Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Most Reported Genetic Associations with Intelligence are Probably False

dash.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–57 of 57 posts

Re: Most Reported Genetic Associations with Intelligence are Probably False

#51

Post by btilly »

epistasis wrote: post #34
btilly wrote: post #7

This whole field seems likely to be a case study supporting http://xkcd.com/882/ . But the research does have a questionable assumption. On p 5 it says, "Such a result would not likely be due to differences in the methods used to generate g in the various datasets under comparison, since g is consistently measured by a wide variety of tests." This is true. However it is also true that, as http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umi…

> This whole field seems likely to be a case study supporting http://xkcd.com/882/ . The scientifically interesting thing is that it's not at all like that XKCD cartoon. Multiple hypothesis testing is built into the design of the studies, and has been from the very start. When it comes to proper interpretation of stats in science, geneticists are at the top of the hierarchy. Your second point is far closer to what I…

Multiple hypothesis testing is built into the design of the studies, and has been from the very start. When it comes to proper interpretation of stats in science, geneticists are at the top of the hierarchy.

It is built into the design of the studies. But studies that do not find results do not get published. Thus there is a lot of room for exceptional results to sneak through despite the attempts to get the stats right.

Re: Most Reported Genetic Associations with Intelligence are Probably False

#52

Post by [deleted] »

thetruthhurts wrote: post #23

"African Americans currently score lower than European Americans on vocabulary, reading, and mathematics tests, as well as on tests that claim to measure scholastic aptitude and intelligence. This gap appears before children enter kindergarten (figure 1-1), and it persists into adulthood. It has narrowed since 1970, but the typical American black still scores below 75 percent of American whites on most standardized t…

[deleted]

Re: Most Reported Genetic Associations with Intelligence are Probably False

#53

Post by ekm2 »

Xcelerate wrote: post #5

Note that the article is not saying that intelligence is not heritable. In fact it makes it quite clear that despite the controversy, the opposite is true: > Although the exact figures have been the topic of much debate, the claim that IQ is at least moderately heritable is widely accepted. IQ may in fact be similar in heritability to the physical trait of height What the article is saying is that intelligence cannot…

>Note that the article is not saying that intelligence is not heritable.

And heritable does not mean it is unchangeable.

Re: Most Reported Genetic Associations with Intelligence are Probably False

#54

Post by epistasis »

btilly wrote: post #51
epistasis wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This whole field seems likely to be a case study supporting http://xkcd.com/882/ . The scientifically interesting thing is that it's not at all like that XKCD cartoon. Multiple hypothesis testing is built into the design of the studies, and has been from the very start. When it comes to proper interpretation of stats in science, geneticists are at the top of the hierarchy. Your second point is far closer to what I…

Multiple hypothesis testing is built into the design of the studies, and has been from the very start. When it comes to proper interpretation of stats in science, geneticists are at the top of the hierarchy. It is built into the design of the studies. But studies that do not find results do not get published. Thus there is a lot of room for exceptional results to sneak through despite the attempts to get the stats ri…

GWAS studies are extremely expensive studies, often in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in SNP chips alone, and will get published somewhere, somehow. If they don't find results they get published in lesser journals, because there's always something to be said even if there are not significant associations.

It's the same with academic clinical trials, even negative results get published, because for those academics they still need something to show, and a publication of a negative result is better than nothing.

Non-publication bias is more common in less expensive, more exploratory settings, where there are lots of little experiments going on all the time. This is quite different from GWAS.

Re: Most Reported Genetic Associations with Intelligence are Probably False

#55

Post by clarkm »

bayesianhorse wrote: post #50
clarkm wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's useful in convincing parents to stop wasting their money on Baby Einstein CDs and other unscientific marketing ploys.

Would telling them "Your child is stupid because you are stupid!" really be more successful than pointing out a lack of effectiveness? And would they really ignore the left-over variability? And will they stop at Baby Einstein CDs or will they just neglect any IQ improvement method, like regular and complete school attendance?

You're missing the point entirely. Imagine if people thought the same way about height as they do intelligence. Neurotic parents would waste all their time trying to make their children taller. The nightly news would be filled with segments on how X or Y impacts your child's height. Yet, none of this would do much to change outcomes, because height, though highly variable among siblings, is mostly genetic.

Re: Most Reported Genetic Associations with Intelligence are Probably False

#56

Post by tehwalrus »

scott_s wrote: post #19
tehwalrus wrote: post #9

I would assume that many behaviours (including language itself) are inherited - and yet have nothing whatever to do with genetics. How would you control for this? Only last week, we had an article on here about how vocabulary in very young children was a function of how much parents talked to their children - with marked differences between economic groups[1]. There are many many systematic errors in this kind of dat…

I think you're using "inherited" to mean "comes from your parents in any way," but that's not what it means in this context. If something is learned from your parents, then it would not be consider an "inherited trait".

going by the "receiving money when people die" thing, I'd say its anything your relatives give to you. I'm sure in a biological science context people mean only genetic/biochemical things (biochemical - e.g. heroin addiction), but my point is that it's difficult to separate out the truly biological ones from the learned ones in most cases.

Re: Most Reported Genetic Associations with Intelligence are Probably False

#57

Post by scott_s »

tehwalrus wrote: post #56
scott_s wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're using "inherited" to mean "comes from your parents in any way," but that's not what it means in this context. If something is learned from your parents, then it would not be consider an "inherited trait".

going by the "receiving money when people die" thing, I'd say its anything your relatives give to you. I'm sure in a biological science context people mean only genetic/biochemical things (biochemical - e.g. heroin addiction), but my point is that it's difficult to separate out the truly biological ones from the learned ones in most cases.

That's a fine point to make - separating out variables is hard. But when talking in a biological context, you're going to confuse people if you use the colloquial definition of "inherited".
Post reply on HN