3 ms·

There are correlations to problems in the general population. For examples, homosexuality and narcotics usage. The thing to do is probably to ask a dog breeder.

There are correlations to problems in the general population. For examples, homosexuality and narcotics usage. The thing to do is probably to ask a dog breeder. I think inside two sigma, in well out-bred people, general health and IQ are highly correlated. Body temperature (resting metabolic rate) and IQ are correlated. Longevity and physical attractiveness are correlated. I don't think this bodes well for tweaking some menu of brain genes to good effect. Intelligence is mostly caught up in general health and mutational load, within normal bounds. I doubt these claimed IQ genes exist quite the way is being claimed. We're probably looking at an inextricably complex web of genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors. As I think the genes are probably tied up in basic cellular metabolism and endocrinology more-so than some isolated brain design, I will lay money that monkeying with the lot of them is going to go badly. There's a reason genetic algorithms involve discarding the vast majority of each generation. We'll see won't we. If I could lay $500 that these efforts will completely fail with animals, I would.

gwern 12y ago
> There are correlations to problems in the general population. For examples, homosexuality and narcotics usage. The latter of which is not a problem - for those people. More generally: longevity is a accurate indicator of all net problems for people, ranging from social problems to suicide to schizophrenia to drug abuse to disease rates. Is longevity lower for the high-IQ? No, it is not. It is higher. So much for your 'inextricably complex web'. > Longevity and physical attractiveness are correlated. I believe this is mostly driven by the low-end, is it not? All those 'funny-looking kids'. > If I could lay $500 that these efforts will completely fail with animals, I would. You can't, of course, because that would be a waste of time; there are no measures of general intelligence nearly as well-validated with any animals as for humans (whether you want to specify cognitive functioning or life outcomes), and if there were, no one would bother to capture nearly enough genomes or genotypes to nail down the respective variants.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  > Is longevity lower for the high-IQ? No, it is not. It is higher. That's my whole point. I'm not sure you're following. It's mostly about health down to the cellular level. It's about a high performance immune system during gestation and development. It's about the absence of mutational load, not the existence of IQ boosting genes. Good luck if you think it's a simple matter of inserting genes a, b, and c. It's about how millions of pieces fit together exactly. You seem to be saying we're going to be able to take a top notch, high end consumer car (person with IQ 120) and add a turbocharger, remove some body weight, and tighten up the tolerances and compression ratio to get more zoom. I'm saying that's just not going to work. The absolute best case will be you manage to make an F100 racer, which falls apart after 100 miles without extreme maintenance. But more likely the thing won't even run properly. You have no idea and I have no idea how genetic engineering of mammals will play out. I am convinced that you are operating from flawed premises of the organism as a machine. Your focus on simple correlations belies the misunderstanding. In the organism we are talking about a chaotic, extremely complex system like the weather or an economy that will badly defy engineering attempts. Go read jurassic park, lol. Time will tell.
  - gwern 12y ago
    > It's mostly about health down to the cellular level. It's about a high performance immune system during gestation and development. It's about the absence of mutational load, not the existence of IQ boosting genes. Good luck if you think it's a simple matter of inserting genes a, b, and c. It's about how millions of pieces fit together exactly. If it's about 'mutational load' (you do understand the difference between that term as usually used and the SNP strategy Hsu proposes, right?), then flipping them should work just fine: you're removing damage and friction. > You seem to be saying we're going to be able to take a top notch, high end consumer car (person with IQ 120) and add a turbocharger, remove some body weight, and tighten up the tolerances and compression ratio to get more zoom. No, I am not making a simplistic analogy to a machine. > But more likely the thing won't even run properly. Which is why high-IQ people drop like flies after 100 miles, right... > In the organism we are talking about a chaotic, extremely complex system like the weather or an economy that will badly defy engineering attempts. Yes, it's all so terribly terribly complex, whooo knooowwwsss what will happen. > Go read jurassic park, lol. Newsflash: _Jurassic Park_ was fiction. That is: made up, not real.

gwern 12y ago

> There are correlations to problems in the general population. For examples, homosexuality and narcotics usage. The latter of which is not a problem - for those people. More generally: longevity is a accurate indicator of all net problems for people, ranging from social problems to suicide to schizophrenia to drug abuse to disease rates. Is longevity lower for the high-IQ? No, it is not. It is higher. So much for your 'inextricably complex web'. > Longevity and physical attractiveness are correlated. I believe this is mostly driven by the low-end, is it not? All those 'funny-looking kids'. > If I could lay $500 that these efforts will completely fail with animals, I would. You can't, of course, because that would be a waste of time; there are no measures of general intelligence nearly as well-validated with any animals as for humans (whether you want to specify cognitive functioning or life outcomes), and if there were, no one would bother to capture nearly enough genomes or genotypes to nail down the respective variants.

a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
> Is longevity lower for the high-IQ? No, it is not. It is higher. That's my whole point. I'm not sure you're following. It's mostly about health down to the cellular level. It's about a high performance immune system during gestation and development. It's about the absence of mutational load, not the existence of IQ boosting genes. Good luck if you think it's a simple matter of inserting genes a, b, and c. It's about how millions of pieces fit together exactly. You seem to be saying we're going to be able to take a top notch, high end consumer car (person with IQ 120) and add a turbocharger, remove some body weight, and tighten up the tolerances and compression ratio to get more zoom. I'm saying that's just not going to work. The absolute best case will be you manage to make an F100 racer, which falls apart after 100 miles without extreme maintenance. But more likely the thing won't even run properly. You have no idea and I have no idea how genetic engineering of mammals will play out. I am convinced that you are operating from flawed premises of the organism as a machine. Your focus on simple correlations belies the misunderstanding. In the organism we are talking about a chaotic, extremely complex system like the weather or an economy that will badly defy engineering attempts. Go read jurassic park, lol. Time will tell.
- gwern 12y ago
  > It's mostly about health down to the cellular level. It's about a high performance immune system during gestation and development. It's about the absence of mutational load, not the existence of IQ boosting genes. Good luck if you think it's a simple matter of inserting genes a, b, and c. It's about how millions of pieces fit together exactly. If it's about 'mutational load' (you do understand the difference between that term as usually used and the SNP strategy Hsu proposes, right?), then flipping them should work just fine: you're removing damage and friction. > You seem to be saying we're going to be able to take a top notch, high end consumer car (person with IQ 120) and add a turbocharger, remove some body weight, and tighten up the tolerances and compression ratio to get more zoom. No, I am not making a simplistic analogy to a machine. > But more likely the thing won't even run properly. Which is why high-IQ people drop like flies after 100 miles, right... > In the organism we are talking about a chaotic, extremely complex system like the weather or an economy that will badly defy engineering attempts. Yes, it's all so terribly terribly complex, whooo knooowwwsss what will happen. > Go read jurassic park, lol. Newsflash: _Jurassic Park_ was fiction. That is: made up, not real.