Recent meta-analyses suggest that certain drugs act as cognitive enhancers and can increase attentional investment and performance even for healthy adults. The current review examines the potential of behavioral economics enhancers (BEEs) for similarly improving cognitive performance and judgments. Traditionally, behavioral economics theory has adopted a skeptical approach regarding the notion of whether individuals can overcome judgment biases through variables that increase cognitive effort. We focus mostly on the effects of two BEEs: incentivization and losses. Summarizing results from different meta-analyses, we find a small but robust positive effect size for BEEs, with comparable effect sizes to those found in studies of pharmacological cognitive enhancers.

Lam et al. (2018) respond to a commentary of their paper entitled ‘Large-Scale Cognitive GWAS Meta-Analysis Reveals Tissue-Specific Neural Expression and Potential Nootropic Drug Targets’ Lam et al. (2017). While Lam et al. (2018) have now provided the recommended quality control metrics for their paper, problems remain. Specifically, Lam et al. (2018) do not dispute that the results of their multi-trait analysis of genome-wide association study (MTAG) analysis has produced a phenotype with a genetic correlation of one with three measures of education, but do claim the associations found are specific to the trait of cognitive ability. In this brief paper, it is empirically demonstrated that the phenotype derived by Lam et al. (2017) is more genetically similar to education than cognitive ability. In addition, it is shown that of the genome-wide significant loci identified by Lam et al. (2017) are loci that are associated with education rather than with cognitive ability.

Hill (Twin Research and Human Genetics, Vol. 21, 2018, 84–88) presented a critique of our recently published paper in Cell Reports entitled ‘Large-Scale Cognitive GWAS Meta-Analysis Reveals Tissue-Specific Neural Expression and Potential Nootropic Drug Targets’ (Lam et al., Cell Reports, Vol. 21, 2017, 2597–2613). Specifically, Hill offered several interrelated comments suggesting potential problems with our use of a new analytic method called Multi-Trait Analysis of GWAS (MTAG) (Turley et al., Nature Genetics, Vol. 50, 2018, 229–237). In this brief article, we respond to each of these concerns. Using empirical data, we conclude that our MTAG results do not suffer from ‘inflation in the FDR [false discovery rate]’, as suggested by Hill (Twin Research and Human Genetics, Vol. 21, 2018, 84–88), and are not ‘more relevant to the genetic contributions to education than they are to the genetic contributions to intelligence’.

Intelligence and educational attainment are strongly genetically correlated. This relationship can be exploited by Multi-Trait Analysis of GWAS (MTAG) to add power to Genome-wide Association Studies (GWAS) of intelligence. MTAG allows the user to meta-analyze GWASs of different phenotypes, based on their genetic correlations, to identify association's specific to the trait of choice. An MTAG analysis using GWAS data sets on intelligence and education was conducted by Lam et al. (2017). Lam et al. (2017) reported 70 loci that they described as ‘trait specific’ to intelligence. This article examines whether the analysis conducted by Lam et al. (2017) has resulted in genetic information about a phenotype that is more similar to education than intelligence.