Being dealt the right genes determines whether you get on in life

[Anonymous No.9859601]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5934673/Being-rich-successful-really-genes-study-suggests.html
>Scientists have found social mobility is partially written into our genes, which can make us high-flyers or high-earners.
>A study of more than 20,000 people in the UK, US and New Zealand found those with certain genetic variations earned more money, had better careers and got further in education.
>Regardless of which class they came from, their genes could help them do better in life than their parents before them.
>The study lends weight to the theory that nature rather than nurture largely determines how well people get on in their lives.

Social Darwinism and scientific racism finally has been vindicated after decades of Leftie denial, censorship, and propaganda. Won't be surprised to see reliable DNA-based IQ and/or SES predictors, which is going to make egalitarians/cucks that scapegoat Whitey and Capitalism for human inequality/Negro failure/etc. look like the left-wing answer to Creationists.

Study:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/07/03/1801238115

[Anonymous No.9859605]

scientific racism hasn't been vindicated

Sjws will lobby to make sure genetic engineering is free and available for all so niggers can be smart too within your lifetime

[Anonymous No.9859661]

>>9859605
>smart niggers
sounds funny

[Anonymous No.9859666]

>>9859661
>Smart niggers
Is an oxymoron.

[Anonymous No.9859668]

[Anonymous No.9859671]

[Anonymous No.9859673]

[Anonymous No.9859675]

[Anonymous No.9859676]

[Anonymous No.9859678]

[Anonymous No.9859680]

[Anonymous No.9859682]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gTRVKsBiSU&t=570s

https://2kpcwh2r7phz1nq4jj237m22-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Color-Of-Crime-2016.pdf

[Anonymous No.9859987]

this is why black inferiority leads to worse economic conditions. It's not racism when you have 15 IQ lower averages and don't make as much money as asians who are a smaller minority.

[Anonymous No.9860160]

>>9859605
lol

[Anonymous No.9860181]

>>9859601
Children with the highest polygenic score from the lowest socioeconomic backgrounds will rise above the median point within the lifetime. Those from the most priveleged background will fall to the median point.
GWAS works. It's picking up something other than ethnic background, it's predictive. Which means we can start using it for embryo selection and optimise humanity.
The future is pretty dark, but there's a flicker of hope here.

[Anonymous No.9860184]

>>9859601
Any genetic engineering plan or idea that is not making humanity into an amazonian matriarchal eusocial species is not happening.
There is no reason to care at all about class mobility in a world were class is based on reproductive role and given to a person when they're born. No economics, no politics beyond the hive.
If you disagree you aren't looking at what's happening.

[Anonymous No.9860261]

>>9859605
Good? If nigs were smart, I wouldn't have a problem with them.

[Anonymous No.9860613]

>>9860261

Yes, but existing ideologies don't like this fact. Imagine if your entire existence was based upon the idea blacks are equal to whites and genetics is wrong.

Imagine if you actually hated with a visceral passion anyone "racist" who thought there might be differences and wanted to ruin their lives. While at the same time enforcing this ideology as a cultural norm.

This is the current state of western societies, while rising eastern countries (china) don't have such hang ups at all and already doing embryo selection for intelligence, just not publicly at large scales for elite couples.

[Anonymous No.9860693]

This makes me feel uneasy for some reason. It's nice that society has the chance to evolve given that we ascended the natural selection cycle(mostly). I hope this won't turn for the worst, as many things have in the past. Maybe i'm just jealous of the people that will get the perfect genes because they were engineered that way, for me it's gonna be struggle and death

[Anonymous No.9860696]

>>9860261
being smart isn’t everything.You can be smart and violent.

[Anonymous No.9860701]

>>9860696
They are significantly negatively correlated so I'd say it's a pretty good start

[Anonymous No.9860804]

>>9860696
high IQ is linked to low criminality/violence.

[Anonymous No.9860832]

Read the source material

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/07/03/1801238115

>Also as expected, polygenic scores of mothers and children were correlated (r = 0.49, P < 0.001). However, even when we controlled for a child’s own polygenic score, having a mother with a higher polygenic score predicted the child’s achieving higher educational attainment (adjusted r = 0.12, P < 0.001). This social–genetic effect suggests environmental mediation of maternal genetic effects on children’s educational attainment. Such environmental mediation offers one explanation for why education-linked genetics are correlated with environments that contribute to educational attainment.

>findings support the explanation that education-linked genetics are connected to social class because they influences attainment: Participants’ education-linked genetics predicted their social mobility, and differences in education-linked genetics between siblings predicted differences between siblings in life-course attainments.

>finding suggests that genetic associations with social attainment could arise, in part, from gene–environment correlations between participants’ education-linked genetics and environments related to participants’ social origins. Such gene–environment correlations could reflect effects of parents’ genetics on family environments, which parents subsequently give to their children along with genotypes (5, 21).

>finding is consistent with the hypothesis that parents’ education-linked genetics contribute to shaping the environments that influence their children’s subsequent attainment.


>We acknowledge limitations. First, our genetic measurement is imprecise. The education polygenic score explains only a fraction of the estimated total genetic influence on education (10). Our effect sizes are thus attenuated by substantial measurement error in the polygenic score.

[Anonymous No.9860833]

Continued

>This bias toward the null makes our analysis a conservative estimate of genetic associations with social mobility.

>The problem is more severe in analysis of non-Europeans (SI Appendix, 2.3).

>With larger GWAS sample sizes, new GWAS in non-European populations, and identification of which specific genetic variants are causal, these limitations will be partly mitigated

>Second, analyses do not completely exclude potential bias due to population stratification (50), the nonrandom patterning of genotypes across different ancestries. We used the best available methods to account for confounding by ancestry-related genetic differences that could be correlated with social attainment.

>Fourth, we lack complete genetic information on the parents of the people whose lives we studied. In the E-Risk cohort, in which we analyzed maternal genetic data, fathers did not give DNA. Thus, we cannot fully isolate genetic from environmental mechanisms of intergenerational transmission.

>In our analysis, modeling effects of social origins attenuated genetic-effect sizes by 10–50%, depending on the outcome and cohort. This variation is consistent with evidence that genetic influences on individual differences may vary across cultures and cohorts and across stages of the life course (62, 63).

>third take-home message is that genetic analysis of social mobility can inform programs and policies that change children’s environments as a way to promote positive development. The genetics we studied are related to socioeconomic attainment and mobility partly through channels that are policy-malleable.

[Anonymous No.9860835]

Continued

>Personal characteristics linked with the attainment-related genetics we studied involve early-emerging cognitive and noncognitive skills, including learning to talk and read, act planfully, delay gratification, and get along with others (10, 16). These skills represent intervention targets in their own right, for example by policies and programs that safeguard perinatal development and provide enriching, stable family and educational environments (64). A significant contribution of our study is that the nongenetic social and material resources children inherit from their parents represent a further mechanism linking genetics and attainment over the life course. Policies and programs cannot change children’s genes, but they can help give them more of the resources that children who inherit more education-linked genetics tend to grow up with. Our findings suggest that such interventions could help close the gap.

>We found that measured genetics related to patterns of social attainment and mobility, partly through direct influences on individuals and partly through predicting the environments in which they grew up. Specifically, parents’ genetics influence the environments that give children their start in life, while children’s own genetics influence their social mobility across adult life.

Basically, child genetics is malleable due to inheriting maternal/prenatal genetics and environment influence (paternal dna wasn't tested). Resource allocation and parental involvement provides fundamental support to child, thus socio-economic policies can help child development (but not their genes) which can in turn influence the development and genetics (on the maternal side that was tested) of future offspring of said children.

Also scientific racism has not been validated as the research admitted that the cohort is mostly european and need larger sample sizes for non-europeans via a larger GWAS.

[Anonymous No.9860839]

>>9860835
I can literally smell your low IQ through the post.

[Anonymous No.9860843]

>>9860839

Here's your (You) anon.

[Anonymous No.9860855]

>>9860843
It's a pretty simple study.

Genetics predict outcome.