The Rise of Cognitive Potential: How Educational Attainment Polygenic Scores Changed Over 12,000 Years in Europeans and East Asians
Key Takeaways:
Europeans show a stronger increase in Educational attainment (EA) polygenic scores (PGS) over time (r = -0.35) compared to East Asians (r = -0.12).
Large genetic gaps existed in ancient times: Cohen’s d reveals massive differences (~1.5–3.1) favoring East Asians in early periods (12k–3k BP).
Convergence in recent millennia: The gap narrows as Europeans catch up, but East Asians still lead in PGS even today (d = 1.54 in the last 1,500 years).
The 12,000-Year Genetic Trend: Who Got "Smarter"?
For over a decade, researchers have been reconstructing the genetic basis of educational attainment (EA) using polygenic scores (PGS). These scores aggregate thousands of genetic variants linked to traits like cognitive ability and academic persistence.
But how did these genetic predispositions change over time—and did Europeans and East Asians follow the same trajectory?
The Data: A Journey from 12,000 BP to Present
Using ancient DNA, I tracked EA PGS in two major populations, using 4825 samples:
Europeans (EUR) – Strong upward trend (r = -0.35).
East Asians (EAS) – Milder but still significant increase (r = -0.12).
(Note: Since "Date" = years before present, a negative correlation means scores rose over time.)
Ancient Gaps Were Huge—But Why?
Breaking the data into 1,500-year bins, we see:
Time Period Cohen’s d (EAS - EUR)Effect Size
10.5k–12k BP=2.30 (Large); 9k–10.5k BP= 3.10 (Large); 7.5k–9k BP= 2.18(Large); 0k–1.5k BP= 1.54 (Large)
East Asians had a massive early advantage—but Europeans steadily closed the gap.
We can see the temporal trends in the scatterplot below:
Did Agriculture Play a Role?
The steepest PGS increases coincide with:
✔ Neolithic transitions (~6k–10k BP)
✔ Rise of complex states (~3k–6k BP)
Were selective pressures (e.g., urbanization, trade) stronger in Europe? Or did East Asians plateau earlier?
🔴 East Asians started high and stayed high.
🔵 Europeans started low but rose fast.
What Explains the Ancient East Asian Advantage in Cognitive Genetics?
The data reveals a striking pattern: East Asians already had significantly higher EA polygenic scores than Europeans 12,000 years ago. But why?
The Mystery of the Missing Paleolithic Data
We lack enough Upper Paleolithic East Asian genomes to pinpoint exactly when this genetic advantage emerged. If we assume both populations started from a similar genetic baseline after leaving Africa (~50,000 years ago), then the East Asian edge must have developed sometime between 50,000 and 12,000 years ago—a frustrating "black box" in our current data.
Was It Archaic Introgression? Probably Not.
One tempting hypothesis is that Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA boosted cognitive potential in East Asians. But:
Both groups have similar levels of Neanderthal ancestry.
East Asians actually have more Denisovan DNA than Europeans—yet this doesn’t seem to explain the PGS gap, since Denisovan variants aren’t strongly linked to EA traits.
Did Confucianism Play a Role? No—It’s Too Recent.
Some have argued that Confucian cultural values (e.g., emphasis on education) shaped East Asian cognitive genetics. But our data debunks this idea—the East Asian advantage predates Confucianism by millennia.
Now, let’s dive deeper: What factors drove these changes? Using regression analysis, we can untangle the effects of time, geography, and population differences. Below, I break down the key findings—including some surprises.
So What Could Explain the Gap?
Possible (but speculative) theories:
Stronger selection pressures in Pleistocene East Asia? (Harsher winters? More complex foraging strategies?)
Different migration bottlenecks? (Did East Asians retain more "high-PGS" variants?)
An unknown, now-extinct archaic contributor? (No evidence yet, but we’ve been wrong before.)
Final Thought: More Questions Than Answers
This genetic gap is real, ancient, and unexplained. Until we get more Paleolithic genomes, the mystery remains.
Coming Next: The Ancient Genetics of Height – A Subscriber-Exclusive Deep Dive!
Want to see how height polygenic scores evolved over the last 12,000 years in Europeans and East Asians? The trends might surprise you!
🔓 This analysis will be in another post for paid subscribers only—because quality research takes time.
Why subscribe? You’ll get:
✅ Full breakdown of height PGS trends (Did one population get taller faster?)
✅ Comparison with EA PGS (Are the selective pressures linked?)
What’s your take? Did East Asians evolve under unique pressures? Or is this just a quirk of genetic drift? Let’s discuss in the comments!
Want to See the Full Story Behind the Data?
Paid subscribers unlock exclusive access to:
🔍 The Complete Regression Breakdown
Full model output with interaction terms
How Europeans closed 63% of the genetic gap
Why latitude matters less than we thought