Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Vito_The_Magnificent t1_j1z86q5 wrote

I wonder if you'd get the same results in 18 year olds, or with a more complete PGS model.

There's good evidence that the SES x heritability interaction is transient, and fades at about age 10, which is the upper limit of their study population. Given that SES was the first factor they pulled out of their PCA, they've got a known transient phenomenon as the primary driver of their data.

To boot, the increase in heritability of cognitive ability by age is often hypothesized to be a G x E interaction, and looking at 18 year olds could inform that question - if it is, you might expect the effects of education to be wider at 18, when heritability peaks and levels off, than it is at 9 when a lot of things other than heritability are driving.

It might be that schooling doesn't boost or attenuate genetic advantages or disadvantages in 8 year old because everyone is capable of extracting value from the education we offter to 8 year olds. But maybe not so for a 12 grade education, when some fraction of students will be so hoplessly lost that they might as well not even be there.

175

Badroadrash101 t1_j1zuayk wrote

The data also shows that children whose parents were high achievers aka smart, created home environments that benefited their offspring in schooling. These children performed better in school as a result of genetics and environment. Since the age range of the study is confined, it is possible the effect can lessen or remain. Anecdotally, young adult high achievers tend to have parents who are as well.

81

i_have_thick_loads OP t1_j20ai0p wrote

>The data also shows that children whose parents were high achievers aka smart, created home environments that benefited their offspring in schooling.

Yes; shared environment impacts EA and IQ in 10 year olds , but seems to have no role on the variance in EA and IQ by adulthood - by which time 70% of the variance is heritable and probably genetic.

29

SerialStateLineXer t1_j1zo0xb wrote

>I wonder if you'd get the same results in 18 year olds, or with a more complete PGS model

You'd definitely see genetics play a much larger role. There's a huge amount of missing heritability in PGS models, i.e. they explain only a small portion of the heritability that we know is there from twin studies. As a result, studies like this underestimate the effects of genetics and overestimate the effects of SES.

28

FelsensteinsMonster t1_j1zsi73 wrote

This makes a lot of assumptions about estimates from twins being accurate and ignores that the ostensible predictive gains between a 1 million sample education GWAS and a 3 million sample GWAS was mostly lost when confounders were accounted for. If anything the poor quality of polygenic scores will make non-genetic factors appear genetic in these kinds of models

8

Vito_The_Magnificent t1_j1zxlzq wrote

>1 million sample education GWAS and a 3 million sample GWAS was mostly lost when confounders were accounted for

Oooo for EA? I didn't see that one. Got the paper handy?

I got stock in 23&Me that I may need to sell if GWAS is gonna cap out at 0.1 on everything.

9