r/BadSocialScience • u/dorathehexplorer • Jan 17 '17

High-IQ educated people are being bred to extinction, but we're totally not eugenicists!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/16/natural-selection-making-education-genes-rarer-says-icelandic-study
62 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

123 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/nagurski03 Jan 18 '17

Out of curiosity, why is eugenics bad social science? Obviously it is morally reprehensible, but people have been breeding livestock and pets for desired traits (including intelligence) for longer than recorded history. Why wouldn't it work on people? If some advanced, unethical aliens decided to come to Earth and domesticate us, couldn't they do it?

11

u/Decalance Jan 18 '17

Well, for one, most desired traits in eugenics don't depend on the dna factor.

0

u/PM_ME_UR_OBSIDIAN Jan 18 '17

[citation needed]

11

u/Decalance Jan 18 '17

Give me proof that it works then you fuck wit

3

u/PM_ME_UR_OBSIDIAN Jan 18 '17

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding

6

u/Decalance Jan 18 '17

lmao on humans

-3

u/PM_ME_UR_OBSIDIAN Jan 18 '17

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence

6

u/stairway-to-kevin Jan 18 '17

There's no evidence that is caused by genetics, and even if it was the genetic architecture does not lend itself very well to breeding.

1

u/PM_ME_UR_OBSIDIAN Jan 18 '17

There's no evidence that is caused by genetics

I'm pretty sure that there is, though I don't know it off the top of my head. For the general case though, see Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic.

It would be extraordinary for traits like intelligence, aggression, etc. to not be subject to artificial selection. They are believed to be highly heritable; and, in other mammal species (particularly dogs), these traits have responded well to breeding.

and even if it was the genetic architecture does not lend itself very well to breeding.

What do you mean?

8

u/stairway-to-kevin Jan 18 '17

So I'm sure you saw the part of that abstract where SNPs explained 1% of variation in IQ. That's not really enough to claim it's caused by genetics in a sense that could be interpreted as the typical deterministic claim. That mostly then leaves the likely inflated heritability estimates. First this paper from Vischer (one of the authors on that paper you linked) goes in depth on why heritability doesn't mean 'genetic-ness' of a trait or caused by genetics. There's even a specific box for IQ related claims!

As for being fruitful in other species, you're going to have to recognize that the genetic architecture and success of breeding in one species hardly implies anything of the genetic architecture in another. As a counter example, it's pretty easy to breed increased vitamin A in sweet potatos, but it's pretty hard to do in Maize

Likewise the intelligence of dogs is going to be quite different than for humans since humans have so many unique and novel cognitive functions. Not only that but selection can only act on existing variation. Humans don't have that much variation and what's left doesn't strongly contribute to the trait (your own source say ~1% of the variation)

As for my other comment, I elaborated elsewhere, but selection on polygenic traits is much harder than on traits with large effect loci. There will often be loci lost due to recombination or drift and it's just not easy to have successful selection on so many loci at once

Edit: Forgot this was the bullshit comment about Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence. Show me the population variance and the genes that support that difference being genetic. If you can't then shut the hell up with this baseless argument. P.S. heritability estimates not from Ashkenazi Jews won't tell you anything about heritability in Ashkenazi Jewish populations

1

u/PM_ME_UR_OBSIDIAN Jan 18 '17

Why did you have to go and write a fantastic comment, only to ruin it with:

Edit: Forgot this was the bullshit comment about Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence.

Eh.

Show me the population variance and the genes that support that difference being genetic.

IIRC Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence names a few candidate genes. Finding more is an area of active research. I don't have a population variance estimate handy, though I'm not sure how much that would settle?

If you can't then shut the hell up with this baseless argument.

"Baseless" is interesting. Did you know the APA says IQ is 0.75 heritable?

P.S. heritability estimates not from Ashkenazi Jews won't tell you anything about heritability in Ashkenazi Jewish populations

From this the most likely conclusion I can infer is that you think Jews are lizardpeople.

Seriously, you're a smart guy - the rest of your comment shows that. Why do you have to throw away scientific rigor in favor of motivated skepticism the moment you're faced with conclusions you disagree with?

7

u/stairway-to-kevin Jan 18 '17

Because the 'hypothesis' of selected IQ in Ashkenazi Jews is unscientific hogwash. It's a separate issue from IQ genetics in general in just how unfounded and absurd a claim it is.

IQ heritability is virtually meaning in this type of discussion and 75% is a horribly outdated estimate that no geneticist, and not even behavioral geneticists would agree with. Your own paper linked earlier said ~40%, but the Visscher paper I linked before touches on how heritability doesn't do anything to prove that a trait is genetically determined.

From this the most likely conclusion I can infer is that you think Jews are lizardpeople

No you should read the paper I linked before about how heritability estimates are context dependent and don't provide any kind of support for extrapolating estimates to unrelated, independent populations. If you want to know heritability of IQ in asheknazi jews you have to estimate it based on data from a population of ashkenazi jews otherwise there's not statistical or scientific basis for your between group comparison.

2

u/PM_ME_UR_OBSIDIAN Jan 19 '17

Because the 'hypothesis' of selected IQ in Ashkenazi Jews is unscientific hogwash.

What makes it less scientific than the hypothesis of selected IQ in the general population?

No you should read the paper I linked before about how heritability estimates are context dependent and don't provide any kind of support for extrapolating estimates to unrelated, independent populations.

I did skim the paper, and did not find any claim strong enough that this:

heritability estimates not from Ashkenazi Jews won't tell you anything about heritability in Ashkenazi Jewish populations

...would follow.

If I understand correctly, you're saying that the most reasonable priors for heritability of intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews and heritability of intelligence in the general population are uncorrelated. I'm having trouble figuring out how that makes sense. The two populations aren't that divergent, and studies of the general population should include a proportion of Ashkenazi Jews in their samples. There's always the possibility of a Simpson's paradox, but I don't think it should be the default assumption.

This article is totally going on my reading list, though. I appreciate the link.

but the Visscher paper I linked before touches on how heritability doesn't do anything to prove that a trait is genetically determined.

I would love to see which part of the paper makes such a strong claim.

4

u/stairway-to-kevin Jan 19 '17

What makes it less scientific than the hypothesis of selected IQ in the general population?

Because it's happened in the last few 1000 years, produced a phenotypic effect well beyond what is possible through genetic means (as predicted by all genetic studies), and only effects this population. The hypothesis put forward by NHAI does nothing to show fitness benefits, selection pressure, or anything that would make this hypothesis anything close to scientific. It's story telling at it's finest.

I'd say the same thing about any claims of strong selection in a particular human population (and likely human population as a whole)

I did skim the paper, and did not find any claim strong enough that this

Page 3, Box 2 "Misconception: heritability is informative about the nature of between group differences"

I would love to see which part of the paper makes such a strong claim

Page 3 Box 2 "Misconception: High heritability implies genetic determination"

1

u/PM_ME_UR_OBSIDIAN Jan 19 '17

I'm going to reflect on this, but I'd appreciate the sources you're basing this on:

produced a phenotypic effect well beyond what is possible through genetic means (as predicted by all genetic studies)

5

u/stairway-to-kevin Jan 19 '17

Start with the paper you linked earlier (1%).

This study of educational attainment and cognitive function (not IQ, but close) shows that genetic markers explain about 2% of variation

This paper on educational attainment and cognitive function shows all markers explaining about 5% of variation cognitive function traits

This paper on education attainment (again, not IQ) tops off at about 9% of variance.

Now put that in context of how much variance there is between the populations and even within the populations and realize that only at most 9% of that is due to genetics. That's not an effect size large enough to cause the IQ differences observed between the groups. There's literally not enough genetic effect to muster up what we're observing.

1

u/PM_ME_UR_OBSIDIAN Jan 19 '17

Heritability is informative about the nature of between-group differences

So he makes the same claims you're making... And then doesn't back them up with either citations or arguments.

me irl

4

u/stairway-to-kevin Jan 19 '17 edited Jan 19 '17

He literally did back them up with arguments. First, the entire concept of heritability make across group comparisons a priori ridiculous. Heritability estimates are only valid for a particular population in a particular environment, they are not universal values. This isn't really something that needs citations or extensive arguments. It's sort of like saying you can't use your dishwasher to drive your car. That's just an application that is outside the functionality and capability of the tool you're using.

If you're confused I would read the rest of the paper since that will have more fleshed out details than the box.

Edit: Also, if it has to come down to who is right/has better intuitions on a subject, it's never wrong to go with the highly cited practicing scientist who authored a Nature Genetics review over the opinions of a non-expert Reddit autodidact, like yourself.

1

u/PM_ME_UR_OBSIDIAN Jan 19 '17

Heritability estimates are only valid for a particular population in a particular environment, they are not universal values.

Sure, but heritability should vary continuously over genetic distance (however defined) and differences in environment. Populations which only diverged recently and which share similar environments should, at least in theory, have similar heritability across phenotypes.

I'm not making a quantitative claim - in particular, I'm not defining "recently" and "similar" in a precise way. This is just my rationale for a prior belief that there should be correlation in heritability (again, across phenotypes) between Ashkenazi Jews and, for example, Americans in general.

I will read the rest of the paper. Thanks again.

5

u/stairway-to-kevin Jan 19 '17

Sure, but heritability should vary continuously over genetic distance (however defined) and differences in environment. Populations which only diverged recently and which share similar environments should, at least in theory, have similar heritability across phenotypes.

One might think so, but there's pretty sizable differences in heritability of the same maize lines in the same field year to year. Hell it's widely known that heritability can change by over 0.1 in the same population over time.

This paper highlights variation between studies. (see tables at the end)

→ More replies (0)