DNA tests for IQ are coming

[Anonymous No.9640849]

Main story on DrudgeReport

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610339/dna-tests-for-iq-are-coming-but-it-might-not-be-smart-to-take-one/

But now gene studies have finally gotten big enough—and hence powerful enough—to zero in on genetic differences linked to IQ.

A year ago, no gene had ever been tied to performance on an IQ test. Since then, more than 500 have, thanks to gene studies involving more than 200,000 test takers. Results from an experiment correlating one million people’s DNA with their academic success are due at any time.

The discoveries mean we can now read the DNA of a young child and get a notion of how intelligent he or she will be, says Plomin, an American based at King’s College London, where he leads a long-term study of 13,000 pairs of British twins.

[Anonymous No.9640854]

Who is this semen Demon?

[Anonymous No.9640857]

Geneplaza offers a IQ testing service using DNA, pictured.

At least three online services, including GenePlaza and DNA Land, have started offering to quantify anyone’s genetic IQ from a spit sample.


Users of GenePlaza, for example, can upload their 23andMe data and pay $4 extra to access an “Intelligence App,” which rates their DNA using data from the big 2017 study on IQ genes.

It shows users where their genes place them on a bell curve from lower to higher IQ. A similar calculation is available from DNA Land.

[Anonymous No.9640890]

>>9640857
interesting, I'll try it

[Anonymous No.9640918]

>>9640857
post you actual iq test results

[Anonymous No.9640929]

>>9640849
>DrudgeReport
Just brainlet things

[Anonymous No.9640933]

>>9640929
it gets a ton of traffic, only reason to mention it.

[Anonymous No.9640983]

trying it now. says it takes 4 hours or so though to process results, probably trying to process all my IQ genes and stuff

[Anonymous No.9641011]

>>9640983
Nice, the results are super accurate. You'll finally know your genomic score. Welcome to the new era.

[Anonymous No.9641138]

Anyone on /sci/ do the IQ DNA scoring?

[Anonymous No.9641304]

>>9640849
Oh great, it's another correlation is causation thread.

[Anonymous No.9641311]

>>9641304
>I hate genetics!

[Anonymous No.9641312]

>>9641311
Did you know your birth month effects your long term prospects as a human?

[Anonymous No.9641314]

>>9640918
This. Does it simply score you based on how European you are? They would get enough correlation to be reasonably accurate, but it's still retarded. Do they look for genes specific to cognitive function, rather than just "correlates with?"

[Anonymous No.9641324]

>>9641311
Not the guy you're replying to, but I hate when people take retarded ideas and they get out of hand, this is an example of a retarded idea getting out of hand and if we encourage this bullshit, more retarded bullshit is going to be layered on top of this. IQ and the concept its genetic is so popular because people love the concept of being born superior/genius compared to other people. I won't reply to whatever retard shit you have to say in response, I did it for like 4 years once and realised most of you people cannot be reasoned with.

[Anonymous No.9641330]

>>9641314
It analyzes using a ML-produced adult human and guesses what type of brain you would have in an average american environment.

>>9641324
>I hate genetics!

[Anonymous No.9641334]

>>9641330
It uses buzzwords to create a back-solved space for individualized results.

[Anonymous No.9641338]

>>9641334
The important part is the dynamic array of possibility inspection in the back propagation model and multi-vector approach to abstraction layers in the NN.

[Anonymous No.9641374]

>>9641324
>people love the concept of being born superior/genius compared to other people
So you think that people are born completely equal mentally, physically, etc? No one has any advantage above anyone else except for that which they get via their upbringing?

[Anonymous No.9641383]

>>9640849
>ignores the fact that every single IQ linked gene put together only has a 7% predictive power.
lmao

[Anonymous No.9641385]

>>9641374
I promised I wouldn't reply, but whatever. No, however I believe the genetic factor is extraordinarily fucking small, people will believe you're smart if you're white or asian and wear fake glasses everywhere and it will affect the opportunities you get in life. It will open doors for you which are believed to be "for intelligent people" and the person going through this will believe they're intelligent while an actual genius may have his entire life fucked because he was Latino or black with a strangely shaped forehead. This on top of people receiving worse education, no education and more hostile upbringings.

>inb4 all the shit I get flinged at me for posting obvious facts on a retarded alt-right website
Go fuck yourselves in advance.

[Anonymous No.9641387]

>>9641383
The internet is too slow to ever be useful.

[Anonymous No.9641389]

>>9641385
>I hate genetics!

Why repeat yourself three times.

[Anonymous No.9641391]

>>9641383

[Anonymous No.9641393]

>>9641389
Not him but actually the first one was a different person.

[Anonymous No.9641398]

>>9641385
However I believe the genetic factor is very high. [Insert some personal experiences]

Counterargument of equal merit completed.

[Anonymous No.9641433]

reminder that effort is what determines your impact on the world
if you work your ass off at 100 IQ and get shit done, you're objectively a better human than a 150 IQ who sits on their ass thinking about their high IQ

[Anonymous No.9641520]

>>9640849
If I take a standard IQ test and score 130, and a genetic IQ test and score 95, which one is correct?

[Anonymous No.9641524]

>>9641520
Genetics is more important in the long run obviously.

[Anonymous No.9641541]

>>9641520
>>9641524
Apparently as long as you are white you can be dumb as a rock.

[Anonymous No.9641547]

>>9641374
>No one has any advantage above anyone else except for that which they get via their upbringing?
A classic strawman, the favorite tool of eugenicists to avoid having to debate the left honestly.
Obviously, people are different from one another.
The real question is this: how accurately can you predict someone's IQ knowing only their genes and nothing else? Can you predict it accurately enough to justify proactively restricting reproduction, education, and other civil rights?
If the answers are "not remotely accurately" and "no" (and that's what they really are), it is immoral to assume a priori who will achieve and who won't. This leaves you no choice but to grant them equal opportunities until they prove their true personal abilities. Kind of like the legal standard of "innocent until proven guilty", except with regards to achievement and ability.

[Anonymous No.9641549]

>>9641524
>Genetics is more important in the long run obviously.
But which one is my actual IQ, and therefore the one that is correlated with my expected achievements in life? The genetic one, or the one I got on the test?

[Anonymous No.9641554]

>>9641547
Those are 2 different arguments. I was responding to someone who implied that no one is born smarter than others, which I disagree with. You are suggesting that might be the case but it cannot be predicted by genes, and I personally do not know if it can either.

[Anonymous No.9641731]

>>9641547
What an amazing argument. The post in the OP about how we should divide society up and take away rights is totally BTFO.

good job, you defeated the imaginary strawman in your head of what the thread is about.

[Anonymous No.9641759]

>>9640849
This will finally btfo /pol/ and prove that we based black /sci/entists are smarter then wh*toids

[Anonymous No.9641798]

>>9641398
Your statement is actually valid. However, the latter part of what he said about education and hostile upbringings is factual and documented. The main statements are also true, but admittedly it would be hard to prove to someone who wasn't going through it and if you were white or asian and wore glasses, you would probably believe you were actually smart and weren't just being given special treatment and expectations due to your appearance. Its a shame how hard it is for most people to break free from the matrix.

[Anonymous No.9641921]

>>9641798
you are not saying anything of importance

[Anonymous No.9642017]

>>9641324
Yeah, whoever is making these threads is an idiot.

They don't seem to consider how complex the interactions between the environment and development.

If only we were allowed to create a simulation, where all humans have to exist before being released into the real world.

[Anonymous No.9642074]

>>9641549
>But which one is my actual IQ, and therefore the one that is correlated with my expected achievements in life? The genetic one, or the one I got on the test?
Were you to actually score a 130 on an IQ-test, you would not ask such a stupid question.

[Anonymous No.9642081]

>>9642017
>They don't seem to consider how complex the interactions between the environment and development.
Everything involving science is a simplification of insurmountable complexity, you fucking mongrel. Hiding behind the existence of unknown variables will not lend validity to your claims.

[Anonymous No.9642146]

>>9641330
>surely phenotypes can't be influenced by the environment

[Anonymous No.9642164]

>>9641383
Shush, don't confuse them with facts.

[Anonymous No.9642171]

>>9641385
>obvious facts

This has to be bait.

[Anonymous No.9642176]

>>9640849
Niggers on the suicide watch.

[Anonymous No.9642188]

>>9640849
A bullet is coming into the space under my jaw if and when I don't get the result I want.

[Anonymous No.9642190]

>>9642176
This will finally end the debate that has been going on here for years.
Or will it?

[Anonymous No.9642258]

>>9641731
Responding to a strawman isn't strawmanning.
>what the thread is about
The thread didn't have anything to do with egalitarian fallacies either, but how noble of you to start policing the thread only once /pol/tards start getting shitted on.

>>9642074
It's a stupid question, so a genius should be able to answer it quickly, right?

[Anonymous No.9642268]

We all have to accept that this is the future of humanity. We will be a genetically engineered super-race of 250 IQ triathletes. Parents will be able to customize their kids like in an RPG.

This is the positive outcome. Now, if it goes wrong, get ready for Anthill 2: Human boogaloo

[Anonymous No.9642281]

>more than 500 genes
>still only at 15% heritability
You do realize how the math works on this, right? There's no more big effect genes to be found. Every gene remaining has diminishing returns on its contribution to intelligence. If this goes on longer we'll have a list of close to ten thousand genes with the vast majority of the alleles explaining no more than a thousandth of a percent of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.9642309]

>>9642268
>We will be a genetically engineered super-race of 250 IQ triathletes.

Only in China. Western countries have a dysgenic agenda.

[Anonymous No.9642702]

>>9641433
Patently false

[Anonymous No.9642716]

>>9640857
very interesting anon

>>9640849
who is this, I love her, would love to cum inside her.

[Anonymous No.9643056]

>>9642702
so, let's say someone like bill gates has "only" 120 iq
compare that to some guy who make gets a mid level computer science research position then rides that into retirement...but is at 160 iq

which person do you think lived a better, more fulfilled life

[Anonymous No.9643068]

>>9641385
>I believe the genetic factor is extraordinarily fucking small
>a priori
>no arguments
cool bro you are so anti dogmatic

[Miniature Spacecraft No.9643095]

>>9640849
>It's another bait thread with a pornographic picture

[Anonymous No.9643098]

>>9643056
you aren't arguing anything

You are creating example A and example B in your mind of two individual people that proves your point and then asking "Doesn't this prove my point".

You are beyond brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9643103]

>>9643056
Example A:
180 IQ child, fed to woodchipper and dies at age 1

Example B:
80 IQ child, billionaire parents, has great life

Which life was better? The High IQ or low IQ ones?

>this is how brainlets argue

Should have souped up your example

A: 200000 IQ, fed to wolves at 1 day old
B: 80 IQ, became president of USA and a billionaire.

IQ doesn't matter look at these examples I made up in my head.

[Anonymous No.9643179]

>>9643095
>pornographic picture
Lrn2porn fgt pls

[Anonymous No.9643200]

>>9643179
"Pornographic" doesn't mean "nude."

[Anonymous No.9644431]

>>9643056
>which person do you think lived a better, more fulfilled life
Bill Gates, who scored a 1600 on the SAT and therefore most likely would´ve scored far above 130 on an IQ-test.

[Anonymous No.9645131]

>>9641433
In theory.
except this is not what is observed in real life since IQ has been proven to be a great predictor of success

[Anonymous No.9645447]

ITT: Excited brainlets who can't sit through an IQ test

This literally has no benefits over a standard IQ test.

[Anonymous No.9645479]

Are you guys ready for a generation of sterilization and eugenics? Finally the SJWs will have something interesting to rally against instead of motherfucking pronoun usage

[Anonymous No.9645851]

>>9645447
>give an embryo an IQ test

poor low iq monkey

[Anonymous No.9645854]

>>9645447
>This literally has no benefits over a standard IQ test.
You can DNA test an embryo.

[Anonymous No.9645882]

The use of genomics is prediction for not yet manifest phenotype.

- Cancer Risk
- Adult IQ
- Height

As the phenotype manifests direct measurement becomes better than prediction. If you argue an IQ test in an adult is a better measure of IQ no one would disagree.

What you must also admit is that this means we have better understanding of IQ of living populations already. Meaning genomics will not uncover new differences in IQ that are not reflected in current results The idea that genomics leads to genocide because we will see IQ differences is foolish.

Also the predictive power of genetics directly relates to ability to edit and select embryos. Meaning that we can edit an embryo with all the known influences of IQ to increase the IQ. Predictive functions directly lead to knowing what to edit which is why they are so important.

[Anonymous No.9645896]

>>9644431
>You need IQ to get highscores
Kek'd

[Anonymous No.9645903]

>>9642190

The joke is it won't. Because more than likely the genes for high IQ will be there but are "off" because malnutrition and disease suppressing it.

Remember there has to be high IQ genes somewhere in Sub-Sahara African populations or you wouldn't get people like Dr. Omalu or high performing Nigerian immigrants in the first place.

The real question is going to be what's going on with the Khoisan and Aboriginal Australians. And why North American Inuits despite having +90 IQ have contributed less in science and culture than Blacks or Ancient South American Mayan/Aztecs even though genetic test show they are closely related to North Asian populations.

[Anonymous No.9645927]

>>9645903
funny post, maybe it would trick a liberal into doing black american intelligence GWAS and then the inevitable suicide when he sees the results.

[Anonymous No.9645981]

>>9645903

The average income per year is
$16,669 among Arctic Inuits in Canada
$762 among Niggers in Africa

But Inuits live in a much harsher environment.
Explain that faggot.

[Anonymous No.9645999]

>>9641547
You know, the problem I keeo running into with the left's position on this issue is that I get the feeling that you guys are so dogmatic that there is no standard high enough to talk you out of this. Somehow I think you will always find some new form of oppression and unfairness to blacks or mestizos. Basically, I don't think you guys have intellectually honest intentions. You're ideologically motivated to favor people with dark skin at any cost and will always find a way to justify anti-white attitudes and actions.

[Anonymous No.9646005]

>>9645903
>Remember there has to be high IQ genes somewhere in Sub-Sahara African populations or you wouldn't get people like Dr. Omalu or high performing Nigerian immigrants in the first place
Dr. literally who?

[Anonymous No.9646010]

>>9645903
>And why North American Inuits despite having +90 IQ have contributed less in science and culture than Blacks or Ancient South American Mayan/Aztecs even though genetic test show they are closely related to North Asian populations.
The answer to this is pretty obvious. They have a very average IQ as a group and also are a very small group. There are going to be more Africans with outstanding IQ's just by virtue of their huge population size.

[Anonymous No.9646016]

>>9646005
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennet_Omalu

[Anonymous No.9646024]

>>9646016
This Omalu just discovered that American Football Players are Brain damaged.

WOW such "discovery".

[Anonymous No.9646029]

>>9646016
Ok. No offense but there are probably millions with his level of credentials.

[Anonymous No.9646085]

>>9645903

Japanese:
26 Nobel Laureates /127 million people

Blacks:
Zero Nobel Laureates /1.3 billion people

India:
5 Nobel Laureates /1.3 billion people

United Kingdom
129 Nobel Laureates /65.64 million people

Germany
107 Nobel Laureates /82.67 million people

France
68 Nobel Laureates /66.9 million people

Sweden
31 Nobel Laureates /9.9 million people

Russia
26 Nobel Laureates /144.3 million

Makes you think

[Anonymous No.9646126]

>>9646085
Nice try leaving off Americans.

Found the Jew.

[Anonymous No.9646132]

>>9646085

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

>b..but literature and peace don't count!

Then why did you include those laureates in the count?

[Anonymous No.9646180]

>>9640849
genetic testing can't even correctly identify connective tissue disorders.

[Anonymous No.9646883]

>>9645981
There's more higher employment opportunities in Canada
Are you seriously so retarded as to not know that

[Anonymous No.9646953]

>>9646085
Oh jeez, I wonder why the countries that started this shit have more prizes awarded?

[Anonymous No.9646957]

>>9646085
Oh jeez, I wonder why the people who started this shit have more awards?

[Anonymous No.9647076]

>>9646085
>Blacks
Where is this nation? I searched google maps but I can't find it

[Anonymous No.9647078]

>>9645999
>there is no standard high enough to talk you out of this.
Sure there is. Just show me that you can 100% accurately predict someone's IQ based purely on their genes and I won't have a leg left to stand on.

[Anonymous No.9647090]

>>9645447
>This literally has no benefits over a standard IQ test.
The advantage is that you can tell IQ potential in spite of environmental factors.
But someone can suffer malnutrition, or even extremes like lead poisoning, catch malaria, or be born a meth baby and have an IQ of 85, even though their genes would have dictated an IQ of 130 or higher.
Thus a genetic IQ test is a far more reliable tool for the eugenicist.
But they're afraid to admit that, because they've been steadfastly holding for nearly a century now that environment has minimal bearing on IQ.

[Anonymous No.9647124]

>>9647076
Blacks: 1.3 billion people

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-percentage-of-black-people-in-the-world

[Anonymous No.9647127]

>>9647090
Can the opposite happen? Can your genes say you should have a 100 IQ and you test at 130?

[Anonymous No.9647129]

>>9646085 >>9646132

Obama is a Nobel of Peace

[Anonymous No.9647873]

>>9641385
Look up school voucher studies good and bad schools are a myth

[Anonymous No.9647896]

>>9647124
I was asking where it was on the map. I could find all the other countries, just not that one.

[Anonymous No.9647904]

>>9645903
if IQ difference is down to environment why are US blacks so unintelligent compared to whites in the US? There probably are some high IQ genes in sub Saharan Africa but they would have less frequency in Africa than in say Asia for example

[Anonymous No.9647907]

>>9647127
Then you either have to concede that one of the tests is inaccurate or come up with an environmental explanation

[Anonymous No.9647909]

>>9645999
>I get the feeling
>Somehow I think
>You're ideologically motivated
You're all about your feelings, opinions, and motive fallacies, aren't you?

>anti-white
And here you equate any pro-minority attitude to "anti-white." A textbook example of the intellectual dishonesty you claim to abhor.

All you have to do is >>9647078

[Anonymous No.9647913]

>>9645999
>giving people equal treatment is a bar so high it's considered intellectually dishonest

[Anonymous No.9647933]

>>9647873
Speak for yourself. Link then and I'll show you.

[Anonymous No.9647947]

>>9647127
If the conception of IQ as a true measurement of "intellectual potential" is true, your tested IQ should never exceed the genetic.

However...
http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2017/01/making-ai-systems-see-the-world-as-humans-do.html
>"The model performs in the 75th percentile for American adults, making it better than average," said Northwestern Engineering's Ken Forbus. "The problems that are hard for people are also hard for the model, providing additional evidence that its operation is capturing some important properties of human cognition."

Obviously, a neural network has no genetic code (its genetic IQ would be 0, just like a rock), yet it can be trained to outscore 75% of Americans on Raven's Progressive Matrices. What a conundrum! It's almost as if IQ is pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.9647971]

>>9647947
But human neurons develop in early infancy, less than 3yo, then stagnate and stop growth, with fixed IQ through the rest of life.

Unlike Computers which can grow their speed and accuracy over time.

[Anonymous No.9647992]

>>9647971
>Unlike Computers which can grow their speed and accuracy over time.

[Anonymous No.9648024]

>>9647947
Talk about dishonesty
>If the conception of IQ as a true measurement of "intellectual potential" is true, your tested IQ should never exceed the genetic.
Only true for the specific case of a human that relies on their own brains to solve problems.

[Anonymous No.9648076]

>>9648024
>Only true for the specific case of a human that relies on their own brains to solve problems.
Is it still true if the person also happened to also be groomed for IQ tests?

[Anonymous No.9648159]

>>9647971
>But human neurons develop in early infancy, less than 3yo, then stagnate and stop growth, with fixed IQ through the rest of life.
The 1950's called, they want their outdated model back. Why do we only see this type of shit in /pol/ threads? Never seen anyone cite the Bohr model of an atom in a chemistry thread or the Humors in a medfag thread.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn700
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/146/3644/610

At least do some basic reading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

[Anonymous No.9648165]

>>9648159
people only remember the facts that are convenient for their worldview

[Anonymous No.9648471]

>>9648159
>links to a wiki article on Neuroplasticity
Neuroplasticity does not entail that education can make retards - a group which seemingly includes you - smarter.

[Anonymous No.9648508]

>>9648471
>Make a counterfactual assertion
>Back it up with an insult

[Anonymous No.9648520]

>>9647971
>But human neurons develop in early infancy, less than 3yo, then stagnate and stop growth, with fixed IQ through the rest of life.
On what basis have you made this assumption? In almost every field, practise will improve one's skills. IQ essentially measures the ability to reason logically and find patterns: why would these skills not benefit from practise?

[Anonymous No.9649013]

I can't wait for /pol/ to praise the study for showing race differences in IQ and then say it's all made up once it shows Jews have the highest IQ.

[Anonymous No.9649016]

>>9642702
>Mad jobless virgin

[Anonymous No.9649042]

>>9640849
Well, we only know the limits of our intelligence based on our ability to communicate with the observers who measure our intelligence.

IQ tests measure pattern recognition through mathematical representation by letter and number, as well as the ability to manipulate 3D objects in imaginary space.

If there is a way to genetically determine the ability to do this, then that means it is "hardwired" in our bodies.

But that would mean that we are entirely our bodies, and thus any other human who claims to determine how to treat others based on their IQ is, well, basically selling their soul, right?

Let it happen. It only means we might be able to determine the best way to distribute information to people based on their framework of algorithmic processing.

This is good news.

This might be fucking amazingly fantastic news, actually.

But we have to trust that humans either won't use it to create some Orwellian bullshit birth-slave dystopia, and that takes quite a bit of hope.

I got nothing left but hope, though...

Cheers, m8

(Visually, that pic related is personally distracting because it reads as "sexy af" - but that's irrational, and my IQ tells me that it's not actually a related pic... inb4 I'm called a fag)

[Anonymous No.9649209]

>>9641520
Whichever one is lower

[Anonymous No.9649213]

>>9642716
Gross

[Anonymous No.9649291]

>>9649016
Try again sweetie. I'm a brainlet, but I'm not naiive enough to think a 100 iq person is more valuable to society than a 130. All trade jobs can be done by machines and our technologically advancing society will soon have no place for people who can't solve complex problems.

[Anonymous No.9649727]

>>9649291

[Anonymous No.9649796]

>>9649291
>All trade jobs can be done by machines
You are indeed a brainlet

[Anonymous No.9650944]

>>9649042
>I got nothing left but hope

You aint go shit so

[Anonymous No.9651356]

>>9650944
>You aint go shit
No, I poop regularly, actually, but thanks for your consideration of my digestive well-being.

Very thoughtful.

[Anonymous No.9651357]

>>9640849

That's retarded, because neural development is a stochastic process that is supported, but not determined by genetics...

Sound to me like some science faggots are just trying to scam some money for research; as usual...