Am I Being Scammed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’d be an idiot to spend that kind of money especially given you are starting with a low IQ.

Clearly there are a lot of other “idiots” that disagree with this statement. There are already a few hundred to a few thousand people that have done this (for polygenic disease risk) in the US. There are at multiple companies in the (Orchid, Genomic Prediction, Myome, etc.) that offer probabilistic disease risk scores for IVF. Other people are doing this already and there is a risk that families who don’t do it will fall behind within in a couple generations.

You absolute simpleton. Disease risk is not the same as predicting IQ, so no: there are not a few thousand people that have done "this."

You sound like the perfect customer for what they're selling, so go buy it. But don't kid yourself that the unanimous consensus here that you're being scammed and this is not worth $40k even if it could be proved accurate is a sign that everyone but you lives in the Dark Ages or cannot understand the benefits as they've been explained to you (and eagerly swallowed). You're just a mark with extra money, which is everyone's favorite kind of mark.

The genetic architecture for Heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and IQ are all similar. These characteristics are partly attributable to thousands of additive genetic variants across the genome. The IQ predictor does not work as well as many disease predictors yet, because we don’t have any large datasets accessible to researchers with millions of people that have cognitive ability tests along with DNA data. We have this in spades for disease risks models though. Once this data is available genetic selection will work equally well if not better for IQ models because this trait has higher genetic heritability than heart disease or type 2 diabetes.

OP, it sounds like you’re a potential investor/employee of one of these companies posing as a would-be customer. Either way, the “Reputable researchers don’t want to be involved” line you’ve heard is bs. A few academics may hesitate, but there will always be talented peopls ready to jump on a likely moneymaker.

As for the bolded, this is a big if. Researchers haven’t found similar data for autism despite tons of funding, and IQ is a lot more like autism than heart disease.

They have smaller datasets right now. The best existing model today explains around 8% of the total variance in IQ. It will approach a level close to the 40% height number once there is a high quality dataset with a few million people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the biological mother and father both have high IQ’s there is a very good chance the kids will too. And 2-4 points is negligent amount for an IQ test. An IQ if 100 is the 50th percentile rank. An IQ of 105 is the 63rd percentile rank. Once you get into higher iq’s the percentile difference between 5 points is slight. An IQ of 130 is the 98th percentile rank whole an IQ of 135 is the 99th percentile rank. That’s not worth 40,000.

What matters more than a few iq points is drive, attention span, and working memory.

Additionally IQ scores are malleable and can change. Interesting study of teens in Britain showed vía mri and iq tests that while some teens iq is stable other teens can have pretty big changes in IQ. It’s like the old taxi drivers in London who studied for “the knowledge” - they had to essentially remember a map of London in their head to get a taxi license. Their spatial iq increased after intensive studying for a extended period of time.

Well there is still regression to the mean. So the couples with 130 IQs will on have kids with an average IQ of around 118. Theoretically, this tech ( assuming I’m not being scammed) can reduce that decline by 25%.

I say this with as much well meaning as I can gather, as someone who has more than one child:

There are many things you can not control about your children. If you are doing things like worrying about how your future unborn children will revert to the mean on their IQ, I am really concerned about much bigger things you will be much more worried about. It's easy pre-children to envision your future self, sitting back now making decisions based on averages and intellectual concepts. When your actual child (the very definition of n=1) is here, most of that will go out the window because you will have to deal with that one, singular person. And then you may have another child, and that one is probably going to be different in significant ways from the first.

I am not saying just let the car drive itself. But just recognize your job is to provide a loving home, and pray/hope the other things will work out okay. Going down roads like this and trying to drive with your hand gripping the wheel as hard as humanly possible (2-3 IQ points!) will wear you out and make you a worse parent in the long run.

This is very thoughtful advice. Thank you for commenting. It might be a better idea to save this money for potential grandkids to benefit from the technology instead. The upper limit of the expected gains with existing technology assuming the models improve is around 9-12 points. It may not be worth the cost now, but it probably will be a good use of money in a few decades.

Not quite the response I was expecting. Thought it was gonna be more like "some good points, maybe better to put the 40k into my future child's 529 plan"

You seem to have some fixation on IQ and eugenics. Did you watch Idiocracy and decide you wanted to prevent it from happening?

No, that’s unrelated to this discussion. I think that this is an incredibly important topic that will have significant impacts on society. It does not matter whether you like this technology or think it is morally acceptable. The end result is widespread adoption because families who do not use it will be at an competitive disadvantage. The reality is we cannot ban polygenic screening worldwide and there are other countries that will continue to use it even if the country you live in doesn’t. This tech is already popular among Silicon Valley elites and it will become the norm among UMC/UC households within a few decades.

Oh okay, now I understand who OP is. Basically a poor man's Peter Thiel.

I guess that is somewhat accurate lol. Everyone is poor compared to him.

Well, I guess on brand.

It wasn't meant as a compliment, to be clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the biological mother and father both have high IQ’s there is a very good chance the kids will too. And 2-4 points is negligent amount for an IQ test. An IQ if 100 is the 50th percentile rank. An IQ of 105 is the 63rd percentile rank. Once you get into higher iq’s the percentile difference between 5 points is slight. An IQ of 130 is the 98th percentile rank whole an IQ of 135 is the 99th percentile rank. That’s not worth 40,000.

What matters more than a few iq points is drive, attention span, and working memory.

Additionally IQ scores are malleable and can change. Interesting study of teens in Britain showed vía mri and iq tests that while some teens iq is stable other teens can have pretty big changes in IQ. It’s like the old taxi drivers in London who studied for “the knowledge” - they had to essentially remember a map of London in their head to get a taxi license. Their spatial iq increased after intensive studying for a extended period of time.

Well there is still regression to the mean. So the couples with 130 IQs will on have kids with an average IQ of around 118. Theoretically, this tech ( assuming I’m not being scammed) can reduce that decline by 25%.

I say this with as much well meaning as I can gather, as someone who has more than one child:

There are many things you can not control about your children. If you are doing things like worrying about how your future unborn children will revert to the mean on their IQ, I am really concerned about much bigger things you will be much more worried about. It's easy pre-children to envision your future self, sitting back now making decisions based on averages and intellectual concepts. When your actual child (the very definition of n=1) is here, most of that will go out the window because you will have to deal with that one, singular person. And then you may have another child, and that one is probably going to be different in significant ways from the first.

I am not saying just let the car drive itself. But just recognize your job is to provide a loving home, and pray/hope the other things will work out okay. Going down roads like this and trying to drive with your hand gripping the wheel as hard as humanly possible (2-3 IQ points!) will wear you out and make you a worse parent in the long run.

This is very thoughtful advice. Thank you for commenting. It might be a better idea to save this money for potential grandkids to benefit from the technology instead. The upper limit of the expected gains with existing technology assuming the models improve is around 9-12 points. It may not be worth the cost now, but it probably will be a good use of money in a few decades.

Not quite the response I was expecting. Thought it was gonna be more like "some good points, maybe better to put the 40k into my future child's 529 plan"

You seem to have some fixation on IQ and eugenics. Did you watch Idiocracy and decide you wanted to prevent it from happening?

No, that’s unrelated to this discussion. I think that this is an incredibly important topic that will have significant impacts on society. It does not matter whether you like this technology or think it is morally acceptable. The end result is widespread adoption because families who do not use it will be at an competitive disadvantage. The reality is we cannot ban polygenic screening worldwide and there are other countries that will continue to use it even if the country you live in doesn’t. This tech is already popular among Silicon Valley elites and it will become the norm among UMC/UC households within a few decades.

Oh okay, now I understand who OP is. Basically a poor man's Peter Thiel.

I guess that is somewhat accurate lol. Everyone is poor compared to him.

Well, I guess on brand.

It wasn't meant as a compliment, to be clear.

I don’t care if it’s meant to be a compliment or not. I just found it amusing because it is kinda true. I never thought about this before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the biological mother and father both have high IQ’s there is a very good chance the kids will too. And 2-4 points is negligent amount for an IQ test. An IQ if 100 is the 50th percentile rank. An IQ of 105 is the 63rd percentile rank. Once you get into higher iq’s the percentile difference between 5 points is slight. An IQ of 130 is the 98th percentile rank whole an IQ of 135 is the 99th percentile rank. That’s not worth 40,000.

What matters more than a few iq points is drive, attention span, and working memory.

Additionally IQ scores are malleable and can change. Interesting study of teens in Britain showed vía mri and iq tests that while some teens iq is stable other teens can have pretty big changes in IQ. It’s like the old taxi drivers in London who studied for “the knowledge” - they had to essentially remember a map of London in their head to get a taxi license. Their spatial iq increased after intensive studying for a extended period of time.

Well there is still regression to the mean. So the couples with 130 IQs will on have kids with an average IQ of around 118. Theoretically, this tech ( assuming I’m not being scammed) can reduce that decline by 25%.

I say this with as much well meaning as I can gather, as someone who has more than one child:

There are many things you can not control about your children. If you are doing things like worrying about how your future unborn children will revert to the mean on their IQ, I am really concerned about much bigger things you will be much more worried about. It's easy pre-children to envision your future self, sitting back now making decisions based on averages and intellectual concepts. When your actual child (the very definition of n=1) is here, most of that will go out the window because you will have to deal with that one, singular person. And then you may have another child, and that one is probably going to be different in significant ways from the first.

I am not saying just let the car drive itself. But just recognize your job is to provide a loving home, and pray/hope the other things will work out okay. Going down roads like this and trying to drive with your hand gripping the wheel as hard as humanly possible (2-3 IQ points!) will wear you out and make you a worse parent in the long run.

This is very thoughtful advice. Thank you for commenting. It might be a better idea to save this money for potential grandkids to benefit from the technology instead. The upper limit of the expected gains with existing technology assuming the models improve is around 9-12 points. It may not be worth the cost now, but it probably will be a good use of money in a few decades.

Not quite the response I was expecting. Thought it was gonna be more like "some good points, maybe better to put the 40k into my future child's 529 plan"

You seem to have some fixation on IQ and eugenics. Did you watch Idiocracy and decide you wanted to prevent it from happening?

No, that’s unrelated to this discussion. I think that this is an incredibly important topic that will have significant impacts on society. It does not matter whether you like this technology or think it is morally acceptable. The end result is widespread adoption because families who do not use it will be at an competitive disadvantage. The reality is we cannot ban polygenic screening worldwide and there are other countries that will continue to use it even if the country you live in doesn’t. This tech is already popular among Silicon Valley elites and it will become the norm among UMC/UC households within a few decades.

I can totally imagine in 30 years when someone posts on DCUM about problems their child is having, other posters will huff "well, did you screen for that in IVF? What do you expect? You were too cheap to screen and now you want to complain?" So gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the biological mother and father both have high IQ’s there is a very good chance the kids will too. And 2-4 points is negligent amount for an IQ test. An IQ if 100 is the 50th percentile rank. An IQ of 105 is the 63rd percentile rank. Once you get into higher iq’s the percentile difference between 5 points is slight. An IQ of 130 is the 98th percentile rank whole an IQ of 135 is the 99th percentile rank. That’s not worth 40,000.

What matters more than a few iq points is drive, attention span, and working memory.

Additionally IQ scores are malleable and can change. Interesting study of teens in Britain showed vía mri and iq tests that while some teens iq is stable other teens can have pretty big changes in IQ. It’s like the old taxi drivers in London who studied for “the knowledge” - they had to essentially remember a map of London in their head to get a taxi license. Their spatial iq increased after intensive studying for a extended period of time.

Well there is still regression to the mean. So the couples with 130 IQs will on have kids with an average IQ of around 118. Theoretically, this tech ( assuming I’m not being scammed) can reduce that decline by 25%.

I say this with as much well meaning as I can gather, as someone who has more than one child:

There are many things you can not control about your children. If you are doing things like worrying about how your future unborn children will revert to the mean on their IQ, I am really concerned about much bigger things you will be much more worried about. It's easy pre-children to envision your future self, sitting back now making decisions based on averages and intellectual concepts. When your actual child (the very definition of n=1) is here, most of that will go out the window because you will have to deal with that one, singular person. And then you may have another child, and that one is probably going to be different in significant ways from the first.

I am not saying just let the car drive itself. But just recognize your job is to provide a loving home, and pray/hope the other things will work out okay. Going down roads like this and trying to drive with your hand gripping the wheel as hard as humanly possible (2-3 IQ points!) will wear you out and make you a worse parent in the long run.

This is very thoughtful advice. Thank you for commenting. It might be a better idea to save this money for potential grandkids to benefit from the technology instead. The upper limit of the expected gains with existing technology assuming the models improve is around 9-12 points. It may not be worth the cost now, but it probably will be a good use of money in a few decades.

Not quite the response I was expecting. Thought it was gonna be more like "some good points, maybe better to put the 40k into my future child's 529 plan"

You seem to have some fixation on IQ and eugenics. Did you watch Idiocracy and decide you wanted to prevent it from happening?

No, that’s unrelated to this discussion. I think that this is an incredibly important topic that will have significant impacts on society. It does not matter whether you like this technology or think it is morally acceptable. The end result is widespread adoption because families who do not use it will be at an competitive disadvantage. The reality is we cannot ban polygenic screening worldwide and there are other countries that will continue to use it even if the country you live in doesn’t. This tech is already popular among Silicon Valley elites and it will become the norm among UMC/UC households within a few decades.

Oh okay, now I understand who OP is. Basically a poor man's Peter Thiel.

I guess that is somewhat accurate lol. Everyone is poor compared to him.

Well, I guess on brand.

It wasn't meant as a compliment, to be clear.

I don’t care if it’s meant to be a compliment or not. I just found it amusing because it is kinda true. I never thought about this before.

Also, the phrase "poor man's" does not mean "having much less money than"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poor%20man%27s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’d be an idiot to spend that kind of money especially given you are starting with a low IQ.

Clearly there are a lot of other “idiots” that disagree with this statement. There are already a few hundred to a few thousand people that have done this (for polygenic disease risk) in the US. There are at multiple companies in the (Orchid, Genomic Prediction, Myome, etc.) that offer probabilistic disease risk scores for IVF. Other people are doing this already and there is a risk that families who don’t do it will fall behind within in a couple generations.

You absolute simpleton. Disease risk is not the same as predicting IQ, so no: there are not a few thousand people that have done "this."

You sound like the perfect customer for what they're selling, so go buy it. But don't kid yourself that the unanimous consensus here that you're being scammed and this is not worth $40k even if it could be proved accurate is a sign that everyone but you lives in the Dark Ages or cannot understand the benefits as they've been explained to you (and eagerly swallowed). You're just a mark with extra money, which is everyone's favorite kind of mark.

The genetic architecture for Heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and IQ are all similar. These characteristics are partly attributable to thousands of additive genetic variants across the genome. The IQ predictor does not work as well as many disease predictors yet, because we don’t have any large datasets accessible to researchers with millions of people that have cognitive ability tests along with DNA data. We have this in spades for disease risks models though. Once this data is available genetic selection will work equally well if not better for IQ models because this trait has higher genetic heritability than heart disease or type 2 diabetes.

OP, it sounds like you’re a potential investor/employee of one of these companies posing as a would-be customer. Either way, the “Reputable researchers don’t want to be involved” line you’ve heard is bs. A few academics may hesitate, but there will always be talented peopls ready to jump on a likely moneymaker.

As for the bolded, this is a big if. Researchers haven’t found similar data for autism despite tons of funding, and IQ is a lot more like autism than heart disease.

I didn’t go into detail, but it’s more complicated than that. It’s very expensive to collect high quality data on millions of people for a trait like this. The models are already very good for height because data is easy to collect relatively cheaply. The best models explain around 40% of the total variance in height. Around 50% of the variance is thought to be attributable to common SNPs. The other half is explained by rare variants and environmental factors. I am not an investor. Frankly, I am not wealthy enough to invest during the start-up stages at these companies. Most start-ups do not want to deal with unaccredited investors.

LOL. Either you're playing dumb or you're not very familiar with the angel scene.

In any case, investor or not, you admit that you're not the would-be customer you claimed to be in the OP. More likely, you are affiliated or considering an affiliation with one of these companies. That explains why you're promoting this so hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the biological mother and father both have high IQ’s there is a very good chance the kids will too. And 2-4 points is negligent amount for an IQ test. An IQ if 100 is the 50th percentile rank. An IQ of 105 is the 63rd percentile rank. Once you get into higher iq’s the percentile difference between 5 points is slight. An IQ of 130 is the 98th percentile rank whole an IQ of 135 is the 99th percentile rank. That’s not worth 40,000.

What matters more than a few iq points is drive, attention span, and working memory.

Additionally IQ scores are malleable and can change. Interesting study of teens in Britain showed vía mri and iq tests that while some teens iq is stable other teens can have pretty big changes in IQ. It’s like the old taxi drivers in London who studied for “the knowledge” - they had to essentially remember a map of London in their head to get a taxi license. Their spatial iq increased after intensive studying for a extended period of time.

Well there is still regression to the mean. So the couples with 130 IQs will on have kids with an average IQ of around 118. Theoretically, this tech ( assuming I’m not being scammed) can reduce that decline by 25%.

I say this with as much well meaning as I can gather, as someone who has more than one child:

There are many things you can not control about your children. If you are doing things like worrying about how your future unborn children will revert to the mean on their IQ, I am really concerned about much bigger things you will be much more worried about. It's easy pre-children to envision your future self, sitting back now making decisions based on averages and intellectual concepts. When your actual child (the very definition of n=1) is here, most of that will go out the window because you will have to deal with that one, singular person. And then you may have another child, and that one is probably going to be different in significant ways from the first.

I am not saying just let the car drive itself. But just recognize your job is to provide a loving home, and pray/hope the other things will work out okay. Going down roads like this and trying to drive with your hand gripping the wheel as hard as humanly possible (2-3 IQ points!) will wear you out and make you a worse parent in the long run.

This is very thoughtful advice. Thank you for commenting. It might be a better idea to save this money for potential grandkids to benefit from the technology instead. The upper limit of the expected gains with existing technology assuming the models improve is around 9-12 points. It may not be worth the cost now, but it probably will be a good use of money in a few decades.

Not quite the response I was expecting. Thought it was gonna be more like "some good points, maybe better to put the 40k into my future child's 529 plan"

You seem to have some fixation on IQ and eugenics. Did you watch Idiocracy and decide you wanted to prevent it from happening?

No, that’s unrelated to this discussion. I think that this is an incredibly important topic that will have significant impacts on society. It does not matter whether you like this technology or think it is morally acceptable. The end result is widespread adoption because families who do not use it will be at an competitive disadvantage. The reality is we cannot ban polygenic screening worldwide and there are other countries that will continue to use it even if the country you live in doesn’t. This tech is already popular among Silicon Valley elites and it will become the norm among UMC/UC households within a few decades.

Oh okay, now I understand who OP is. Basically a poor man's Peter Thiel.

I guess that is somewhat accurate lol. Everyone is poor compared to him.

Well, I guess on brand.

It wasn't meant as a compliment, to be clear.

I don’t care if it’s meant to be a compliment or not. I just found it amusing because it is kinda true. I never thought about this before.

Also, the phrase "poor man's" does not mean "having much less money than"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poor%20man%27s

Alright, thanks for pointing this out. I’m surprised I missed the actual meaning of this phrase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a scam. I really wish there was a better foundation of scientific education and an understanding of the scientific process in this county.

I literally have a degree in science from an extremely selective university. A lot of the people do not understand statistics well and they have a difficult time understanding the math behind something like this. The researchers in these fields largely do not contest that this will screening method will work when you have private conversations with them. They just do not want to be involved with it due the career risks from (IMO misguided) backlash. The people in the ivory tower of academia are very risk averse and they are worried that they will be shunned by the research community.

Oh got it, you have a degree and you’re part of the secret conversations about how this all really works but no one wants to talk about it…. Except you.

Got it. That all sounds reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes you are being scammed.

$40k invested now will pay for a lot of specialized coaching and enrichment.

If you have $40k to throw around, your kid likely has the other variables that make them likely to test well and be successful.

You seem like a reasonable person. Thanks for your input. Do you see any obvious flaws with the methodology of this research paper? https://elifesciences.org/articles/64716
Im curious if there is anything you think I might have missed on when estimating how well this tech might work.

Sure, I mean, I think the first thing you missed when you supposedly contributed to this paper is that you didn’t include IQ anywhere, which is the subject of the current question.

I didn’t realize DCUM attracted so many published academics commenting on their own work!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a scam. I really wish there was a better foundation of scientific education and an understanding of the scientific process in this county.

I literally have a degree in science from an extremely selective university. A lot of the people do not understand statistics well and they have a difficult time understanding the math behind something like this. The researchers in these fields largely do not contest that this will screening method will work when you have private conversations with them. They just do not want to be involved with it due the career risks from (IMO misguided) backlash. The people in the ivory tower of academia are very risk averse and they are worried that they will be shunned by the research community.

Oh got it, you have a degree and you’re part of the secret conversations about how this all really works but no one wants to talk about it…. Except you.

Got it. That all sounds reasonable.

If you get a couple of drinks into OP, they will start telling you about the real IQ stuff nobody wants to talk about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the biological mother and father both have high IQ’s there is a very good chance the kids will too. And 2-4 points is negligent amount for an IQ test. An IQ if 100 is the 50th percentile rank. An IQ of 105 is the 63rd percentile rank. Once you get into higher iq’s the percentile difference between 5 points is slight. An IQ of 130 is the 98th percentile rank whole an IQ of 135 is the 99th percentile rank. That’s not worth 40,000.

What matters more than a few iq points is drive, attention span, and working memory.

Additionally IQ scores are malleable and can change. Interesting study of teens in Britain showed vía mri and iq tests that while some teens iq is stable other teens can have pretty big changes in IQ. It’s like the old taxi drivers in London who studied for “the knowledge” - they had to essentially remember a map of London in their head to get a taxi license. Their spatial iq increased after intensive studying for a extended period of time.

This.

If you want "high IQ" kids, marry and mate with the highest IQ person you can find. Among the people who encounter out in the world it will vary by like 60 points. 2-4 points is NOTHING.

(Also best to marry someone who is within 15 points of you, otherwise it's hard to communicate).

This is the express lane to autism. This is actually well studied by scientists. "Assortative mating".

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why OP would spend $40K on this. A few IQ points is marginal lifetime benefit compared to putting in Bitcoin now before it shoots to the moon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why OP would spend $40K on this. A few IQ points is marginal lifetime benefit compared to putting in Bitcoin now before it shoots to the moon.

I think Bitcoin is a scam tbh. This says a lot coming from me because everyone else on here seems to think I am very foolish or crazy. I'm not sure if you are being serious about this comment, but I want one of the Bitcoin bros to explain to me why it makes sense that Bitcoin can continue to appreciate rapidly when the market cap is already around a trillion dollars. The market cap of the global equity market is around 130 trillion. At least equities provide ownership in the potential future profits of a company. Bitcoin is more like owning a gold bar, except you cannot actually use it to make electronics or jewelry, and it consumes a lot of electricity. So if anything the intrinsic value is even worse than precious metals. It does not seem reasonably plausible to me that Bitcoin go to the moon again and even come close to exceeding the value of the entire global stock market. I think it is more likely that Bitcoin will become the 21st century version of tulip mania than a decentralized currency that replaces the US dollar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’d be an idiot to spend that kind of money especially given you are starting with a low IQ.

Clearly there are a lot of other “idiots” that disagree with this statement. There are already a few hundred to a few thousand people that have done this (for polygenic disease risk) in the US. There are at multiple companies in the (Orchid, Genomic Prediction, Myome, etc.) that offer probabilistic disease risk scores for IVF. Other people are doing this already and there is a risk that families who don’t do it will fall behind within in a couple generations.

You absolute simpleton. Disease risk is not the same as predicting IQ, so no: there are not a few thousand people that have done "this."

You sound like the perfect customer for what they're selling, so go buy it. But don't kid yourself that the unanimous consensus here that you're being scammed and this is not worth $40k even if it could be proved accurate is a sign that everyone but you lives in the Dark Ages or cannot understand the benefits as they've been explained to you (and eagerly swallowed). You're just a mark with extra money, which is everyone's favorite kind of mark.

The genetic architecture for Heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and IQ are all similar. These characteristics are partly attributable to thousands of additive genetic variants across the genome. The IQ predictor does not work as well as many disease predictors yet, because we don’t have any large datasets accessible to researchers with millions of people that have cognitive ability tests along with DNA data. We have this in spades for disease risks models though. Once this data is available genetic selection will work equally well if not better for IQ models because this trait has higher genetic heritability than heart disease or type 2 diabetes.

OP, it sounds like you’re a potential investor/employee of one of these companies posing as a would-be customer. Either way, the “Reputable researchers don’t want to be involved” line you’ve heard is bs. A few academics may hesitate, but there will always be talented peopls ready to jump on a likely moneymaker.

As for the bolded, this is a big if. Researchers haven’t found similar data for autism despite tons of funding, and IQ is a lot more like autism than heart disease.

I didn’t go into detail, but it’s more complicated than that. It’s very expensive to collect high quality data on millions of people for a trait like this. The models are already very good for height because data is easy to collect relatively cheaply. The best models explain around 40% of the total variance in height. Around 50% of the variance is thought to be attributable to common SNPs. The other half is explained by rare variants and environmental factors. I am not an investor. Frankly, I am not wealthy enough to invest during the start-up stages at these companies. Most start-ups do not want to deal with unaccredited investors.

LOL. Either you're playing dumb or you're not very familiar with the angel scene.

In any case, investor or not, you admit that you're not the would-be customer you claimed to be in the OP. More likely, you are affiliated or considering an affiliation with one of these companies. That explains why you're promoting this so hard.

That's a nice theory, but it is not accurate. If I actually cared to promote something I would run this stuff through some sort of software for spell checking and typos. I am too lazy to do that on a forum. Maybe I don't understand angel investing well. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think there are limits on the number of non-accredited investors that can participate in certain types of investment offerings. There was a company I had the chance to invest in but they wanted a ridiculous minimum investment that I could not afford.

[Anonymous]

If I guessed Jeff’s daily write up correctly then he seems to think the OP is a troll.