Surprisingly we do it all the time, on animals, and we call it breeding. It is very successful and if applied to humans could produce real geniuses without any new tech or research in a handful of generations. Too bad the word has such negative association.
Breeding is successful in some sense, but certainly not without its issues. For example, by breeding pedigree dogs we've left them with a number of genetic defects that are hard to remove due to the reduced gene pool, e.g. Dalmatian deafness, Bulldog respiration, King Charles Spaniel syringomyelia, etc...
Addressing the article, I find the idea of quantifiable intelligence to be one of the dumbest ideas we ever came up with. What does an IQ point mean, really? From my understanding, testing it basically boils down to using a specific subset of symbolic puzzles. Intelligence can be quantified numerically in the same way love can be quantified numerically, i.e. not at all, without losing the essence of what you're looking for.
Also, intelligence by itself is not a goal in its own right, it's the purpose to which it's applied that matters. If super intelligent people exist, what would we have them do? The same things we do but faster? No thanks.
Instead of wasting our time trying to group ourselves into categories, we should be looking to bring out the best of the talents we find in the people around us. That seems like a better goal than chasing a 1000 IQ person.
When you say that IQ is just "a specific subset of symbolic puzzles", I believe you are criticizing IQ as ungeneralizable, or as having external validity issues.
I think the reason why IQ has remained as a widespread construct is because it is actually so useful in predicting performance across an array of situations, such as general job performance, of which IQ or g is often a top-tier or unmatched predictor, better than years of relevant work experience. And whenever someone accuses IQ of being inadequate, and they come out with their More Complete test, it turns out that their measurements and predictions are insufficiently distinctive from IQ, which even further supports the idea of a "general" mental ability.
Here's the thing... I'm criticising IQ tests, but I'm not suggesting we create a more complete test, I'm suggesting the whole idea of measuring intelligence numerically is fundamentally flawed.
There are a few reasons I believe measuring intelligence numerically is flawed, but probably the central one is that I don't believe it exists as a fixed entity, I believe it's adaptive depending on the circumstances we find ourselves in.
As with any debate on human traits the tendency is to go back to the nature vs. nurture question. I believe you can have a natural aptitude for something, but the environment you live in is what helps your intelligence develop, and this is the largest differentiator in what we perceive as intelligence. Put simply, change the environment and you change the intelligence. Therefore scores like IQ do not measure someone's true potential, they only hint at what they've already been exposed to. That's why to me such tests are a waste of time.
Hmmm. As far as I know you are allowed to retake IQ-tests if you want, still the differences are there. Some people will never pass 120 no matter how many times they take the test.
I'll try and make this constructive. Would you agree that human intelligence centres around pattern recognition? If so, which patterns would you class as hard to teach?
Just to go further into this, decided to remind myself what an IQ test question looked like. This is the first one that came up...
"1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 - Which one doesn't belong in this series?"
Now the "correct" answer is 8, but that's only because we second guess what the examiner wants. Truthfully 11 is equally correct, as its the only 2 digit number, and the number series could be single digit numbers. But there's nowhere to explain your reasoning, so you better choose the "correct" answer anyway...
Don't be an ass.
>What I'm saying is those scores are irrelevant
But you claimed the scores are based on what you're exposed to rather than your potential. If they don't change over time then that's a strong counter to your argument.
And not being potential was critical to your 'central' flaw with the approach. Perhaps you can name other flaws, but you haven't made them clear, and you haven't actually disagreed with threatofrain's assertion that IQ is the best correlation with general performance that we have.
>math
It's a series, not a set. 11 is not 'equally' correct.
As I mentioned in another comment, I was rude because I was tired of explaining why it was pointless, but I did address that it's possible to teach better IQ scores by focusing on how to pass the tests.
"It's a series, not a set. 11 is not 'equally' correct"
http://i.word.com/idictionary/series
"a number of things or events of the same class coming one after another in spatial or temporal succession"
Depending on your definition, there's no requirement on a series to contain the complete list of elements, so long as they are in the correct order.
You can make all kinds of arguments to remove any number, but which one leaves a sequence with minimal kolmogorov complexity? Which one leaves a sequence where you can predict the next number?
Who said you had to predict the next number? If the question asked "Fill in the next number in this sequence" then I'd agree with you, but instead it asked which number didn't belong.
Remember, the question isn't asking you to sort a bag of numbers into piles, it's giving them in a specific order and asking which list of n-1 numbers in that order is most coherent.
EDIT: Found one that should be better. What is your answer to this question... http://imgbox.com/a7vshE9u
So I see your point about figuring out what the examiner wants and I think it makes the question better since you can't blindly run with a first interpretation and ignore half the question.
(Is that a real IQ test? I'm not trying to say it isn't, just that "internet IQ test" is not a trustworthy phrase.)
The question was from an Internet IQ Test, no idea if it's ever been used elsewhere, I understand it's not necessarily the most reliable source.
Two people try to explain to you and you go on talking without reading.
Regarding reading comprehension: what part of eitlands explanation that you are often free to take iq tests multiple times didn't you understand? And so on.
And, regarding your example: if you are going to be arrogant, make sure you are right.
I was tired of having to explain why assigning a number to intelligence made little sense, so yes I was a little rude. Besides, I addressed eitlands' assertion that certain numbers are beyond reach, just like any formal test you can train people to become good at taking the test.
So stop explaing it. Assigning a number to intelligence makes a lot of sense.
As have been pointed out 1.) it seems those measurements can be reproduced with statistical significance so they measure something and 2.) whatever it measures it seems to be one of the best indicators we have of future job performance.
What they don't tell us is what a person is worth, if he is a good person etc.
Okay, I'll let someone else do it then...
"those measurements can be reproduced with statistical significance"
http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/200910/int...
"How much can these scores change over a person's lifetime, and how limiting are a person's scores for obtaining what they want out of life?
For groups of individuals, IQs are fairly stable between childhood and adulthood, but for specific individuals within a group, IQs can--and do--vary greatly over a lifetime. The IQs will vary as a result of specific interventions (such as preschool enrichment programs), quality education (or the lack of it), injuries that affect brain functioning, and other aspects of the environment that either enhance or diminish one's cognitive ability. In addition, errors of measurement are much larger than people tend to think, and, therefore, an individual's IQs will vary from time to time--sometimes substantially--simply due to the chance fluctuations that accompany any repeated measurement. And, there is more to life success than the ability to score high on IQ tests. People can be successful based on their creativity, street smarts, and personality variables."
I agree the research would have to be gradual and aware of those issues. I doubt dog breeders really care for those.
Addressing the article, I find the idea of quantifiable intelligence to be one of the dumbest ideas we ever came up with. What does an IQ point mean, really? From my understanding, testing it basically boils down to using a specific subset of symbolic puzzles. Intelligence can be quantified numerically in the same way love can be quantified numerically, i.e. not at all, without losing the essence of what you're looking for.
IQ can be measured, there are many tests that do so. More time you spend checking more accurate you can get. Not infinitely accurately but good enough.
Also, intelligence by itself is not a goal in its own right, it's the purpose to which it's applied that matters. If super intelligent people exist, what would we have them do? The same things we do but faster? No thanks.
That makes little sense. Speed is not a requirement for new research and discovery. Original though is. That is what we should strive for.
Instead of wasting our time trying to group ourselves into categories, we should be looking to bring out the best of the talents we find in the people around us. That seems like a better goal than chasing a 1000 IQ person.
Eugenics could do exactly that.
Are you suggesting dog breeders don't care about dogs? From what I've seen they tend to be quite fond of them. The issue is we breed dogs for different traits, with the issues I mentioned before the dogs might've been bred for their looks, but other dogs that were at some point bred for work still have issues... Golden Retrievers are high risk for developing cancer, German Shepherds are high risk for hip dysplasia, Dachshunds are high risk for back problems, etc... It's not that dog breeders want to give dogs issues, it's a byproduct of selective breeding, as defects that do creep in are harder to remove.
"That makes little sense. Speed is not a requirement for new research and discovery. Original though is. That is what we should strive for."
The tests we are talking about do not measure creativity in any meaningful sense.
"Eugenics could do exactly that."
How could eugenics do exactly that? I'm talking about bringing out the talents of people around you, i.e. they already exist.
As humans, we reward those traits we collectively find most desirable with additional resources. Parents with additional resources may choose to grant them as seed capital for their children, to have more children themselves, or to promote traits they find desirable in other people's children.
Our species is currently directing its breeding efforts towards ruthless, unethical business managers and corrupt politicians.
If we wanted geniuses, we would be paying people just for being smarter than the median. Instead, tuition is rising faster than inflation, and our smartest folks are often tremendously burdened with debt during their prime reproductive years, to the point that any children they may have are bound by their available resources rather than by their potential.
We are selectively breeding ourselves. It just turns out that the rich assholes want humanity to be more like them. If smart people want to breed more geniuses, we're probably going to need to do it on a different planet, where intelligence will be more of a survival advantage.
Just watch out for Khan.
I skipped grades, have an advanced science degree, earn a lot in a job that requires above average intelligence, etc. My parents were both high-school dropouts, and my mother in particular was identified as being "slow" when she was younger (not below average in IQ, but on the very low end of it). On the other hand, I personally know very intelligent couples (one consisting of a pair who each individually are far more intelligent than I am) whose kids have also been "slow".
This doesn't invalidate the idea of eugenics. You can still modify the average of a trait over time in a given population in spite of any mean-regressing tendencies. It just happens a bit more slowly.
That you call it love and not "selection of the most desirable traits" doesn't change the facts ;-)
The word can be used in a modern context, where eugenics is performed voluntarily, on a very small population, and under scientific supervision for causes that benefit the entire humanity. The rest can live and love whoever they want.
Genetic manipulation functionally falls in the same category, but it is better accepted because it doesn't have the negative history attached to it.
This fear is really surprising to me.
Now if the choice comes down to something between two individuals because technology makes it possible to make certain choices that's a different matter but even then you are treading in dangerous territory. Who gets access to the technology? How do you verify that the technology is safe? Is there a beta test period? Who gets to be a beta tester? Anyway the list is long and the technology is nowhere near where it needs to be for even these kinds of choices to be made between two individuals let alone at the population level.
I find the idea in general just intuitively unappealing. Humanity can't breed itself out of the problems it is in. Being smart is simply not enough. Anything worthwhile requires hard work. So are you going to breed for hard work as well now? I don't see these scientists looking for those genes though.
What if the person does not fit your definition of a super intelligent person with a high IQ but instead is a genius in music. Also, how do we know that by focusing only on super intelligent people we won't be killing off the other traits that make life worthwhile, the arts, music, film. There are multiple perspectives that make a person a genius, high IQ is just one of them among many.
As somebody else mentioned, just like breeding dogs, you may be able to select for one trait at the expense of the others.
Frankly high IQ is overrated. It is probably biased anyway. i.e. Children that grow up in high income families have better IQ results than children living in poverty. It could simply mean that the differentiator is good education at an early age.
Yes, because high IQ parents tend to make more money and tend to get high IQ children (even if those children got adopted away or orphaned early on). On the other hand, if high income families adopt children of low IQ parents those children end up with an IQ resembling that of their low IQ biological parents.
The research has been done.
Was race accounted for. i.e. Where there minorities and white kids in the group. If only white kids then that tells me that the problem is more systemic. i.e. racism.
Hopkins, Russell, Schaeffer, "Chimpanzee Intelligence is Heritable", Current Biology, 2014.
<way too many coauthors to list but the main guy seems to be P.M. Visscher>, "Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic", Molecular Psychiatry, 2011.
The latter paper reports on a study (with N=3511) on unrelated people to see whether their genotype and their phenotype regarding intelligence had anything to do with each other. People were tested with DNA chip for SNPs and had their IQ measured. The interesting result was that people who had more similar DNA also had more similar IQs (and vice versa, of course).
Drop me an email @gmail.com for copies.
(Which it does, btw.)
I understand the urge to resist reducing humans to a single numerical measurement, but the fact is that "IQ" or "g" or general "cognitive ability" or whatever you want to call it is strongly positively correlated with almost every trait and life outcome that people value.
Thanks to Paul Graham, Sam Altman, Paul Buchheit, John Collison, Patrick Collison, Jessica Livingston, Robert Morris, Geoff Ralston, and Fred Wilson for reading drafts of this.
Once you are responsible for a child, you stay responsible.
Don't make this weird.
Compare and contrast with a society that values the outcome of the work rather than how book smart you need to be able to do it. For example nature conservation is pretty easy to understand how to do right, and there's a tangible lasting benefit.
Guess it depends on what you view as a society worth having.
It depends on the moral sensibilities of the A'ers.