[togedoge]

I had to read some of secondary sources to understand the implications of this paper.

Ultimately, studies show that on average human traits are typically due 1/2 to genetics and 1/2 to environment. However, some traits are more skewed one way or the other. For example, bipolar disorder among twins was about 70% due to genetics and 30% due to environmental factors. All traits researched were somehow impacted by genetics.

Also for about a third of traits, the nature part wasn't dependent on a specific gene, so gene isolation to help predict traits is not always possible.

What other major takeaways from this study do you find interesting?

[Houshalter]

Here is one guys opinion: http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2015/05/fifty-years-of-twin-stu...

>The most interesting aspect of these results is that for many traits there is no detectable non-additivity. That is, gene-gene interactions seem to be insignificant, and a simple linear genetic architecture is consistent with the results.

We already knew this sort of from animal studies and evolutionary theory. But it's interesting to see it confirmed in humans.

The implications of this, is that it will be very easy to predict phenotypes from genetics. We don't need to model complicated interactions between genes like many people thought, and can simply take the genes that correlate the most with a desired trait.

This means you could do a large enough study and find every gene that correlates with intelligence, and create the optimal combination. Creating humans orders of magnitudes more intelligent than any human who has ever lived.

[togedoge]

Thanks! That is interesting. I would love to see that happen -- even if there are ethical issues to consider. Maybe we can start by making the most genetically intelligent rabbits or something.

[thaumasiotes]

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/spellchecked-supermen/

[thaumasiotes]

> Ultimately, studies show that on average human traits are typically due 1/2 to genetics and 1/2 to environment.

Well, no. Without a qualifier, it only makes sense to say that traits are 100% due to genetics. Replace a human in whatever circumstance with something that shares no genetics with a human (say, a rock), and you'll find that the power of the environment to make it behave in normal human ways is underwhelming.

What this is saying is that of the variation that humans display, about half is generally explained (in a statistical sense) by (a particular definition of) genetic variation among those humans. Humans vary from zero to zero wings, and the heritability of wings (in humans) is therefore undefined. It would be hard to conclude from this that our lack of wings isn't due to genetics.

[togedoge]

Okay, so what elements of the paper did you find interesting?

[thaumasiotes]

I don't believe that, just because you end your comment with a question, the only legitimate response is an answer to the question.