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). |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
Also, the phrase "poor man's" does not mean "having much less money than" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poor%20man%27s |