I would argue that intelligence (as is muscle mass for example) is dependent on the need, and hence, training for it. If your life is simple and repetitive, why focus on getting smarter as it will probably make you bored more easily.
Similarly, if you do physical work all day your muscles are bound to adapt.
but we will be able to genetically engineer ourselves out of it before it becomes a serious issue.
What is your level of uncertainty regarding this? It would seem to be merely a possibility, especially if we undershoot due to falling intelligence levels ...
Even ignoring engineering, there is already preimplantation genetic screening with in vitro fertilization to screen out chromosomes with known heritable defects.
> Even the average person today would have been considered a genius compared to someone born in 1919
If you didn't already suspect that IQ is a load of crap, this sentence should tip you off. Can you really imagine a 100 IQ person being haled as a genius 100 years ago?
IQ being 'a load of crap' doesn't follow from some journalists glib (and incorrect) claim. What is more, if it were true and the IQ differences were such that todays average measured as a genius then, if you were to witness someone ace the test, you could reasonably hail them a genius at least in the colloquial sense.
The Flynn Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect) is well known and a 100 IQ person toady may well have been considered as a genius by a significant number of people back then:
> Ulric Neisser estimated that using the IQ values of 1997, the average IQ of the United States in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80. Neisser states that "Hardly any of them would have scored 'very superior', but nearly one-quarter would have appeared to be 'deficient.'" He also wrote that "Test scores are certainly going up all over the world, but whether intelligence itself has risen remains controversial."
Is it really that hard to imagine modern nutrition, abundance and education has produced smarter people compared to a group that ate bread and dripping for dinner and left school at 14 and had an education even more focused on rote memorization?
I wonder if this is a case of people abusing the word 'genius' more than a statement about the average IQ. When we think of a genius from the past it's usually someone like Einstein or Feynman. When people use the word today it's more often someone like Zuckerberg or TV celebrity.
Just a hypothesis, but often intelligence is a proxy for the mental and social stimulus a child is exposed to in their formative years. So you would expect that to grow and then taper off as the useful limit of childhood well-being is reached. Since childhood enrichment is heavily indexed to wealth in most couuntries...
It's not average intelligence that matters, it's how many outliers are we getting. Outliers make scientific break-throughs that trickle down to the masses.
That's what matters.
We're in the best spot of all time in terms of number of outliers, simply due to the population being the highest ever. Now it's a matter of realizing that potential.
As the intelligence (rather than the wisdom) of the network (i.e. the whole of humanity connected by the internet) goes up, wouldn't one naively expect the intelligence of individual average human to go down? (Like social insects - ants/bees/wasps.)
I seem to recall somewhere an article about how native Australian hunter-gatherers had very highly developed memories to track animals through the bush. Not so necessary now - just ask Google Maps where to go.
Also, as elsewhere in this thread - I agree, IQ is a fraud.
Yes I've theorized humans are evolving to be eusocial before our eyes. Essentially the "knowledge" is being transferred into the structure of the system itself rather than dispersed amongst humans.
19 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 46.5 ms ] threadSimilarly, if you do physical work all day your muscles are bound to adapt.
The notion that time scales are too short for evolution to be involved is not true. Some evolutionary effects can happen very quickly.
The prevalence of an existing trait within a population can change quickly, if it's highly heritable, and the selection is strong.
What is your level of uncertainty regarding this? It would seem to be merely a possibility, especially if we undershoot due to falling intelligence levels ...
So if we fix the problem with the attention span, we can increase intelligence even further, I believe.
> Ulric Neisser estimated that using the IQ values of 1997, the average IQ of the United States in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80. Neisser states that "Hardly any of them would have scored 'very superior', but nearly one-quarter would have appeared to be 'deficient.'" He also wrote that "Test scores are certainly going up all over the world, but whether intelligence itself has risen remains controversial."
Is it really that hard to imagine modern nutrition, abundance and education has produced smarter people compared to a group that ate bread and dripping for dinner and left school at 14 and had an education even more focused on rote memorization?
https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive-elevated-co2-levels-dire...
It's not average intelligence that matters, it's how many outliers are we getting. Outliers make scientific break-throughs that trickle down to the masses.
That's what matters.
We're in the best spot of all time in terms of number of outliers, simply due to the population being the highest ever. Now it's a matter of realizing that potential.
I seem to recall somewhere an article about how native Australian hunter-gatherers had very highly developed memories to track animals through the bush. Not so necessary now - just ask Google Maps where to go.
Also, as elsewhere in this thread - I agree, IQ is a fraud.