Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Increased intelligence is a myth so far (2014)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 46 posts

Re: Increased intelligence is a myth so far (2014)

#11

Post by nickff »

ap22213 wrote: post #8

As a species (or society) do we have clear objectives in mind when we seek to 'increase intelligence'? Is it higher productivity? more progress? enhanced capability? faster learning? Aren't there lots of low hanging fruit that we haven't taken yet? First, shouldn't we try to eliminate the things that are known to cause decreases in intelligence? Or, do we not know what those are? Also, having been around a lot of 'hi…

>Aren't there lots of low hanging fruit that we haven't taken yet? It seems like it'd be easier to eliminate the things that are known to cause decreases in intelligence, first. Or, do we not know what those are?

Yes, these issues have been researched, and are continually being addressed (though one might argue they should be given much more attention than is currently the case). Some examples of causes of decreased intelligence include malnutrition (sometimes caused by parasites), and heavy metal poisoning (often lead and/or arsenic in well-water).[1][2][3]

>Also, having been around a lot of 'highly intelligent' people, I have found that many are still not very effective. Most still make bad choices, have poor judgement, adhere to dogma, can't think laterally or fluidly, lack curiosity, lack discipline, etc. Is it possible for a 'smart' individual to get better at those things?

If you are interested in these issues, I suggest that you read some of Phillip Tetlock's work on judgement and prediction; I have found it tremendously interesting and helpful, though I have often been taken aback when re-examining my own faults through the lens of his work.[4] From what I have read, you are already at a tremendous intellectual advantage, as you are examining meta-cognition issues, which can help you improve your cognition, and understand your limitations.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_health_on_intelligen...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic_poisoning

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_E._Tetlock

Re: Increased intelligence is a myth so far (2014)

#12

Post by kokut »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #2

It seems more and more apparent that large sections of modern science are quackery. Will we fix this somehow and look back on this era from the future, and wonder about the many millions spent on serious people in white coats who basically produced random noise with a dash of prejudice and a touch of click-bait?

worse than noise, the problem with science is that it's the new religion and people would believe anything that a "scientist" says, when they dont even have time to do the research to prove it themselves, that way there is a huge amount of "science" that is based in studies done in extremely biased conditions or just completely made up that make the news and textbooks, this people will be very frowned upon in the future same as the inquisition or witch hunters.

Re: Increased intelligence is a myth so far (2014)

#13

Post by Moshe_Silnorin »

I've been interested in brain training and nootropics for a very long time. The conclusion I've come to is intelligence is pretty much fixed, current psychopharmaceuticals are of very, very, very limited usefulness, and most of the differences in intelligence we see between people are caused by genetic factors not education or rearing. This was immensely disappointing for me - I'd literally give everything I own to be moved up a few standard deviations, but it does seem to be the case. I'll be the first in line for any effective enhancement, but we do not have them now. The most likely approaches for increasing the intelligence of humans are things like embryo selection and genetic engineering of embryos - biotechnology can only do so much after your brain is done growing.

Iterated embryo selection looks like it will lead to humans smarter than any human who has ever lived - perhaps they will be clever enough to figure out how to upgrade an old fogey like me. As an aside, I'm not sure people understand how ridiculously cheap iterated embryo selection will be provided some very conservative advances in biotech, ethical mores will be unlikely to suppress it - even if international treaties are put in place.

Re: Increased intelligence is a myth so far (2014)

#14

Post by fthssht »

Moshe_Silnorin wrote: post #13

I've been interested in brain training and nootropics for a very long time. The conclusion I've come to is intelligence is pretty much fixed, current psychopharmaceuticals are of very, very, very limited usefulness, and most of the differences in intelligence we see between people are caused by genetic factors not education or rearing. This was immensely disappointing for me - I'd literally give everything I own to b…

Looks like you've been reading Bostrom. I was actually annoyed about the amount of time he spent on the whole notion of genetically engineering smarter humans. I think his intent was to rigorously prove that even if technology for some reason halted and all progress in machine learning ended along with moore's law we'd still reach super intelligence. From that standpoint I get it as a philosopher to create a bulletproof argument. But I think it's very unlikely that it will happen that way. It's already far more practical to teach Watson to read better than genetically engineer a new Einstein. Also I don't think there's an iq 200 set of genes, there's probably trade offs that would prevent this a brain has a given number of neurons and they operate at a slow speed so this is like trying to breed a better horse when cars are obviously on the horizon and will be followed by jets.

Re: Increased intelligence is a myth so far (2014)

#15

Post by bordercases »

Moshe_Silnorin wrote: post #13

I've been interested in brain training and nootropics for a very long time. The conclusion I've come to is intelligence is pretty much fixed, current psychopharmaceuticals are of very, very, very limited usefulness, and most of the differences in intelligence we see between people are caused by genetic factors not education or rearing. This was immensely disappointing for me - I'd literally give everything I own to b…

It's funny that embryo selection occurs when you freeze a collection and embryos and pick the ones that survive the thaw. Chinese scientists have done studies on this effect - the resulting children are considered to be extremely healthy, much more than normal.

It's one of those border cases that gets me all giddy. Whatcha gonna do, ethicists; stop storing the embryos completely or find a way to do it without freezing? Present the damaged ones? Etc.

Re: Increased intelligence is a myth so far (2014)

#16

Post by bordercases »

fthssht wrote: post #14
Moshe_Silnorin wrote: post #13

I've been interested in brain training and nootropics for a very long time. The conclusion I've come to is intelligence is pretty much fixed, current psychopharmaceuticals are of very, very, very limited usefulness, and most of the differences in intelligence we see between people are caused by genetic factors not education or rearing. This was immensely disappointing for me - I'd literally give everything I own to b…

Looks like you've been reading Bostrom. I was actually annoyed about the amount of time he spent on the whole notion of genetically engineering smarter humans. I think his intent was to rigorously prove that even if technology for some reason halted and all progress in machine learning ended along with moore's law we'd still reach super intelligence. From that standpoint I get it as a philosopher to create a bulletpr…

Some equate I.Q. to "mutational load", meaning that the correction of factors interfering with genetic health gets you to a point where your I.Q. is maxed, not really anything else.

I still agree there are tradeoffs but I also doubt that mutational load is ignorable as a major driver of I.Q.; the implication being that if by removing mutation you improve intelligence, the body must be able to support a large I.Q. in the first place.

Re: Increased intelligence is a myth so far (2014)

#17

Post by Moshe_Silnorin »

fthssht wrote: post #14
Moshe_Silnorin wrote: post #13

I've been interested in brain training and nootropics for a very long time. The conclusion I've come to is intelligence is pretty much fixed, current psychopharmaceuticals are of very, very, very limited usefulness, and most of the differences in intelligence we see between people are caused by genetic factors not education or rearing. This was immensely disappointing for me - I'd literally give everything I own to b…

Looks like you've been reading Bostrom. I was actually annoyed about the amount of time he spent on the whole notion of genetically engineering smarter humans. I think his intent was to rigorously prove that even if technology for some reason halted and all progress in machine learning ended along with moore's law we'd still reach super intelligence. From that standpoint I get it as a philosopher to create a bulletpr…

>The most likely approaches for increasing the intelligence of humans

I agree, given the gestation time of a human, AI may well come first. Even if we perfected iterated embryo selection today, 18 years is a lot of time and perhaps AI would be developed before the super geniuses reach peak productivity.

>Also I don't think there's an iq 200 set of genes, there's probably trade offs that would prevent this a brain has a given number of neurons and they operate at a slow speed so this is like trying to breed a better horse when cars are obviously on the horizon and will be followed by jets.

Everything I'm reading is saying the genes for IQ, as with most traits, are additive. And it really is as easy as putting as many high-IQ-associated genes into one genome as possible.

Re: Increased intelligence is a myth so far (2014)

#18

Post by paulsutter »

It's more important to increase effectiveness than intelligence anyway. An IQ 20+ points greater causes reduced credibility, which is why people with IQs over 150 are under-represented in "elite" professions like finance, law, consulting[1]

[1] http://michaelwferguson.blogspot.com/p/the-inappropriately-e...

Re: Increased intelligence is a myth so far (2014)

#19

Post by colordrops »

ap22213 wrote: post #8

As a species (or society) do we have clear objectives in mind when we seek to 'increase intelligence'? Is it higher productivity? more progress? enhanced capability? faster learning? Aren't there lots of low hanging fruit that we haven't taken yet? First, shouldn't we try to eliminate the things that are known to cause decreases in intelligence? Or, do we not know what those are? Also, having been around a lot of 'hi…

By putting 'highly intelligent' in quotes, it sounds like you already recognize that you are criticizing society's skewed perception of what makes someone intelligent, rather than those who are truly gifted.

Re: Increased intelligence is a myth so far (2014)

#20

Post by brobinson »

bordercases wrote: post #15
Moshe_Silnorin wrote: post #13

I've been interested in brain training and nootropics for a very long time. The conclusion I've come to is intelligence is pretty much fixed, current psychopharmaceuticals are of very, very, very limited usefulness, and most of the differences in intelligence we see between people are caused by genetic factors not education or rearing. This was immensely disappointing for me - I'd literally give everything I own to b…

It's funny that embryo selection occurs when you freeze a collection and embryos and pick the ones that survive the thaw. Chinese scientists have done studies on this effect - the resulting children are considered to be extremely healthy, much more than normal. It's one of those border cases that gets me all giddy. Whatcha gonna do, ethicists; stop storing the embryos completely or find a way to do it without freezin…

That is really interesting... got any links to the studies (or articles talking about the studies) you mentioned?
Post reply on HN