[natded]

Idea that you can select against intelligence would lead to an idea that eugenics == good and that is a taboo. It is a can of worms in the High Status Discussion to bring up the idea that intelligence can be measured and inherited by offspring.

According to many even ITT, intelligence is some transcendental category which can only be divined by Nurture and Education.

[thewarrior]

No the issue is not about whether intelligence exists but whether it can be captured by such crude and simplistic models.

Let’s say I want to measure the potential of someone to be a software engineer. I ask them to solve algorithm questions under time pressure. Those who do them faster and better have an LQ. The leet code quotient.

I have reams of data that show that the higher your leet code quotient the more you earn in salary , the more successful the companies you work in tend to be.

I’m sure many on HN would rail against “LQ” being used to drive policy. Like saying we need to make sure we hire and train more high LQ engineers. Yet this is exactly the tone on discussions about IQ.

The more we believe in hiring based on Leet code the better it makes it look. The same is happening with our education system. What if we measured peoples eye sight and then discriminated against people with low VQ ? You don’t need to do that you can invent glasses so everyone has the same VQ.

All of IQ testing is based on a comically simple assumption. Your score on an IQ test is G + S + N. Where G is the general factor , S is the subject specific factor and N is noise.

Who even said there are only 3 factors ? Modern models add a few more but intelligence may not even be a scalar or a low dimensional vector. It might be a vector with thousands of quantities.

And to those who think that IQ is “real” ponder the following - I give an IQ test to Albert Einstein and a Bedouin from the Sahara desert. Afterwards I drop both of them alone in the desert to survive. Who is more likely to live ?

People need to stop putting faith in crude statistical models that have very weak causal basis. I’m not denying that some people are better at some things than others. But assuming that solving a few puzzles and doing crude statistics allows you to predict that is comical.

IQ is a very crude general prediction. It’s completely possible for a 100 IQ to beat a 140 IQ on many different tasks. Like seducing women or playing football or rapping. We have a very narrow definition of intelligence.

We are barely able to manage our own economies without destroying the entire ecosystem, every country is a mess but we believe that we are able to shape evolution itself towards positive goals when such a process requires tens of thousands of years to even work. The last time this was tried we got one of the worst things in human history. Some people thought they were the “master race” only to get steamrolled by the “inferior” slavs.

[willis936]

The reality is neither extreme.

The reality is that psychology has been used, is being used, as a vehicle for racism rather than legitimate science. In lieu of real science, nothing at all is better.

[Apocryphon]

Going beyond that, is intelligence == good worth debating? To the extent that the increase of mental health issues across the population seems to be happening irrespective of IQ. Or perhaps it isn't- does high IQ correlate with certain mental disorders? And are there other, less quantified measures worth improving for the well-being of society, such as EI.

[throwaway5590]

Insofar that you think that technological progress and man's expansion into the universe are good things, yes intelligence is good.

[Apocryphon]

But the question is if intelligence is the primary determinant. The current social and political crises affecting society seem to do with emotional issues that may be linked to intelligence but not necessarily driven by (only) it. And the seemingly rapid increase in mental health disorders is concerning. How does intelligence correlate with sanity, one wonders.

[throwaway5590]

Intelligence is the primary determinant in the sense that you need intelligence to make the innovations which drive society forward. But of course, social factors are important and to be such as to allow intelligent people to achieve their potential.

[Apocryphon]

It would seem that whenever you engage in any endeavor that involves more than one person, social intelligence immediately becomes relevant. I'm not at all convinced that the solutions to current problems will be solved by intelligence alone. Social factors, group dynamics, teamwork are all vital. There was no single genius behind the Manhattan Project.

[coldtea]

I find them neutral, they are what we make it.

Advancements in technology can be detrimental to the environment, lethal, make us dumber, worsen quality of life in several ways, help control and imprison us, and any combination of the previous.

And "expansion into the universe" means little if it's for some lucky few. Why should the rest care, just because if Earth is whiped out those few get to "continue"?

That's even assuming it's doable without something like generation ships - which even at the solar system level is a big if.

[sanxiyn]

High IQ seems to correlate with bipolar disorder, but that's about it. It's the only negative that correlates with intelligence I know about.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705611/

[Apocryphon]

There was also this study of Mensa members, but that's probably an extreme outlier group.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961...

[natded]

Intelligence has trade-offs, costs and other limitations or we would have maxed it out hard (ie. an "intelligence explosion" would have occurred).

Increased mental illness might be one, other one is the brain size being limited by the hips of mother. Brains / intelligence also has energy costs which we might not have been able to optimize for yet.

As such, I would say that intelligence is a cost that you run. It allowed for reproduction and survival for humans when they moved towards colder regions for example, but there's little to no reason to maintain that intelligence if you don't need to adapt anymore. I think you need harsh material constraints (I don't know, space faring) to keep it from shaving itself off in order to optimize the human machine.

[ren_engineer]

it's a pretty funny taboo honestly, nobody questions that genetics contribute to height and it's not controversial at all

the good news is that China is doubling down on research into the genetic basis of intelligence. The West will either adjust their worldview or be left behind

[natded]

Height is a good example: nobody thinks you grow taller by playing basketball, but many think you get smarter by going to school.

[marton78]

But you do get stronger by lifting weights. The fact that a comparison can be uttered doesn't automatically mean it's also applicable.

[Apocryphon]

Height isn't a good example, because improved nutrition does lead to increased height in populations:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5811819/

It can even be compared across rapidly developing nations with different rates of food consumption:

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=...

[thewarrior]

Because intelligence is a far more complex trait than height.