Timeline for Current Trend in Evolution of Human Intelligence
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 16, 2021 at 2:40 | comment | added | Maximilian | @AlexDeLarge You wrote "measuring intelligence in general, or the IQ in particular, is a controversial thing to do and not at all easy to standardize". Could you elaborate? It might be controversial in some circles but IQ research is some of the most robust research there is in psychology. And intelligence is actually quite easy to measure. For a good defense of psychometric testing see Russell T. Warne's "In the Know". | |
| Nov 16, 2021 at 2:18 | comment | added | Maximilian | @user23715 You might also want to visit Gregory Cochrane's blog. I think he discusses the paper you linked to and criticises it. Somewhere in his twitter feed there is a discussion of this paper with people disagreeing as to whether Woodley is too pessimistic or optimistic. One thing is for sure, the Flynn effect has not much to do with genetics. If it would, the constant rise in IQ that was observable for most of the last century would have lead to a significant increase in geniuses, and we failed to see that. | |
| Nov 16, 2021 at 2:10 | comment | added | Maximilian | @user23715 There is already evidence that average IQ is going down, despite the Flynn effect (the effect has come to an end, as the Flynn effect was most likely due to poor nutrition that afflicted the lower strata of the population). Rindermann has collected some data about this. As sad as it is, the modern welfare state we all treasure seems to have adverse effects. If you really want some bad news from the verboten corners of the internet, check out Nathan Cofnas, for some good news about progress in the science check out Steven Hsu. | |
| Nov 16, 2021 at 1:59 | comment | added | Maximilian | @user23715 My guess is that the advances in genetic research regarding intelligence will make it possible in a couple of decades to screen/select for intelligence. At that point someone will start providing services for future parents, perhaps in China and in Russia. The undeniable success will very quickly change the mind in the West because competitiveness is at stake. The hope is then that everyone has access to this technology so as to select/engineer their embryo/child, not just the rich. | |
| Nov 23, 2016 at 9:38 | history | edited | AlexDeLarge | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added reference.
|
| Nov 22, 2016 at 18:40 | vote | accept | user23715 | ||
| Nov 22, 2016 at 18:39 | comment | added | user23715 | You're right that the Field et al paper is the best broad attempt at an answer. -- I found How fragile is our intellect? Estimating losses in general intelligence due to both selection and mutation accumulation to be useful too as a primer on the topic with an excellent short list of citations going back to the heyday of eugenics. -- As Woodley points out, this topic is critical to human flourishing; too bad the "well was poisoned" with politics in the 1920's/30's. -- Germline repair will be a worthwhile investment. | |
| Nov 2, 2016 at 15:43 | comment | added | AlexDeLarge | @user23715: As you might have seen in my answer, I also still have to let it sit as it is a very difficult topic both scientifically (intelligence is the on of the 'worst' trait one can work with) and ethically. Interesting to think about though. | |
| Oct 29, 2016 at 2:54 | comment | added | user23715 | Human selection, especially modern human selection, is more Lamarckian than Darwinian. -- It's possible genetic medical science will exceed our ability to harm ourselves through non-selective breeding. Maybe the next generation (or three) AI after IBM's Watson will get us what we need to keep from running off the cliff. -- I would think the rate of bad mutations would increase geometrically at some point so the cliff could seem far away and then... too late! -- Thanks for the answer. I'll let it sit for a week or ten but it will likely become the accepted answer. | |
| Oct 27, 2016 at 9:08 | history | edited | AlexDeLarge | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixed typo.
|
| Oct 27, 2016 at 9:07 | comment | added | AlexDeLarge | @user23715: I see your point, but selection does not differ depending on the source of selective pressures. It is totally unimportant if we as humans classify it as 'artificial' or 'natural' selection. It is the same thing. This would only not be true if human culture would disappear instantly as this would take away the neutral status of some of the mutations Lynch considers as slightly deleterious. This is actually what Lynch is hinting at: Intelligence levels might drop so strongly that modern medicine cannot be maintained, exposing all these mutations. For me this is a bit far-fetched ... | |
| Oct 26, 2016 at 20:26 | comment | added | user23715 | "One of the major conceptual criticisms on Lynch's view is that slightly deleterious mutations are not slightly deleterious but totally neutral if they do not have a fitness effect." -- This criticism of Lynch is not valid. In the absence of human culture the criticism would be true (a truism) but the non-natural selection imposed by human culture is precisely what I think would be interesting to measure. -- And yes, the whole concept is "loaded", a politically correct bombshell. I hesitated asking the question for just that reason. You'll note the paucity of answers my Q has garnered! | |
| Oct 19, 2016 at 14:56 | history | answered | AlexDeLarge | CC BY-SA 3.0 |