from 2021 when people are talking about "recent". This stuff is moving very fast. https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/jfhtu_v1 https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/jfhtu_v1
- nis0s 11mo ago
  I can’t put much stock in something that’s not peer-reviewed, nor something that’s not confirmed as reproducible. Herasight, the company, has a deep conflict of interest when publishing a paper like this, don’t you think? It’s like the tobacco industry publishing about the effects of smoking. Two other issues: do the cognitive tests control for socioeconomic status? Otherwise you’re just measuring the effect of nurture, not nature. Second, the UKB fluid intelligence test isn’t a rigorous or reliable measure to fully capture latent GCA.
  - polski-g 11mo ago
    We already know from twin studies that g is 80% heritable, so the effect of nurture on intelligence is slim to none.
    - nis0s 11mo ago
      Again a couple of thoughts occur: 1) you’re greatly discounting the effects of epigenetics on development and trait expressiveness, so even if you tailor for everything as you wish, you’re still only going to guarantee outcomes in a certain range, and 2) heritability is population-level, not individual level. So a figure like “80%” means that that much variation in intelligence in a given *population* is associated with genetic variation. This does NOT mean that 80% of a person’s intelligence comes from their genes. 3) you’re also completely neglecting the effects of genetic nuture, besides environmental effects.

by nis0s 11mo ago

polski-g 11mo ago

You shouldn't like papers from 2021 when people are talking about "recent". This stuff is moving very fast. https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/jfhtu_v1 https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/jfhtu_v1

nis0s 11mo ago
I can’t put much stock in something that’s not peer-reviewed, nor something that’s not confirmed as reproducible. Herasight, the company, has a deep conflict of interest when publishing a paper like this, don’t you think? It’s like the tobacco industry publishing about the effects of smoking. Two other issues: do the cognitive tests control for socioeconomic status? Otherwise you’re just measuring the effect of nurture, not nature. Second, the UKB fluid intelligence test isn’t a rigorous or reliable measure to fully capture latent GCA.
- polski-g 11mo ago
  We already know from twin studies that g is 80% heritable, so the effect of nurture on intelligence is slim to none.
  - nis0s 11mo ago
    Again a couple of thoughts occur: 1) you’re greatly discounting the effects of epigenetics on development and trait expressiveness, so even if you tailor for everything as you wish, you’re still only going to guarantee outcomes in a certain range, and 2) heritability is population-level, not individual level. So a figure like “80%” means that that much variation in intelligence in a given *population* is associated with genetic variation. This does NOT mean that 80% of a person’s intelligence comes from their genes. 3) you’re also completely neglecting the effects of genetic nuture, besides environmental effects.