“Polygenic scores are not pure measures of ‘inborn ability,’ and genome-wide association studies of human intelligence and educational attainment are not inevitably ushering in a new eugenics age.”https://leapsmag.com/genetic-test-scores-predicting-intelligence-are-not-the-new-eugenics/ …
i’m glad you’re eclectic but it seems that you don’t understand how principal components analysis works; and you’re pestering someone who does interesting research in his spare time
-
-
I'm not the one who doesn't understand PC analysis, and its limitations. To be clear, you and
@gwern are claiming it is possible to genetic screening of embryo's for intellignce that leads to greater success in life - that there is no information gap in current data ? by PCA ? -
If you can narrow this down to which of the four numbered theses advanced in the linked article you intend to defend, I will be happy to answer.
-
And do you agree with her 4th pt? Or do you agree that it’s bizarre gibberish to claim that only something that tests for the presence of whatever X is defined as can be an indicator of X?
-
I agree with her. Though I think you are not exactly accurate in characterizing her statement. she is pointing out that operational characteristics like IQ are not related to only biology, and so any statistical relationships cannot be used for effective screening
-
Okay if you agree with her there is nothing to discuss; she doesn’t understand how indicators work.
-
she doesn't have to, the issue is the quality of the data - GIGO
-
/sigh. Measurement error reduces the efficiency of GWAS and puts a ceiling on PGS variance, but it doesn't make GWAS impossible, and you can still get plenty of results even with crummy IQ measurements like UKBB.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.