Clever to use federal prisons for the offense breakdown.

70,000 people in federal prison for drug crimes looks like it's the driver of incarceration generally.

But there are 158,000 people sitting in state prisons for murder. 163,000 for sexual assault, 132,000 for robbery, 146,000 for assault, 80,000 for burglary.

That doesn't make a graph that makes drugs look like the driver though. Gotta exclude state prisons if you want to present it that way.

Not since I saw James Joyce's loveletters.

Never again.

It's strictly looking at BMI and DNA.

So the answer to the question would be found by giving the kid a DNA test, and deriving a polygenic score from the results.

>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.

No, they were studying if kids from rich families get more out of education than kids from poor families and if kids who are genetically predisposed to be smarter than average get more from schooling than kids who are predisposed to be dummer than average.

But to do that you have to seprate the effects of age from the effects of spending time in school.

They took advantage of the fact that schools are set up with enrollments cutoffs. So kids of the same age will have different amounts of schooling.

Say the enrollment cutoff is turning 5 before September 1st.

A kid born August 30 will have 10 months of schooling on their 6th birthday.

A kid born September 2nd will have 1 day of schooling on their 6th birthday.

Test them both on their 6th birthday, and all else being equal, the difference is the effect of 10 months of schooling.

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.

>Has the partnership been announced in press releases?

Yeah like a year ago.

Beyond shit the bed like they do with pretty much all their partnerships.

They hired an actual industry person last December. Things were looking up, but he just bit a guy's nose off and they fired him, so they're probably fucked.