Tuesday, July 24, 2018

Progressives should not "Embrace the Genetics of Education." Nor should anyone else.

A new study (which I hope to critique in the next week or so), has all the usual suspects excited and touting it as some conclusive proof of their genetic assumptions.  I would like to specifically address this NY Times Op-Ed from Paige Harden, PhD.  I'm sure she feels that it is well-intentioned and focused on the best interests of society, but that is exactly the problem.  What is really happening in this piece is the use of genetic assumptions to justify a world view.  Let's start with the title:

Why Progressives Should Embrace the Genetics of Education

Before we even start, think about that for just a moment. "The genetics of education." 

Thursday, July 12, 2018

"Yoking" Stratification. A working theory.

Recently, I've been trying to get a better handle on population stratification.  Some of this has to do with what I believe are erroneous "correlations" made by the use of polygenic risk scores.  I am under the assumption that these so-called correlations for various traits are due more to stratification issues.  Recently, there have been a few studies proposing stratification issues for apparent genetic associations that did not replicate.  I discussed this paper related to genetics and height in my previous post.
In a discussion on the intellectual bastion known as Twitter, someone sent me a link to a study discussing the issues of stratification and polygenic risk related to schizophrenia (hat tip to @Race_Realist) and it occurred to me that there might be at least a partial explanation for some of this "hidden" stratification.  Let me start by looking at this paper.

Thursday, July 5, 2018

Are Polygenic Risk Scores Just a Measure of Population Stratification?

This preprint article  came out recently regarding GWAS results for height.  It created a bit of a stir amongst scientists involved in this kind of research, as it questioned the validity of previous, significant genetic associations for height.  This got me to thinking about the current Holy Grail of  GWAS researchers: The polygenic risk score.  I believe that their conclusion throws the whole concept into question.  Let me explain...

Wednesday, July 4, 2018

Genes for loneliness, health club attendance, bar hopping and churchgoing, all in one study!

I am attempting to critique this study:

Elucidating the genetic basis of social interaction and isolation (Day et al.)

There are many directions I can go with such a critique.  The most appealing and easiest, would be to mock it with a couple of quick quotes and be done with it.  Then, I think to myself, are there people out there that take a study like this seriously?  And, of course there are a lot of people who take a study like this seriously.  
I'm hoping, though, that there are a few scientists who have been holding onto these GWAS studies as some sort of proof of all kinds of mental constructs, who might have a bit of a crisis of confidence when reading something like this.  Perhaps they would like to dismiss this as an outlier, or misguided in some way.
Here's where they have a problem.  Because, this study was done by the book.  It has all the elements used to prove that there are genetic associations for these traits, just as studies are done to find associations for IQ, mental disorders, and personality traits.  So if you are touting GWAS studies related to any of these traits, you need to explain why your study is good and this one is ridiculous, or you need to embrace this ridiculous study.  There is no in between.
With that in mind, I will go through how this study follows the same formula as your cherished studies and you can decide which side of the health club attendance gene fence you sit on.