<p>[Common</a> DNA Markers Can Account for More Than Half of the Genetic Influence on Cognitive Abilities](<a href=“http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/4/562]Common”>http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/4/562)</p>
<p>Quite a strong study to support the idea that your 2400 SAT score mostly comes from the luck of the draw in your DNA.</p>
<p>Interesting and not that surprising. As they say, some folks are just better at test taking. I will have to check if my online subscriptions will let me see the full article.</p>
<p>Anyone can have free access to article by clicking link on right hand side. I have PDF access and am NOT a member. Here’s the link:</p>
<p><a href=“http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/4/562.full.pdf[/url]”>http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/4/562.full.pdf</a></p>
<p>Sadly I don’t understand much more than the abstract and about half the article.</p>
<p>I think you’ve misinterpreted the article.</p>
<p>It says something that has been known for year: heredity is about 50% predictive of cognitive ability – with environmental & experiential factors being the other 50% (“Metaanalyses of these studies have yielded heritability estimates of about .50 for general cognitive ability, the most well-studied cognitive trait.”)</p>
<p>Then they go on to say that they have identified specific genes that account for about two-thirds of that 50%.</p>
<p>In other words, they always knew from twin studies that heredity plays a role – but now they can identify the genes involved. </p>
<p>Keep in mind that most genetic factors are tendencies only. For example, I had my genes tested with 23 and me – the results came back and said that I probably have blue eyes. (I don’t – my genes say there is a 72% chance of blue eyes, but I guess I’m in that other 28%). If I learned anything from reading about my genotype it is that genetic make up is NOT determinative for most traits. </p>
<p>Even the influences that are measured can be very mild. For example, I have a genetic marker that suggests that I have a lower non-verbal IQ performance – but reading through the supplied data tells me that is based on a single study of Dutch families, with an average 3 point differential in IQ. (I always scored very well in IQ tests, but even if that particular gene is somehow suppressing my nonverbal ability, 3 points on any IQ test is negligible – it may be worthwhile for the researchers to report, but you would be unlikely to discern any difference in day-to-day difference in performance between groups with such a small average difference).</p>
<p>My ‘summary’ of the article was not intended to be serious. But without the right DNA you are never gonna get 2400.</p>
<p>That may or may not be true. </p>
<p>That certainly is not a conclusion that can be drawn from the article cited or any other research in to cognitive abilities, at least in terms of the genetic markers they are discussing.</p>
<p>OMG calmom, A PARENT and A MOM, got her SNPs checked by 23 and me. not to be dramatic BUT WOW who would have anticipated that curveball in this thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very true; Without the right DNA you wouldn’t be human.</p>
<p>Is that why asian kids tend to do better (genetics) , or is it because of tiger mom (environment)? Or, is it the genetics of tiger mom that makes the environment?</p>
<p>Forgive me for thinking that this thread can only end badly.</p>
<p>I really don’t find anything here too shocking. Intelligence is partially genetically influenced, and the rest is influenced by environment/upbringing/experience. The nature/nurture debate goes back a long, long time and usually the answer is a bit of both. Kinda cool that they identified some of the genetic markers, though.</p>
<p>Maybe someday a DNA swab will replace the SAT.</p>
<p>^^And I will make a fortune with my biotech investments. :D</p>
<p>The article title is revealing- use of “common markers”…
“luck of the draw…” by OP shows problems with dealing with intelligence. It is not “luck” to be smart, it is in the genes.</p>
<p>Agree this thread can/will end badly.</p>
<p>Transpose athletic ability for intelligence and similar findings are likely to be made. Those with certain muscle fiber types, bone structures… are bound to be more successful than the majority. Why can’t most people realize that intelligence also is a part of the genome- the vast majority can’t be the smartest just as most of us can’t be the best athletes.</p>
<p>Somehow everyone wants to be the most intelligent or diminish the attributes of that. People accept that little Johnny won’t be an NFL or NBA star but push their children to perform better on the SAT. </p>
<p>They will find mental health markers as well. Physical biology determines so much.</p>
<p>End of rant. Got my buttons pushed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one disputes it. What’s disputed is the 50% heritability claim. Recent research based on GWAS (genome-wide association studies) has only shown 2% heritability: [GWAS</a> of 126,559 Individuals Identifies Genetic Variants Associated with Educational Attainment](<a href=“http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/laibson/files/gwas_science_053013.pdf]GWAS”>http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/laibson/files/gwas_science_053013.pdf)</p>
<p>If the claimed 50% heritability is not due to SNPs [single genes] is it due to combinations [GCTA (Genome-wide complex trait analysis)]? If so, which particular genes work in what combination? This study can’t tell us.</p>
<p>More so:
[Still</a> Chasing Ghosts: A New Genetic Methodology Will Not Find the “Missing Heritability”](<a href=“http://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/still-chasing-ghosts-a-new-genetic-methodology-will-not-find-the-missing-heritability]Still”>New Genetic Methodology Will Not Find “Missing Heritability”)</p>
<p>Enfieldacademy, make that 2 CC moms. </p>
<p>Waves to calmom, wonders if we are DNA cousins (send me a sharing invite). I do have the blue eyes. ;)</p>
<p>I agree with wis75 that physical biology determines so much. Without oversharing, I will just say that my personal situation is as good as a twin study (albeit only a study of one). I also have done extensive family tree research and have located many cousins, the similarities of some to each other are truly mind-boggling.</p>