SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
More than 500 genes associated with intelligence have been identified in the largest study of its kind.
Researchers used data from the UK Biobank, comparing DNA variants from more than 240,000 people. Their analysis identified 538 genes linked to intellectual ability, and 187 regions of the human genome that are associated with thinking skills. Some of these genes are also linked to other biological processes, including living longer.
However, even with all these genes, it's still difficult to predict a person's intelligence from their genomes. When they analysed the DNA of a group of different people, the team were only able to predict 7 per cent of the intelligence differences between those people.
Source: Found: more than 500 genes that are linked to intelligence
A combined analysis of genetically correlated traits identifies 187 loci and a role for neurogenesis and myelination in intelligence (open, DOI: 10.1038/s41380-017-0001-5) (DX)
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday March 19 2018, @08:23AM (9 children)
From the tag-line-didn't-pass-the-test dept.?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Informative) by aiwarrior on Monday March 19 2018, @09:38AM (8 children)
Please do not post these kinds of articles, they are click bait and even confusing:
Headline:
"DNA Tests Can Predict Intelligence, Scientists Show for First Time"
Text:
"[...] the team were only able to predict 7 per cent of the intelligence"
Wow, my coin can predict intelligence better than these genes.
(Score: 5, Informative) by VLM on Monday March 19 2018, @01:54PM (7 children)
Yeah not so much.
Its a long statistically dense paper, but I did read the intro/conclusion.
Now I'll complain about the clickbaity summaries, by providing a detailed summary of the article's four main claims that is so long nobody could ever consider it a summary, although I think its interesting and any mistakes are my own because I type this shit at 100 WPM and generally don't edit errors:
1) They did the largest statistical analysis so far, and increase the number of known intelligence related genetic loci from 18 to 187, which is pretty impressive. This is comparable to that space telescope that increased the number of solar systems we know about from like 5 to 500. We don't know a hell of a lot about any of them, but there's a big difference between "we can count the ones we know exist on fingers and toes" vs "a list of all the ones we've discovered so far is a multi page report, at least". A crappy SN automobile analogy is imagine you are trying to reverse engineer a modern car, well, now we have 187 known verified to be automobiles to screw around with as compared to 18 in the bad old days.
2) In the course of massive handwaving and truly awful (on my part) summarizing, genetic code quality is variable and you can estimate evolutionary pressure on a sequence of code as compared to junk that is noise that has little evolutionary pressure, which is pretty cool and not controversial at all, what is relevant is they found the intelligence loci are located in chunks of code that indicate massive evolutionary pressure happened in the past. So you can mathematically prove that those intelligence related genetic codes were strongly evolved not some random thing that wasn't correlated with reproductive success. Sort of a "revenge of the nerds" Neanderthal style where for many millennia of evolution the smarter guys fucked all the chicks. Actually "chicks don't like smart guys" was never a popular cultural thing until a certain ethnic group of hollywood movie and TV execs weaponized the concept of "nerds" against white people in the 1970s, for all of human evolution before that recent date, smart guys got the chicks, and this can be scientifically and statistically proven. A standard crappy SN automobile analogy is we are very certain that these car-like objects we've found are highly engineered cars and not objects of welded art or crude blacksmithery because we ran detailed analysis of the alloys and bolt threads making up these car-like objects and clearly a ridiculous amount of labor was involved in "perfecting" these aspects of the cars, whereas something like food stains in the floor mats appear totally random but in location and content, so we're pretty sure if cars require engineering effort these car-like things we found clearly demonstrate a lot of engineering effort.
3) Previous smaller studies predicted about 5% of intelligence (using those 18 genetic loci) and now they're capable of predicting 7% of intelligence variation (using 187 genetic loci) so on one hand they're making considerable progress, on the other hand there doesn't seem to be one simple footprint. This is, I suppose, not entirely surprising since intelligence g-factor has been proven to be only 75% inheritable (aka 25% un-inheritable), so the theoretical maximum would be 75% not 100%. Note its 7% of variation thats predictable, not 7% of overall intelligence or whatever. So they're about a tenth of the way to mathematically perfect genetic-specific g-factor prediction, which actually isn't all that bad. We're a long way from sci fi dystopias, but we're getting closer to archeologically interesting analysis of which ancient genetic material was smarter than the other, or similar hand wavy stuff. A standard crappy SN automobile analogy is we think car-like objects should have common metric bolt pattern thread profiles, and at least 7% of the time (up from 5%) we can predict certain nuts are lug nuts vs certain nuts hold the car radio in place, which sounds like crappy odds but its a lot better than 0%. A more "mechanical work in general" analogy is I've improved when I reach into my bin of socket wrench parts that I pull out the required extension or u-joint or whatever from 5% to 7% of the time, but thats not strictly car or even a very good analogy to the paper claim.
4) The genetic loci of intelligence seem located in areas vaguely oriented around the nervous system and its parts, which is a really good signal because it makes sense assuming you believe in the politically incorrect theory that brains do thinking and brains genetically vary like everything else in a human body. If their loci of g-factor were found in known male-pattern-baldness genetic locations or female reproductive system genetic locations then the cause and effect would be a heck of a lot weaker. But "this general area controls brains, and this specific little spot inside seems to correlate really well with g-factor intelligence" sounds really positive and optimistic. I guess a crappy SN standard automobile analogy is they put at least some trust in the street address of the state capital when the street address has been verified to be located in the state, in some cases in the capital city of the state, whereas if you found a street address for the capital of Texas was located in the state of Minnesota you'd rightly disbelieve to whole research project.
So in summary of the summary, the number of genetic locations controlling g-factor have ten-tupled, g-factor genetic code is found in areas that have been highly evolved in the past and have something to do with brainz which makes it sound more likely to be true, and given the data so far, we can model estimated intelligence only poorly, but significantly better than in the past, now up to about one tenth of theoretical perfect accuracy. Or a summary of a summary of a summary, good progress, heck of a nice start.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 19 2018, @02:52PM (1 child)
Didn't read the TFA. Did they find the "vote for Hillary" locus?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 20 2018, @09:27PM
Don't think that part is located in the brain
(Score: 2) by BK on Monday March 19 2018, @03:28PM (4 children)
Just for reference, the Capitol is located in the Capital. The Capitol has a street address. The Capital may have one or more ZIP codes but generally doesn't have a street address.
Thanks for the analysis though.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 19 2018, @04:58PM (3 children)
Wow! You actually read that whole WOT? I got lost around the second paragraph.
(Score: 4, Funny) by maxwell demon on Tuesday March 20 2018, @08:42AM
I'm sorry to hear that your ability to read and understand texts is that bad.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 20 2018, @09:30PM (1 child)
LOL my summary is like "see spot run" compared to the zillion page paper, unfortunately complicated things can't be explained as simply as meme.jpg
(Score: 2) by aiwarrior on Wednesday March 21 2018, @09:32AM
I renewed Soylent News subscription because of your answer. Thank you.