41–50 of 83 posts
I dont think we need smarter humans, i think we need more normal-intelligence humans who like working hard.
Superhuman intelligence needs to have the corresponding nurturing factor as well. It won't do much good if you are born super-smart but are trapped in poverty or circumstances which limit your potential. Plus there is also the EQ (emotional) quotient. Not many people are going to want your company if you are a super-intelligent asshole either.
> It won't do much good if you are born super-smart but are trapped in poverty or circumstances which limit your potential. I'd argue the opposite. If you're in a tougher situation, there's a lot more for you to gain by applying your intelligence.
The article actually also mention this, in the passage about the Flynn effect.
I don't know if there is any statistical correlation or not, but (as the article alludes to) it does seem that super intelligent people are more prone to some kind of other deficiencies, and particularly social issues. Can anyone shed more light on whether this is true or not? Anecdotally, one of my best friends (extremely intelligent, Cum Laude engineering student) went "off the rails" a few years after graduating.…
> he was seeing things 5 steps ahead of everyone else, and had such an extremely deep insight into every day things I had a period when I experienced this for some time. I can confirm it's deeply frustrating. You see all the madness very clearly. You see theoretical solutions to everything, know it could have been different. But you also understand you're quite alone and not influential enough. Generally, you're bett…
I don't know if there is any statistical correlation or not, but (as the article alludes to) it does seem that super intelligent people are more prone to some kind of other deficiencies, and particularly social issues. Can anyone shed more light on whether this is true or not? Anecdotally, one of my best friends (extremely intelligent, Cum Laude engineering student) went "off the rails" a few years after graduating.…
It is equally plausible (and to my mind much more likely) that the many parameters influencing intelligence are linked in complex ways with no simple global optimum in sight.
Or that IQ is only governed by genes to a very small extent in which case the rest of the argument goes out of the window.
I dont think we need smarter humans, i think we need more normal-intelligence humans who like working hard.
Yes, we definitely need more mindless wage slaves and worker drones who like being used and exploited.
I hate this embrace your servitude mentality.
> This means that there must be at least thousands of IQ alleles to account for the actual variation seen in the general population. Or that IQ is only governed by genes to a very small extent in which case the rest of the argument goes out of the window.
I dont think we need smarter humans, i think we need more normal-intelligence humans who like working hard.
For example, I can easily say we need more people with high moral standards who don't lie, cheat partners, friends,family and do overall positive added value to mankind. This can be anything from freeing a seat in full bus to granny/pregnant woman to curing some specific type of cancer, and anything in between. They don't even need to work hard on this, even small positive action here and there, multiplied by 7 billions, would change our lives gradually for the better. But that's just my subjective 2 cents :)
I don't agree with the premise of the article. The idea that there are "better" versions of each intelligence-influencing allele - and that they simply linearly combine - seems ludicrous to me. It is equally plausible (and to my mind much more likely) that the many parameters influencing intelligence are linked in complex ways with no simple global optimum in sight.
Assuming we can indeed select for gifted embryos, and do so, the consequences are going to be… interesting.