Agreed, and I think Karavani et al. (2019) underestimate returns by failing to account for indirect effects due to otherwise improved health and unobserved but correlated relevant genes that are undoubtedly present due to linkage and assortative mating.
In the lead-IQ literature, there are evidently incentives to exaggerate effects. If we take them seriously and assume equal impacts from gains and reductions, then the conclusion we get from studies like Boyle et al. (2021) is that even small gains must be worth it with current PGT-P prices. In their study, a difference of 0.57 IQ points in lead-attributable IQ loss was evidently worth $14,760 of lifetime earnings. If true, a 2.50 IQ point gain is worth $64,737. That's far below the cost of PGT-P for a child and that child's own future child.
The choices are going to be hard to quantify. However, at the lower-end scale -- the life decisions one makes will be more impactful in the sense that one avoids negative choices.
IQ is also related to health (i.e. structural integrity, bodily integrity, etc). Avoiding smoking, reckless car crashes, propensity to gambling -- basically avoiding the marginal bottom 50% of choices probably accounts for the highest-attributable gains in lifetime outcomes.
On the other hand, at the other extreme... a few points of IQ is even more significant in terms of raw intellectual brain power because the percentage of the population that has all the right-switched variants in the right-direction without diminution of bodily function is even lower, and multiplying many successive individual probabilities leads to a smaller chance. It's like doubling the horsepower. The gains should be even greater if one was able to create new inventions or discover entire fields with those marginal IQ points.
At the middle spectrum, I'd say it might tilt you into favour of being promoted, or being slightly more successful at a job (i.e. navigating the political landscape, not being injured), passing a credential test.
Given that people already spend so much on their children... entertainment, private education, tutor lessons, school, brain-training excerises, recreational activities, resume padding -- it makes little sense why not to choose a child that's 1/3 of a standard deviation higher in IQ points if one care's for their children's offspring. It is also not just an argument for the children's offspring but society in general. More responsible decisions, more cooperative actions, less dependency, more self-capability are also correlated with IQ.
Not to mention... less time schooling, a world made for the cognitively abled, more automation -- it should be public policy to have this funded. Given how much money is already spent on wars, welfare, prisons on a per capita basis.
Agreed, and I think Karavani et al. (2019) underestimate returns by failing to account for indirect effects due to otherwise improved health and unobserved but correlated relevant genes that are undoubtedly present due to linkage and assortative mating.
In the lead-IQ literature, there are evidently incentives to exaggerate effects. If we take them seriously and assume equal impacts from gains and reductions, then the conclusion we get from studies like Boyle et al. (2021) is that even small gains must be worth it with current PGT-P prices. In their study, a difference of 0.57 IQ points in lead-attributable IQ loss was evidently worth $14,760 of lifetime earnings. If true, a 2.50 IQ point gain is worth $64,737. That's far below the cost of PGT-P for a child and that child's own future child.
Boyle et al. (2021): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969721013759
The choices are going to be hard to quantify. However, at the lower-end scale -- the life decisions one makes will be more impactful in the sense that one avoids negative choices.
IQ is also related to health (i.e. structural integrity, bodily integrity, etc). Avoiding smoking, reckless car crashes, propensity to gambling -- basically avoiding the marginal bottom 50% of choices probably accounts for the highest-attributable gains in lifetime outcomes.
On the other hand, at the other extreme... a few points of IQ is even more significant in terms of raw intellectual brain power because the percentage of the population that has all the right-switched variants in the right-direction without diminution of bodily function is even lower, and multiplying many successive individual probabilities leads to a smaller chance. It's like doubling the horsepower. The gains should be even greater if one was able to create new inventions or discover entire fields with those marginal IQ points.
At the middle spectrum, I'd say it might tilt you into favour of being promoted, or being slightly more successful at a job (i.e. navigating the political landscape, not being injured), passing a credential test.
Given that people already spend so much on their children... entertainment, private education, tutor lessons, school, brain-training excerises, recreational activities, resume padding -- it makes little sense why not to choose a child that's 1/3 of a standard deviation higher in IQ points if one care's for their children's offspring. It is also not just an argument for the children's offspring but society in general. More responsible decisions, more cooperative actions, less dependency, more self-capability are also correlated with IQ.
Not to mention... less time schooling, a world made for the cognitively abled, more automation -- it should be public policy to have this funded. Given how much money is already spent on wars, welfare, prisons on a per capita basis.