52 Genes associated with intelligence discovered

lol I must have 53 of them then

>>8930268
You also have one more chromosome.

>>8930268
Lol.

>>8930268
Ayyyyyyyyyyyy lmao

File: 1486685665626.gif (241KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 300x300px

>>8930242
Wait a second... I thought intelligence is just a social construct!

>>8930268
Me too xddddd

>"The current genetic results explain up to 5 percent of the total variance in intelligence," says Professor Posthuma.

>>8930447
>believing the false idea of nature of nurture
go back to /pol/

>>8930484
Go back to Tumblr you alt-right scum.

>>8930242
I can't find the study anywhere for free so this is pure speculation but while yes the extremely high N value is assuring depending on how many genes were actually looked at, a good bit of these 52 could be from random chance. So these genes must be specifically looked at in more studies to prevent the "chocolate is good for you" effect.

You know, the same critism people on this site give in every psychology thread ever.

File: 1485905131160.jpg (330KB, 560x560px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 560x560px

>>8930242
>Considered likely to be associated with intelligence in a statistically significant way
>52 out of thousands of genes

These threads piss me off. Not only is it a tiny number of genes for a very complicated and poorly defined (and thus difficult to test objectively) phenomenon but 'associated with' can mean fucking anything. There are genes that were once associated with hearing that have nothing to do with hearing but everything to do with cell wall integrity. The reason: a mutant version of that gene caused some people to have malformed bones in their ears and thus end up deaf.

Now consider that deafness is:
>a lot simpler
>much more understood
>easy to test for objectively
>binary
>etc...

This is completely different from intelligence. Even if they were testing for genes that were likely to have a statistically significant effect on your ability to hear well, it would still be a much simpler problem than intelligence.

Do you understand how weak of a claim it is to say that you've found some genes that are likely to be associated with intelligence?

tl;dr: Only a brainlet would be convinced that they can draw meaningful inferences from this research.

>>8930268
So you're autistic?

>>8930242
what genes are responsible for making her and can we mass produce them

>>8930625
>thousands of foods all over the world
>mixed in to millions of dishes

>people seriously think they know what they like to eat
fukken plebs amirite lmao

>>8930242
Let me guess, Africans have on average very low abundance of those genes compared to whites and asians.
Who would have thought ?

>>8930625
That's how research starts. These QTL studies exist in order to direct researchers to assay genes associated with variance in g-factor between individuals.

It doesn't mean that all 40 of the new genes discovered will individually affect g-factor variation, it might just be inter-gene effects or not functionally related at all, but there's no other way to start research on this. Whether or not g-factor represents intelligence as a whole is another matter.

>>8930625
Publish or perish, man, publish or perish.

>>8930848
I am looking at davies 2015 and i can see that euros/south americans/east asians have overall a consistently better chromosome 6 than africans, but africans seem to have a better chromosome 14 and 17

most of the 13 genome wide significant alleles are in fact on ch 6, but there's about 300 other alleles reported (intergenic effect i presume)

what is the difference exactly, what does this mean?

>>8931113
also, i have to ask myself the question - if crispr is still not viable, can't we just splice zygotes with different chromosomes

File: bambi.webm (3MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x360px

>>8930848
That's exactly my point. This is research in its infancy. It is both necessary and valuable in that respect but we should do what we can to convey its current limitations to the greater audience.

Otherwise we end up with brainlets like this halfwit >>8931113 >>8931123 who believe that we can draw useful inferences from the research and begin applying it right away.

webm related, how we should respond to these brainlets and the people who spread this misrepresentation of the state of the research.

>>8930827
>>8930827
>>8930827
>>8930827
>>8930827
this this
this is more important

>>8931641
i never knew deers fought like epileptic tap dancers but it makes sense

>>8931641
>that last 1 second where the cat realizes hes been spotted

>>8930242
Yours,

Nathan