What is the "game" that's over?
Game Over! Genomic Prediction of Social Mobility. Out-of-sample validation; polygenic score predicts life outcome (socioeconomic index). Cohorts from NZ / US, born different decades. Higher SES families have higher polygenic scores on average. PNAS paper. http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2018/07/game-over-genomic-prediction-of-social.html …pic.twitter.com/qrdAwu8eUg
-
-
-
I was wondering the same thing. If it’s the genes are completely uncorrelated with social outcomes game, the fat lady sang at that one a long time ago.
-
PNAS paper uses latest SSGAC EA predictor (soon in Nat Gen): r ~ 0.35. Nontrivial OOS validation of life impact. Second figure at link: ~0.35 is a significant threshold; good enough for outlier detection. GCTA limit ~0.45 for EA, higher for g itself. http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2018/07/game-over-genomic-prediction-of-social.html …pic.twitter.com/Dg7aSRXicX
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Wonder what
@kph3k thinks of this paper... -
I really like this paper particularly bc of its use of family data. I think setting up genetic vs sociological explanations of economic disparities as a “game” where one side will win is flawed.
-
Can’t emphasize enough that genetic associations w/ income are about distribution of goods not hierarchy of people.
-
The blog post says the result is "one might expect from a society that is at least somewhat meritocratic". For us non-experts, could you explain how we know that a "polygenic score" has anything to do with merit?
-
Looking at this with an untrained eye, I'm wondering whether "polygenic score" might be measuring, say, ruthlessness, conformism, or beauty: traits that have nothing to do with merit but are nevertheless useful in attaining social mobility for sociological reasons.
-
This is a good question — what do we find when we data mine for genetics associated w/ education? Bioinformatics prob not sufficient to get us answers (see https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(17)30629-3 …). We try to work the problem from the opposite direction, top downhttp://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797616643070 …
-
We find education-linked genetics are associated with more rapid cognitive development in childhood (even before school entry) and also with better self-control and interpersonal skills
-
Did you control for parents’ educational level when looking at childhood cognitive development? Highly educated parents interact differently with their children, even at an early age, which affects the children’s cognitive development.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The Discussion needs improvement, though:pic.twitter.com/ZQLf78wmGI
-
Good point, if you change what was written it has a different meaning. Thanks, Maggie. You're a great scientist!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
...our genetic measurement is imprecise. The education polygenic score explains only a fraction of the estimated total genetic influence on education ...analyses do not completely exclude potential bias due to population stratification This is game over? Please...
-
Steve, thanks for adding some sanity and humanity to this discussion.
-
Thank you!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Can you please explain in layman terms what is polygenic score? I understand that article claims with data that your genes are what effects your socioeconomic results but as I am unable to find an explanation for polygenic? (multi generational? Multi field? Multi heritage?) lost
-
I am weakest on understanding this part as well. The x-axis appears to be a collection of genetic markers that correlate with educational attainment.pic.twitter.com/ETq04n2hT7
-
Ah I see. I don't know how I missed that it's actually polygenic in sense poly gen markers. Also the implications are different in that case. It's not about vertical mobility but understanding why people attain different results not based on opportunities but disturbition of skil
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And this is despite affirmative action harming the life chances of whites and Asians.
-
You and
@kalliste23 do know WHITE WOMEN are the largest demographic beneficiaries of affirmative action right? And also, you harm yourselves in the discussion of the topic by racialising the issue in an evidently needless manner. -
You're measuring benefit by how represented they are. Not how well represented they are relative to application criteria [ACT/SAT/GPA]https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/09/27/scores-new-sat-show-large-gaps-race-and-ethnicity …
-
You use one metric/domain - what about jobs/$? I am all for meritocracy. e.g. Universal IQ screening achieves what AA sets out to do. But AA disproportionately benefits white people so its weird to hear complaints & racialized arguments of 0-sumnesspic.twitter.com/uLwkw8c5dB
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.