
Genetic evidence for natural selection in humans in the contemporary USA - gwern
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/05/037929
======
ascotan
I'm sorry was this an April Fool joke?

By definition a 'phenotype' is the expressed traits of a genotype. As far as I
know there is no known gene or set of genes which express the 'phenotype' of
'Educational Attainment'.

I looked at the paper and the author provides no methods to replicate his
study. For example, there is no discussion as to the SNP markers he was
tracking to associate the 'phenotype' of EA.

What the author is implying here is that there is a gene for 'educational
attainment' that is becoming more common in the population in general due to
selection pressure.

I'm sorry but this is total hogwash. Anyone that correlates educational
attainment to genetics is following a 'chopstick' gene.

Imagine that you correlate the ability to use chopsticks to genetic markers.
What you'll find is that people with black hair and brown eyes have a much
greater ability to use chopsticks then people with blond hair and blue eyes.
You could even produce some pretty convincing graphs about this. However, as
we all know the usage of chopsticks is cultural not genetic. There is nothing
to prevent blond haired, blue eye people from using chopsticks genetically.

In fact you can correlate any two things that have no relationship to each
other and find a correlation. For instance, the sun coming up in the morning
and traffic congestion. They correlate, but have no causal relationship. i.e
the sun does not cause traffic.

~~~
nabla9
>My results imply that natural selection has been slowly favoring lower EA in
both females and males

lower educational attainment, not higher

see: GWAS of 126,559 Individuals Identifies Genetic Variants Associated with
Educational Attainment (one of the authors is Beauchamp)
[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6139/1467](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6139/1467)

>Three independent single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are genome-wide
significant (rs9320913, rs11584700, rs4851266), and all three replicate.
Estimated effects sizes are small (coefficient of determination R2 ≈ 0.02%),
approximately 1 month of schooling per allele. A linear polygenic score from
all measured SNPs accounts for ≈2% of the variance in both educational
attainment and cognitive function

~~~
ralfd
So ... less educated people are getting more kids? (or the inverse: more
educated people are getting less kids)

~~~
toasterlovin
Yeah, this should be the case just based on the logistics involved. Higher
education typically takes place during the years when a woman is able to have
children. And to go a step further: generally people obtain higher education
for a purpose: to further a career. So, then, after schooling is over, there
will be a career to make, further reducing the number of years available for a
woman to have children.

So this should be the case based on practical matters alone.

------
sugarfactory
It's just funny that it is still called "natural selection" even when the
environment that selects individuals is created by nothing but ourselves. I
think it'd be much more accurate to call it "social selection" because for
humans the environment is not nature, but society.

With that in your mind, those of you who are clever might wonder: what is the
fundamental difference between "social selection" and eugenics, which many
consider morally wrong? My answer is: they are essentially the same thing.
It's because if we define eugenics as society deciding who to reproduce and
who not to, that's exactly what is happening now.

~~~
patall
There is a fundamental difference. Natural Selection works on an individual
basis, everyone tries to maximize the amount of his or her DNA in the world.
In eugenics (and to a lesser degree in social selection) someone else (or the
group) decides that his or her DNA should not be inheritet. Basically
capitalism vs. communism.

~~~
brute
In sexual selection there is also someone else (i.e. the group of females in a
peacock population) that decide whose DNA should not be inherited. And sexual
selection is considered a part of natural selection. So your argument does not
hold.

Wikipedia: _Sexual selection is a mode of natural selection where members of
one biological sex choose mates of the other sex to mate with_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection)

I could even argue the same thing for natural selection itself. When a
predator kills an animal, he decides that the DNA of that animal should not be
spread further in the future.

------
seventytwo
CTRL-F "Idiocracy"

But seriously, can it really be said that this is related to natural selection
rather than some other pressure? I guess it kind of depends on the definition,
as one could argue that any result within a given environment is causal to
that given environment. However, while I do anecdotally see that more highly
educated people have less children (and also the opposite, which the author
writes of), I still think that people generally try to select for the smartest
and most capable people within their social sphere. In other words, I think
people are still selecti mates which are smarter, but due to socioeconomic
factors unrelated to breeding, the less educated end up having more children.

------
rdtsc
Another anecedotal (and probably wrong) idea related to this is the
explanation of prevalence of ADHD in US relative to EU, for example.

The genetic selection idea goes something like this -- individuals who ended
up migrating here, self selected for being bolder, ready to take on more risk,
being less content staying in one place. On one side that is a postive trait,
but on the other side manifests as ADHD.

There is a study from 2003 showing that it is not true and that it is due to
how diagnosis is handled:

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525089/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525089/)

Other places claim a strong genetic factor is there:

"ADHD often runs in families. Researchers have found that much of the risk of
having ADHD has to do with genes"

[http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/attention-
defici...](http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/attention-deficit-
hyperactivity-disorder-easy-to-read/index.shtml)

~~~
PhasmaFelis
Anecdotally, I have heard French people say that it is practically impossible
to get a adult psychiatric diagnosis of ADD in France, regardless of how clear
and debilitating your symptoms are. It may be that the apparent low rates in
the EU are actually systemic diagnostic failures.

(Similarly, I have read that in [I think] Japan, it is actually illegal to
_begin_ a course of ADD medication after 18--if you were diagnosed as a child,
you're fine, but if your parents never took you to a psych, you're screwed
forever. Even in the US I've had a general-practice doctor tell me that they
thought ADD just went away after a certain age. There's a lot of denial about
adult ADD.)

~~~
jrapdx3
ADHD has been in my field of practice for quite a long time. It's true that
many countries have greater restrictions on treatment, and medications
available in the US are not approved elsewhere. Cultural biases against
recognizing the condition are common, but is greater in some countries than
others.

In this respect the US has been way ahead of most other places in terms of
recognizing ADHD in adults and treating the condition. Even in the US, it
still remains highly under-diagnosed and -treated, as its estimated only about
20% of cases ever come to clinical attention, and only a small proportion of
those cases get proper and persistent treatment.

Over the last decade or so the stigma against diagnosis and treatment of adult
ADHD has diminished, but remains a huge barrier for care of people with the
difficulty. It's not a minor condition, in fact research shows ADHD has poor
outcomes in all domains of functioning. IOW ADHD is frequently associated with
lifetime disability which is usually reduced with appropriate treatment.

------
chrismealy
Economists dabbling in other fields have a uniformly appalling track record,
but who knows, maybe this one is the exception.

~~~
Amygaz
No this isn't. He should have spent 1.5 more months thinking about his
experimental design. He doesn't even try to make the distinction between
causality and coincidence. We could achieve the same conclusions by talking
about socio-economic changes rather than genotype-to-phenotype.

For a guy who was has is name in the big GWAS published in Science, he
obviously didn't understand what his co-authors did or wrote. Sorry for the
rant, I can't stand people who are getting a free-ride on a paper, and he just
proved that is one of them.

------
grondilu
Isn't it fairly known that less educated people have more children?

~~~
mirimir
Yes. Education and economic prosperity have reduced population growth rates in
many places. Too much, perhaps, in some places.

------
sp332
I don't understand. Why has educational attainment gone up and age at menarche
gone down if there is selection pressure in the other direction?

~~~
relyks
How is educational attainment a genetic trait? Intelligence is partially
hereditary, but isn't educational attainment a behavior?

~~~
pessimizer
People who are highly educated like to feel like they are members of a higher
species.

~~~
relyks
I didn't mean to come off as being arrogant. I'm referring to the nature vs.
nurture debate. Intelligence is determined by both nature and nurture, and not
solely one or the other.

------
pmarreck
So, [http://time.com/4327424/idiocracy/](http://time.com/4327424/idiocracy/),
basically.

I know who _I'm_ voting for:
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CV0dnFtWEAAwj_k.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CV0dnFtWEAAwj_k.jpg)

------
haddr
Side comment: the author is using first person in his paper, which is slightly
odd. I know he is the only author, but would it be more suitable to use some
other form?

~~~
KZeillmann
I often find it more distracting when people avoid the first person than when
they use it. If it makes sense, why not use it?

~~~
ethan_g
To be clear, "we" is first person, plural. I take it your comment and gp to
mean "I" by "first person" and not "we".

Anyway, it's standard in scientific writing to use "we" instead of "I".
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We#The_author.27s_.22we.22](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We#The_author.27s_.22we.22)

~~~
fragsworth
It is also a very subtle way to make it sound more credible, because it gives
the reader a sense that multiple people did the work.

~~~
grondilu
On the other hand it can also some kind of proof of honesty and transparency.
"Hey, I did that work alone, which is slightly odd, but hey at least I'm not
hiding this fact."

I agree with haddr above. People should not be ashamed of using "I" instead of
"we" when it's relevant.

------
gwern
Further reading:

\- "Assortative mating and differential fertility by phenotype and genotype
across the 20th century"
[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/05/25/1523592113.full](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/05/25/1523592113.full)
, Conley et al 2016 (education/intelligence polygenic score is dropping 0.0029
SDs per year:
[http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2016/05/25/1523592113.DCSu...](http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2016/05/25/1523592113.DCSupplemental/pnas.1523592113.sapp.pdf)
)

\- "Constructing genomic maps of positive selection in humans: Where do we go
from here?", Akey 2009
[http://genome.cshlp.org/content/19/5/711.long](http://genome.cshlp.org/content/19/5/711.long)

\- "Measuring selection in contemporary human populations", Stearns et al 2010
[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Douglas_Ewbank/publicat...](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Douglas_Ewbank/publication/45462159_Measuring_selection_in_contemporary_human_populations/links/0c960516c1c8b5ef7d000000.pdf)

\- "Exceptional Evolutionary Divergence of Human Muscle and Brain Metabolomes
Parallels Human Cognitive and Physical Uniqueness", Bozek et al 2014
[http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jour...](http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001871)

\- "The phenotypic legacy of admixture between modern humans and Neandertals"
[http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-simonti.pdf](http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-simonti.pdf),
Simonti et al 2016

\- "The Genetic Cost of Neanderthal Introgression"
[http://www.genetics.org/content/203/2/881](http://www.genetics.org/content/203/2/881)
Harris & Nielsen 2016

\- "Genome-wide patterns of selection in 230 ancient Eurasians"
[http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2015-mathieson.pdf](http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2015-mathieson.pdf),
Mathieson et al 2015

\- "Eight thousand years of human] natural selection in Europe"
[http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/03/13/016477.full.pdf](http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/03/13/016477.full.pdf),
Mathieson et al 2015 (Khan [http://www.unz.com/gnxp/selection-in-europeans-
but-it-still-...](http://www.unz.com/gnxp/selection-in-europeans-but-it-still-
sweeps/) ; see also EDAR
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectodysplasin_A_receptor#Deriv...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectodysplasin_A_receptor#Derived_EDAR_allele)

\- "Detection of human adaptation during the past 2,000 years"
[http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/07/052084.full.pdf](http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/07/052084.full.pdf),
Field et al 2016 (commentary
[https://plus.google.com/103530621949492999968/posts/3DmLLdDf...](https://plus.google.com/103530621949492999968/posts/3DmLLdDfR61)

\- "Population structure of UK Biobank and ancient Eurasians reveals
adaptation at genes influencing blood pressure"
[http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/27/055855](http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/27/055855),
Galinsky et al 2016

\- "Greenlandic Inuit show genetic signatures of diet and climate adaptation",
Fumagalli et al 2015
[http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2015-fumagalli.pdf](http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2015-fumagalli.pdf)

\- "Genetic Adaptation to Levels of Dietary Selenium in Recent Human History",
White et al 2015
[http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/6/1507.full](http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/6/1507.full)
; see also "Human Adaptation to Arsenic-Rich Environments"
[http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/6/1544.full](http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/6/1544.full)
Schlebusch et al 2015

\- "Evidence for evolution in response to natural selection in a contemporary
human population", Milot et al 2011
[http://www.pnas.org/content/108/41/17040.long](http://www.pnas.org/content/108/41/17040.long)

\- "Quantitative Genetics in the Postmodern Family of the Donor Sibling
Registry"
[https://www.donorsiblingregistry.com/sites/default/files/fil...](https://www.donorsiblingregistry.com/sites/default/files/files/dissertation%281%29.pdf),
Lee 2013

\- "What women want in their sperm donor: a study of more than 1000 women's
sperm donor selections", Whyte et al 2016
[http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-whyte.pdf](http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-whyte.pdf)

\- "Why Are Some People So Smart? The Answer Could Spawn a Generation of
Superbabies" [http://www.wired.com/2013/07/genetics-of-
iq/](http://www.wired.com/2013/07/genetics-of-iq/)

\- "The Rhythm of the Tide: When I heard data from an island had proven humans
are still evolving, I had to visit" [http://nautil.us/issue/29/scaling/the-
rhythm-of-the-tide-rp](http://nautil.us/issue/29/scaling/the-rhythm-of-the-
tide-rp)

\- "The Indicted and the Wealthy: Surnames, Reproductive Success, Genetic
Selection and Social Class in Pre-Industrial England", Clark 2009
[http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/Farewell%20to%20A...](http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/Farewell%20to%20Alms/Clark%20-Surnames.pdf)

\- "Older fathers' children have lower evolutionary fitness across four
centuries and in four populations"
[http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/03/08/042788](http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/03/08/042788),
Arslan et al 2016 (from "The cost of inbreeding in terms of health"
[http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-cost-of-inbreeding-in-terms-
of-h...](http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-cost-of-inbreeding-in-terms-of-health/) )

\- "Childhood Autism and Assortative Mating"
[http://economics.uchicago.edu/workshops/Golden%20Hays%20Chil...](http://economics.uchicago.edu/workshops/Golden%20Hays%20Childhood%20Autism.pdf),
Golden 2012

\- "Heritability, Autism, & Fear of Breeding"
[http://www.unz.com/gnxp/heritability-autism-fear-of-
breeding...](http://www.unz.com/gnxp/heritability-autism-fear-of-breeding/)

\- "Estimating the Inbreeding Depression on Cognitive Behavior: A Population
Based Study of Child Cohort"
[http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone...](http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0109585)
; see also [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/07/genetic-
diver...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/07/genetic-diversity-
and-intellectual-disability/)

\- "Mutation and Human Exceptionalism: Our Future Genetic Load"
[http://www.genetics.org/content/202/3/869](http://www.genetics.org/content/202/3/869),
Lynch 2016

\- "The Biodemography of Fertility: A Review and Future Research Frontiers"
Mills & Tropf 2015
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4577548/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4577548/)

\- Fertility and intelligence
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence)

\- "Assortative Mating, Class, and Caste", Harpending & Cochran 2015
[http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2015-harpending.pdf](http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2015-harpending.pdf)

------
caseymarquis
I'll take another look when we have a few hundred samples of this size over
the course of a thousand years or so.

------
philip142au
Here's an idea about natural selection, we had two world wars, during the wars
the fit and healthy brave people went, the cowards hid and stayed at home.

The cowards survived to live another day, so cowardice and unfit individuals
are selected for breeding, giving us the people of today.

~~~
olalonde
By definition the people who survived are fit, not unfit.

~~~
mamon
They are "fit" as in "best adjusted to their environment" but not "fit" as in
"good at sports", which I think is what parent comment meant :)

------
meeper16
These days I see a lot of non-genetic evidence as well.

~~~
stephengillie
Especially in how rich people use their wealth and social influence to
increase their wealth and social influence. And they give greater assistance
to their offspring than their less-affluent cohorts are able to.

One example of this is the $1 million gift Bill Gates received on his 0th
birthday.

~~~
eggy
Agreed to an extent. I think Bill Gates deserves some credit for his success.
Just look to the number of failures in Silicon Valley with huge startup money
and well-educated youth; it doesn't guarantee success.

I remember seeing an article in a NYC newspaper in the late 70s or early 80s
that followed up on the first winners of Lotto in the State. The majority of
them spent it on cars, fur coats, hookers, booze, drugs and other things, went
into debt and didn't escape their former poverty. Some wound up in jail.

I grew up in poverty, and my father upon reading it remarked, 'Money is
worthless to somebody who doesn't understand the value of a buck.' Very true
in my experience, as I have aged and observed.

I couldn't find the original article from I believe the Daily News or Post,
but here's one from the The Atlantic along the same lines:
[http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/terribly...](http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/terribly-
sad-true-stories-lotto-winners/329903/)

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
That's because when you grow up with money you either have so much that you
can do all the usual things and you won't run out, or you already have an
investment machine in place for you.

Lottery winners certainly don't have the latter, and often don't have the
former either. They may think $1 million makes them rich, but it really
doesn't.

Money is as much about training and education as anything else.

It's a lot easier to handle if you get that training and education than if you
don't.

