ed.ac.uk
'First, we found 187 independent associations for intelligence and highlighted the role of 538 genes being involved - a substantial advance.
'We used our data to predict almost seven per cent of the variation in intelligence in one of three independent samples.
'Previous estimates of prediction have been around five per cent at most.'
Other urls found in this thread:
advancedfertility.com
twitter.com
~7% predictive power
Combined with filters for other issues like genetic diseases definitely gives an unbelievable ROI for PGD w/ IVF to a society. Given the growth rate in predictive power the ROI on IVF clinic is humongous.
Also once again GWAS offers insight into the underlying functions of said genes. Pretty funny the skeptical retards of the world who said that GWAS was pointless without understanding the fundamental processes behind the genes. Seems that identifying genes that influence an outcome happens to help understand that function more, who would have thought?
-----
Our study identified a large number of genes linked to intelligence. Importantly, we were also able to identify some of the biological processes that genetic variation appears to influence to produce such differences in intelligence, and we were also able to predict intelligence in another group using only their DNA.
Dr David Hill
Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology
What does all this mean?
Cool
People said that? I mean I don't think GWAS in and of itself is the end of the research pipeline, but an intriguing first step of observation that enables further study
I thought basically all scientists in the field basically held that opinion? Get correlative evidence -> get functional evidence -> theory?
I guess most people don't understand the context of this so I will explain. If you want to IQ test an adult you would not use this process. You would test the IQ. The use of GWAS is in embryo selection and in genetic engineering. Currently PGD w/ IVF, aka genetic testing of multiple embryos and choosing to implant one or more is going on in America and the world.
The identification of how intelligent an embryo is likely to be therefore is necessary to select an embryo which will compete better in society. This 7% might seem small or negligible. Keep in mind years ago it was 0%.
Assuming you have some way to manufacture embryos perfectly through engineering this 7% could be maximized on every new baby which would give exponentially more high IQ people in a society. This is just the beginning too.
If you are used to computational advancements keep in mind that genetic advancements outpace moore's law.
When it was 52 Genes in 2017
It means in about 2 years Chinese millionaires will be selecting embryos for intelligence to implant them in Filipino surrogates.
The West will be busy banning genetic testing of embryos.
It means if you are planning to have kids you could increase the chance of them being intelligent to a higher degree than before.
advancedfertility.com
If you want to ensure your kids are not genetically diseased or generally get a leg up on other kids statistically you get PGD w/ IVF. The advantage is increasing exponentially as GWAS gives us more predictive power.
intelligence can be linked to mental disorders though
Any place that does this screening yet? I'm looking to have a child soon.
In that case I'm sure they can select for stupidity.
Well, I kinda agree that "associations" can mean anything, and you do want to know how things work. Like, I don't know if it would be ethical to just swap genes in a human embryo with ones that are associated with higher intelligence right off the bat; for all I know I'm also giving that person a predisposition to anal cancer. But, my lack of knowledge doesn't make me not want to know more. It could be promising. I'll have to check out the paper.
"mental disorders" are just a catch-all for brainlets that can never hope to understand a higher intellect.
PGD w/ IVF is legal in America. It's just a limited screening for disease right now though. You would probably have to look into getting this someplace in asia for IQ and have technical expertise to help them
Just to add, for prospective parents the best idea right now is at least do carrier screening on each of you before conception. If you are carriers then go through with PGD to avoid that chance. The other thing you can do is non-invasive blood tests of the mother during pregnancy to check for down syndrome and things like it. In that case you can abort the baby.
The most important aspect of this is that the wealthy and powerful can improve their offspring.
The effect of this greatly changes how you arrange a society. Things like generational wealth and handing power to those related to you become much better strategies. The upcoming prince won't return to the mean and generally be more capable than we would historically believe. Things like monarchies begin to make more sense.
>born too late to not be a brainlet
God damn you little bastard kids
why would it plateau?
Just imagine the difference between someone born now, 5 years from now utilizing all predictive powers, and 25 years from now.
We are talking human, super human, new species, and it doesn't stop. What about adapting to new environments like space or mars? What about fusing with AI? What about being water-dwelling?
If governments were sensible about these things they would realise the ultra wealthy were going to ensure their next generation were the most physically fit possible and banning them from selecting embryos will just drive them to more lax jurisdictions.
The only way to prevent a chasm forming between the plebs and the elite would be to make embryo selection freely available to all. Uptake might still be too low, but it's really the only option.
It's called second-order association user.
We know lighter skin is associated with intelligence.
Therefore whatever codes for lighter skin is associated with intelligence.
The problem is do you want a 150 IQ kid growing up in those environments? It's not a total solution
Everyone in this thread is going to be exterminated in mass brainlet cullings when enough of these crisprmench get into power. Best accept the situation now and submit to a humane culling instead of a violent one when the time comes.
Embryo selection from parents with an average IQ of 80 might only result in children with an average IQ of 95, a bit better than regression to the mean. You're selecting the embryos with the best mix of genes, but the source of genes is pretty depleted. It would take multiple generations of selection before you consistently get 130 IQ children from a population with a low IQ. You don't breed a race horse from some shetland ponies in one generation.
They make clear in the paper this is a white british population. They also screen for high heterozygosity, so no half-breeds.
SJW liberal incapable of any type of intelligent thought detected.
>Yes, there is all that evidence and carefully crafted studies with tons of statistical power.
>but I can just discredit it by saying some implausible result such as skin color when they control for ethnicity
but is that a reasonable assumption?
What if there is just a special adaptation in humans to show association with these genes and intelligence despite them having no influence?
It could be a possibility therefore this whole study is stupid and I can retain my ideology.
Negroes on the suicide watch.
The most interesting thing is what leftists think about it. It's intriguing because it's not clear what rationalization they will take or how they will transform their views.
My own guess is that they simply ignore it. They won't let it effect their views at all but they will come up with some new position when it comes to genetic engineering.
So basically they will pretend genetics didn't matter before but now with engineering it becomes possible to improve them.
AKA "Pre engineering / selection / prediction" - everyone had 100 IQ average.
but post that they will allow in their world view to outwardly accept genetics as a determining factor in outcome.
this honestly couldnt have come sooner, my gf wants kids and she is a bit of a brainlet, enough so to give me unease about the future cognitive capabilities of our kids. god bless you bgi shenzen
As a racial supremacist I have no problem with objectively superior humans destroying me.
Blacks still exist
Abos still exist
>7% predictive power
>on hundreds of genes
we're scraping the barrel, y'all
>Also once again GWAS offers insight into the underlying functions of said genes. Pretty funny the skeptical retards of the world who said that GWAS was pointless without understanding the fundamental processes behind the genes
it's precisely BECAUSE all the latest GWAS studies are finding things with sub-tenths-percent contributions to heritability that we say GWAS is pointless here.
>7%
LOL, I would have more predctive power by picking at random
could not be more irrelevant to the conversation
>someone made shit predictions prior to that something going big, therefore pointing out that the current margins of discovery are inconsequential is irrelevant because everything I BELIEVE will flourish WILL flourish.
538 out of how many?
539.
It was just a random image. Also you have to be a moron to not understand what's happening by this point.
Increasing intelligence isn't really a hard concept to understand or what happens when it is possible.
Irl brainlets have more kids and the future is going to be stupid.
You want to be like 5th generation, not first. They are going to have to deal with so much retarded shit. Not the least of which is democracy.
>Brainlet cull
It'll never work.
You don't have to be smart to fire a gun and you don't have too be dumb to die to a bullet. Remember that we have evidence of early hominids that were far smarter than us, and remember that one of the leading theories as to why they died out is that we killed and ate them. Intelligence does not necessarily mean military success.
>7%
Absolutely fucking nothing at all. Don't even give a shit about it until it is 30% or higher.
Genome-Wide significant genes
2015 - 0
2017 - 52
2018 - 538
Notice a trend?
infantry are already obsolete brainlet
small drone with a 1lb explosion is more effective than an infantry soldier these days, compare costs
now imagine 20 years from now
That doesn't matter, there are more dumb people than smart people. They breed faster and demonstrably capable of producing extremely powerful weapons. This hypothetical 'elite' human race just isn't going to be able to match the sheer volume and aggressiveness of its less perfect cousins. Just like what happened last time.
You are extremely stupid
You have no understanding of military strategy
What would a society of high IQ people be like?
The numbers on the right are going up by one integer from top to bottom.
t. Genius
Emphatically, objectively, better than any existing one.
Our new findings provide evidence that the previously-discovered differences in genetic correlations between traits such as schizophrenia and intelligence and education [11, 57, 12] are due to the fact that genetic effects acting solely on intelligence are those that are negatively genetically correlated with schizophrenia, indicating they are protective against the disorder. However, the genetic variants that act on both education and intelligence are those that show positive genetic correlations with schizophrenia. By meta-analysing intelligence with the genetic component of education that overlaps with intelligence, the relative contribution of variance that is unique to intelligence lessens, and so too does the magnitude of the genetic correlation with schizophrenia.
Holy fuck that's huge if true
Every single thing you could imagine would be better. Better consumer choices, better voting choices, less crime, etc. In general people would just make better decisions in general.
It's extremely hard to fathom but 20x higher GDP average than now would be achieved if you just raised the avg IQ by 15-20 points. The pace of technology advancement would be ridiculous too. If for some reason a small country such as France had +25 IQ points on the rest of the world they would be the global superpower right now.
>le infantry is obsolete meme
The state does not enforce the law with armored vehicles, missiles, aircraft and warships - it does so with jackbooted thugs on the ground, who rely on their opponents (the common man) being disarmed or at the very least heavily outgunned.
I´ll take it your brainletism also leads you to believe that carpet bombing one´s own infrastructure is a path to success in a civil war.
> In general people would just make better decisions in general.
Considering that all tyrants throughout history were far brighter than average joe, I´d argue the opposite. Intelligence doesn´t have any direct link with the formation of a free society, in which the individual is respected and government power is strictly limited.
>Remember that we have evidence of early hominids that were far smarter than us,
Wrong. Neanderthals had larger brains but not enough for scientists to say that they were far smarter than homo sapiens. And early hominids refer to either the first bipedal apes like australopethicus or the early common ancestors of chimps and humans or more accurately the early ancestors of gorilla and the rest of the great apes. The word your looking for is "early humans" which would include different species of the genus Homo.
>that one of the leading theories as to why they died out is that we killed and ate them.
The leading hypothesis is that H. sapiens met them and outbred them. Offsprings of sapeins females and male neanderthals were not biologically fit because of a genetic characteristic of Neanderthal males which made reproduction with human females not work well. There's no good evidence of a significant amount of fighting between Neanderthals and Sapiens near the time where Neanderthals are believed to have gone extinct.
Tyrants are bad, but enlightened autocrats like napoleon are better than democratic societies.
>Tyrants are bad, but enlightened autocrats like napoleon are better than democratic societies.
It seems to me that American Republicanism is the most resilient and least tyrannical form of government ever conceived; save for anarchy, of course, which (unfortunately) doesn´t seem to survive for long after it emerges.
American republicanism is like 200 years old and tyranny isn't strictly bad, a tyrant is just an authoritarian that has gone bad, which doesn't mean that more authoritarian=worse.
Meanwhile shitlibs still claim intelligence is neither meaningful or hereditary
Gattaca soon lads
Could we use this to filter out poor races and genes?
You would need a fairly tryanical state + no cost healthcare, or maybe significant financial incentives.
Separate and filter races and genes just seems the best way to advance civilization and lower violence.
>be biologist
>know that crispr only makes removing small segments of DNA and introducing easier and more precise in some cases
>everything else still relies on knowing what version of a gene you need to add and how to promote it
>we've already been able to do that for decades, it was just slightly harder
>the popsci crowd think crispr makes it simple enough to modify genes that you can engineer a real life version of to intelligent wojak
It's literally just a system for targeting and removing a few dozen base pairs.
If it makes your children really successful and wasn't super expensive it would happen automatically. Not that you'd necessarily want to though, since you'd now have to compete against that super genius. Much easier to just gain control over the stupid people and make them do necessary but boring tasks instead of turning everyone into an ubermensch hungry for domination.
I don't disagree in principle but Napoleon I is a bad example. He didn't push the french state towards any kind of progress that was not already prepared by democrats, and his mistakes ruined France for half a century. If we want to find one enlightened autocrat that achieved noticeably positive results, Napoleon III is a better candidate.
napoleon created the napoleonic code, tempered the madness of the revolution and generally was a romantic figure that heightened human spirit
Why is this woman so unconventionally attractive?
There's fake hair, lots of makeup and probably plastic surgery but for some reason she's really cute until you enlarge the picture.
How can science explain that?
>mfw she's the same age as me
>crispr
not even needed you fucking dumb shit. There are many ways to manipulate genetics. Embryo Selection for instance would require zero editing. Not to mention if you want to do a new species something like synthetic biology could be used to make it from the ground up.
Since she is East Asian she probably also has high IQ
Obviously. It's pretty easy to tell she has good genetics.
Your mind assumes there's more stuff to her face judging by the thumbnail, and fills in the blanks with pleasant fantasies. Then you enlarge it and there's nothing more to it, it's as featureless as a mass-produced egg.
Nothing, really. People don't do prenup agreements, they sure as hell aren't gonna start caring about I.Q. predictions.
Your post doesn't make any sense. If you wanted to know a potential mate's IQ the best way isn't a DNA test. The application of this technology is not in judging adults. We already have IQ tests they can take to get a better measure.
This is about predicting intelligence from purely DNA. Which is only useful in non-formed humans, aka embryos/babies for purposes of selection or knowing what to genetic engineer.
Getting straight-As in middle school is easy af.
this, I did half my classes en français and still got straight As
>humble bragging
>By meta-analysing intelligence with the genetic component of education that overlaps with intelligence, the relative contribution of variance that is unique to intelligence lessens, and so too does the magnitude of the genetic correlation with schizophrenia.
Can you explain that last bit? I'm going cross-eyed
And I'm saying people don't give a fuck about trying to organize their future to that extent. Shit like potential I.Q. is irrelevant, they'll rather leave it up to luck and their upbringing.
>Shit like potential I.Q. is irrelevant, they'll rather leave it up to luck and their upbringing.
Nah. Children are a huge investment, if they can afford it and have the option, they'll do it.
This. The fact that the lower races are too selfish to admit inferiority and better the world by removing themselves from superior societies proves that they aren't actually human.
I think it is because our brains only have a certain capacity for intelligence, too much and you start getting people with Aspergers. They aren't stupid but weird, those who can see outside the box but that makes them fucky.
You are refusing to understand.
Do you want a retarded child? Do you want a genetically diseased child?
The same methods and techniques that stop it from having a crippling genetic disease are those that increase intelligence. It isn't a matter of just wanting better intelligence, looks, or other things.
It's simply people will opt for this regardless. The expense of eugenics is a 1/1000000th the fraction of the rewards. Do you want to raise a child that has some degenerative genetic disease? If you answer no to that question you are already on your way to increased IQ.
It will be easier on the parents by a huge amount to do genetic screening.
It means we got marketers incoming.
relativism by the way
>We noticed this embryo has a lot of negative genes that impair intelligence and it's potential life outcome
Result, higher IQ of eventual offspring. You have to understand things in context when you evaluate if it will happen. Right now, America has embryos being genetically tested for diseases and chosen on this criteria. All that is required is widening the criteria and improving number of embryos and you have gattaca. It's not a paradigm shift that's required. It's happening now the process is just getting better.
>believing in evolution
Your genes did not encode very high intelligence, it seems.
>the qt ginger on the right
Such a waste desu
This already happens. Programs like ḠATË to find these kids and monitor them.
I know, but depending how widespread access is and how much the improvement is, it becomes unethical to create a 160 IQ super beautiful girl and then stick her in a fucking trailer park.
same person, I'll try to put it a different way
In current society parents basically own their children. They can force them to learn or grow up how they want to a large degree. They have dictator-type control over them.
When we talk about access to technology and the ability to create a 160 IQ human you own as a 85 IQ adult. It's fucking abuse from the get go. Even the average human parents are going to have problems dealing with this fact.
Those little faggots can't even come up with their own material.
Of course, genetically upgrading the children is a good idea regardless, but perhaps the argument for widespread availability has flaws. Of course the problem goes away eventually but it does lead to some needless suffering of actual humans (100+ IQ at a minimum).
A brave new world
>It would take multiple generations of selection before you consistently get 130 IQ children from a population with a low IQ.
In practice in the real world it won't take that long. People will be using CRISPR instead of the old methods.
Jesus, this is cancer.
>a tyrant is just an authoritarian that has gone bad, which doesn't mean that more authoritarian=worse.
Power drives men to do terrible things. In that sense, authoritarianism leads to a quicker societal decline.
OR their offspring could be born 100% autistic and incapable of comunicating with the world in a clear way
t.autist who keeps fucking shit up
They'll just use their superior intelligence to cure mental illness.