« The MSFT of robotics? | Main | Raise your children to be overconfident if you want them to be successful »

August 22, 2012

Comments

The most HBD aware moment of my life was riding my bike through the projects on the way from two different nice parts of town. A developer had built wonderful houses in prime real estate, but the race hustlers had convinced the politicians to turn them into projects because they were "pushing out" the blacks living in the vicinty.

The houses were still pretty nice. However, you could see the beginning of even a little bit of NAM presence. Unmaintained lawns. Broken windows unrepaired. Paint peeling. Etc. Everything just gets grimier.

I decided to ride my bike through there because it was a quicker route. There were several NAM youths in the street miling about or playing some sport with a ball. I'd say the average ages were 10-12.

As I rode down the middle of the street one of the youth nearby screemed, "I want that bike!" He attempted to grab me off the bike and drag me down, but narrowly missed. Then all the kids started to join in screeming, "I want that bike, gimme that bike, etc." They started chasing me as a mob comming from all over the neighboorhood. One grazed my clothing and almost got a grib which would have flung me off my bike and into the pavement. I escaped by the narrowest of margins.

I recentely watch a film adaptation of "Lord of the Flies". It was exactely like this. They spontaneiously formed a group and acted like savages. Had they succeeded in knocking me off the bike the mob might have beaten me or worse. Who knows. These were relatively children, not even testosterone uped teenagers.

That's all you ever need to know about NAMs. Other encounters with them haven't been much different. They literally ruin everything they touch. It's like a poison.

The houses there were in prime real estate and were very nice. If there were no NAMs they would be worth a lot of money and be a nice neighboorhood. NAMs very existance ruins it though.

" Values are, by definition, learned attitudes and behaviors."


They still have to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is people.

Values are learned. Okay.

What about conscientiousness? That is like IQ, inherited.

How many times have we seen the anomalous, but real, poor bastard who inherited (apparently) recessive genes for IQ and conscientiousness? He goes to his crappy school. He lives among idiot losers. And yet he just looks at it with disbelief and forges his way by reading good books, doing his homework, etc., and eventually gets educated and gets the hell out and joins the upper middle class. It couldn't have been environment, because the environment sucked. All that is left is personality and intelligence. That's it. It is rare. But it is real.

HS, #2 was the original liberal program, I think, but was gutted in the 60's when black activists decided it was "racism" to teach poor blacks middle class values. "Middle classicism" is one of the bugbears of Jeremiah Wright's church. Socialization through the public school system worked well for European immigrants, might have worked for blacks had they accepted it, but they didn't.

this is a great post HS. i love it when insights are made that others refuse to say due to political correctness

We're already eliminating a lot of black babies by getting the mothers to abortion clinics. I heard somewhere the rate is 40%?? or some incredible number. So things could be a lot worse.

Bring back gladiator games (or hunger games) and let low-iq people eliminating each other for last single alpha position.

Or something similar and subtle.

[HS: It's not subtle, and not something that will ever happen while the liberal elite is running things.]

asdf,

NAM youths? I can't imagine black and hispanic children playing together due to racial hostility between then. They were probably black, but I heard an anecdote a few years ago that some child walking through a Hispanic neighbor was being chased by Hispanic children because he possessed some Pokemon cards along with a small amount of cash.

"How many times have we seen the anomalous, but real, poor bastard who inherited (apparently) recessive genes for IQ and conscientiousness? He goes to his crappy school. He lives among idiot losers. And yet he just looks at it with disbelief and forges his way by reading good books, doing his homework, etc., and eventually gets educated and gets the hell out and joins the upper middle class. It couldn't have been environment, because the environment sucked. All that is left is personality and intelligence. That's it. It is rare. But it is real."

I have high g and low conscientiousness and I do not behave dysfunctionally (although I am cyclothymic and autistic) nor do I possess philistine social mores, but I don't think low conscientiousness explains much of NAM/prole dysfunction than low future time orientation (a consequence of low g). (I might have some conscientiousness since I have the discipline to restrict my daily caloric intake to 1200-1600 calories, but I do not see this as a long-term goal, just a tactic for short-term maintenance for my physique.)

I posted this earlier:

I understand the distinction between future-time orientation and conscientiousness, although it would seem that conscientiousness contributes to future-time orientation. Intelligence is another facet of future-time orientation as it allows one to envision themselves in an abstract future and see how their present actions affect their future; it appears that the exercise of intelligence merely allows one to evade potentially harmful situations and desist from making decisions with disastrous consequences such as exposure to illicit drugs, consuming copious amounts of alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with diminished competence, being involved in criminal gangs, and premarital (unprotected) intercourse. To me, this is effortless: my decision not to smoke does not reflect any conscientiousness; I simply understand the biological and financial consequences of this addiction, and I do not want to incur them in the future.

This comment from prolemadegood illustrates the role of intelligence in future-time orientation:

"Truly prole average IQ popular white kids end up doing a whole lot of stupid low-time preference stuff around HS graduation / right after that. They've always made poor decisions, but the opportunity to really fuck your life up emerges around that time. These guys and girls end up strung out on drugs, with children out of wedlock, all sorts of criminal offenses, etc. Sometimes they figure it out and head to trade school in their mid-late 20s."

However, conscientiousness is not merely the facile capacity to evade harmful situations, but it includes the ability to persevere and exert effort in order to achieve difficult, long-term goals. Low C/ high g people such as myself, do not like to work and use their intellects studying things that are personally interesting, often with little academic or practical value. (This can also explain Half Sigma's pioneering discovery that verbal intelligence is negatively correlated with earnings when educational attainment is controlled.) I guess low g, low C and high g, low C people find different things fun, and often for the low C people, fun activities often have an element of danger and criminality.

----

Some say that religion moderates the behavior of low g and/or low conscientiousness people. I wonder if those people (who cannot read works like the City of God or understand the tenets and dogmas of their own and rival faiths) try to restrain themselves because they love God or they fear eternal punishment. (As for me, it's the former).

Yes, they were mostly black. I went by in such a flash and it was a mob, I didn't identify every shade of NAM.

Require unwed welfare recipients to receive depo shots. If that is too oppressive, the unwed can always go to their local church for charity.

Oh wait, remember when charity was administered by local churches and community groups? When the charity came with a heaping helping of opprobrium regarding "lifestyle choices" from someone that knew you and the rest of your family, there were disincentives to multiple unwed births.

Can you cite any credible research showing that poverty is caused by or even correlated to low IQ, and that high IQ inevitably leads to financial success?

I don't believe intelligence is directly related to financial success at all. I have an IQ of 150 and as a result of that, I am often repulsed by the things people do to achieve wealth and status in society. I never could stoop low enough to stab my co-workers in the back, lie or take credit for work I didn't do.

Just from what I've seen in my life, financial success is often a direct result of ruthlessness and a complete lack of compassion for those who are harmed by one's actions. Acquiring large amounts of money often requires not a high IQ, but a willingness to harm others to get ahead.

If you want to write a strong persuasive article, you really need to include credible citations and proof that your basic assumptions are accurate.

But keep thinking and writing, because critical thought is good and we are all evolving as we go.

As for women having children with alpha males, could there be a tipping point soon where that can't continue? If the male population is mostly beta, then the government can transfer beta financial resources over to women so they can breed with the alpha males but as the numbers of beta males decline there's less and less money to extract from them to do that. This is probably the golden age right now for low IQ low-future time orientation women with all the welfare safety nets set up to catch them when they make dumb decisions. Most of them don't even know how good they have it or how temporary all this is going to be and they will have trouble adjusting when it ends because they'll actually have to start being nice to beta males and they don't have the habit of or knowledge of how to do that at all.

[HS: The most basic resource needed to live, food, is practically free because of productivity increases. We give it away to poor people, and I don't see a lack of resources to give food away to a larger percentage of people.]

"I even forsee a time in the future when poor neighborhoods become so dangerous that even the police fear going there."

The future is now and the place is every man's second country: France.

http://www.joelshepherd.com/2005/11/paris-riots.html

The robotic future does not eliminate the need for labor. Human desires are endless, and one of the desires is for service. There is nothing that can't be made better by pleasant human contact. There is always room for conscientious service. We could create millions of low-skill waitress jobs just by replacing fast food restaurants (already robotized) with friendly diners. Who would buy cheap Ikea particle board furniture if carpenters were in such high supply that every piece of furniture could be made on demand to custom specifications? Who wouldn't like to have a reliable maid? Most of the country has given up on the idea of bespoke clothing. Seamstresses simply aren't available. With the aging Boomer population, we could employ many in home health care.

Aspergery geeks may love the idea of a world in which their every need is taken care of by robots, but most people love the idea of being served by another human being. Automated phone systems are universally hated. Even with robots taking care of the 'necessities', we could employ millions and improve perceived quality of life just by putting a real human face on the things we consume.

Of course, those faces have to be conscientious and honest - that's where middle class values come in. But if you have that, full employment is entirely possible.

If you are serious about addressing the dysgenics issue, which I am, the key is improving genetics technology.

Today, I can't think of any practical, peaceful way to implement eugenics.

With advances in genetics, we can give people the option of choosing more desirable genetic traits, and that really addresses the issue.

I'd disagree with the main post in that IQ isn't completely genetic, but discipline or conscientiousness, "future-time-orientation", and values do have a substantial genetic component to them.

"Bring back gladiator games (or hunger games) and let low-iq people eliminating each other for last single alpha position."

The war on drugs does that! So many black killings are about who's gonna be the top dealer in the ghetto...

HS writes: "The delinking of work from survival has also changed the breeding habits of the poor. In the past, poor women needed to find a husband to help support their children. But now, with state support, poor women have sex with alpha males and give out-of-wedlock birth to their alpha-male spawn."

Uh huh. So basket-case Mexico breeds fewer macho males than state-supported Canada? This whole attack on the social safety net has never been convincing, especially since conservatives want to argue that in the absence of government we would see an outpouring of aide from local churches.

Alternatively, we could just as well blame the productive forces unleashed by capitalism. A relative pauper today can afford to feed and house many children. He can't locate them in a nice neighborhood, or educate them, but "NAMs" don't care about those things anyway.

The Dystopian Robotic future means that the vast majority of humanity is unnecessary. Indeed, the robot-owners will probably transform themselves via genetic engineering into post-human masters. Anyone who wants to come along will have to be a court jester. None of that matters because it's so far off that we'll all be dead.

"Aspergery geeks may love the idea of a world in which their every need is taken care of by robots, but most people love the idea of being served by another human being. Automated phone systems are universally hated."

They are hated because they are stupid. If they were smart enough to solve my problem without wasting a lot of time and pushing a lot of buttons, I'd be fine with them.

"I don't believe intelligence is directly related to financial success at all. I have an IQ of 150 and as a result of that, I am often repulsed by the things people do to achieve wealth and status in society. I never could stoop low enough to stab my co-workers in the back, lie or take credit for work I didn't do."

IQ is highly correlated with economic success within the range of 80-120. Pick up a copy of Murray's The Bell Curve. Or just Google it, the evidence is undeniable and overwhelming.

What you are talking with an IQ of 150 are the extreme tails. There the IQ correlation breaks down, but you're only talking about an intelligence level that less than 1% of the population is at, so it has de minimums effect of the overall statistical relationship.

Going from 3 to 2 standard deviations above the IQ mean has little to no effect (whereas going from 0 to 1 standard deviation has massive effect). That is because the vast majority of jobs on the economy are designed with the median in mind, or at least somewhere near the median.

Because economies of scale influence job design it's simply impractical to build mainstream economic jobs to accommodate the ultra-high IQs of the cognitive 1%. Even if you could fill them with workers the productivity gains wouldn't offset the fixed costs to create those specialized job roles that only a handful of people would fill.

There are a few jobs where a person with 150 IQ would feel challenged and productive. They're in fields such as academic physics and math, advanced algorithm design at places like Google, and the upper echelons of quantitative finance like Renaissance Technologies.

However I'm afraid these jobs are so few and far between that 150 IQ will not get you in. They prefer to cull their employees from sources like the Math Olympiad, Intel Science Fair winners, top contributors to the Linux kernel, Kaggle contest winners and top students at ivy league schools

You probably need a minimum IQ of 180 to get these jobs. At 150, you're screwed. Too smart to be happy at the mainstream high cognitive load jobs like doctor, lawyer or manager. Too dumb for the few jobs with truly high cognitive load.

I think this HBD stuff is garbage.

I'm white
I also...

live with my parents
am unemployed
never did well in school
am a virgin
have no friends

Losers come in all races.

Doug's comment shows his ignorance.

I went to an Ivy League school, and I wasn't a "top" student by any means. But I was routinely annoyed with how stupid my classmates were and how much of grades boiled down to kids who sucked up to professors, cheated, or tried to wriggle their way into better grades via "extra credit."

I think I was the only student who ever said to himself, "Well, I didn't study or do my last couple weeks' reading for that test, so I guess my mediocre grade is deserved." (Probably not the best attitude in that environment, but at least it's ethical.)

Y'all seem to think that an IQ of 150 is a lot higher than it really is. I've got an IQ of 150 and I'm just an ordinary IT guy. I'm pretty good at programming and sysadmin work, but I'm nowhere near as smart as the folks who are doing really amazing things.

I think you're being a bit too pessimistic. Surveillance technology (probably including drones) is going to make getting away with crimes more difficult. This will help maintain some semblance of order in poor communities. Getting sent to prison at 18-19 (prime reproductive years, especially among proles) for a lengthy sentence helps remove a portion of the excess of alpha traits from the gene pool, also.

But I think you get the basic trends right. Good post.

A good program to push for would be more research into racial distribution of hormone levels, and how hormone levels have changed over time. This research will be highly valuable because it is extremely easy to change an individual's hormone levels. If male's with testosterone levels >1200 have more criminal tendencies, I'm pretty sure there's some way to bring that number down. Maybe introduce aromatase along with an estrogen receptor blocker?

On the other hand, it's possible that it will become mainstream for males to use exogenous testosterone to get a boost in confidence, a deeper voice, more height, and everything else to compete with the more lower class alphas. It could even lead to an interesting situation where the upper classes become the most alpha and masculine because they invest in carefully managing their children's testosterone and estrogen levels.

==================

"Y'all seem to think that an IQ of 150 is a lot higher than it really is. I've got an IQ of 150 and I'm just an ordinary IT guy. I'm pretty good at programming and sysadmin work, but I'm nowhere near as smart as the folks who are doing really amazing things."

150 is super high. Odds are the test you took was bad or you have stronger specific intelligences for that one IQ test or it is just noise in the IQ test or you are really are extremely intelligent but don't realize it because you don't study or something like that. Lots of Nobel Prize winners have IQs (based on real IQ tests) in the low 130s. No Nobel Prize winners were in the Terman Study for youth with IQ >135, but two Nobel Prize winners just barely missed the cutoff.

HS you are making a mistake which is to focus on one trend to the exclusion of all others.

Another important trend is that the police are getting better and better at apprehending criminals. In the future, it will probably be possible to put a hundred cameras on every block and have a permanent, clear record of everything that goes on in public. As well as law enforcement that respond to trouble within seconds.

If this trend continues, it's very likely that in 50 years it will be perfectly safe for a pretty white girl to stroll naked and alone through a black neighborhood at midnight on a Saturday night.

Another important trend is computer entertainment. If NAMS can get more satisfaction from causing virtual chaos in a virtual reality system, they will likely leave the rest of us alone.

Another important trend is the extremely high birthrates of ultra-religious types. If this trend continues, NAMs (and secular whites) will likely fade into oblivion.

It's difficult to say at this point which trend will end up being the most important.

"On the other hand, it's possible that it will become mainstream for males to use exogenous testosterone to get a boost in confidence, a deeper voice, more height, and everything else to compete with the more lower class alphas. It could even lead to an interesting situation where the upper classes become the most alpha and masculine because they invest in carefully managing their children's testosterone and estrogen levels."

I use exogenous testosterone now. Test is not some magic drug -- it does make you feel better, more decisive, and obviously adds muscle, but after puberty, it doesn't do anything for height or vocal range. I think people exaggerate how dramatic the mental effects of test are. Physical, yes. 'Roid rage', mostly a myth, lots of thing increase aggressiveness (including caffeine!), but I've yet to be menaced by bugged out, alpha Starbucks fanatics.

"You probably need a minimum IQ of 180 to get these jobs. At 150, you're screwed. Too smart to be happy at the mainstream high cognitive load jobs like doctor, lawyer or manager. Too dumb for the few jobs with truly high cognitive load."

IQ of 180 = 99.999 percentile (give or take), there are maybe 100 people in the United States with IQs of 180 and above.

I think it is safe to say that someone with an IQ of 150 has the ability to do well in even the most demanding positions at Google/Facebook/quantitative finance/academia...

"IQ is highly correlated with economic success within the range of 80-120."

That seems to be true. I'm a tad higher than the top end of that range and the guys I went to high school with were all probably in that range. In the short term luck seemed to play a big part in economic success with some of the ones I knew who were less intelligent than me making more than me through our twenties and early thirties. It seemed, though, as the years went on I slowly pulled ahead of them. When I was young I was living in a near slum and now I live in a nice middle class neighborhood and feel like I've died and gone to heaven. HS makes a good case that the underclass will continue to expand and encroach more and more on the middle class but I hope the nightmarish scenario he lays out doesn't happen until after I'm gone.

Sabril,

How will all of the offspring of the ultra-religious sustain themselves in a dystopian robotic future without jobs? Do you think there is a possibility that the high birth rates will collapse?

Wouldn't it be funny if big shiny rims were banned, and obesity disappeared?

"'racism' to teach poor blacks middle class values."

I actually once witnessed a black guy trying to assure other blacks that he wasn't middle class. It was before a pick-up basketball game in Berkeley, and this big but unthreatening guy known for a soft style of play protested, "I ain't middle class!" Ironically, he was a part-time actor who played a State Farm agent in a commercial running along the eastern seaboard.

I would guess that 98% of people who claim to have 150+ IQs are mistaken or lying.

And that 90% of people who believe that they are good at critical thinking are completely self-deceived.

"150 is super high. Odds are the test you took was bad or you have stronger specific intelligences for that one IQ test or it is just noise in the IQ test or you are really are extremely intelligent but don't realize it because you don't study or something like that. Lots of Nobel Prize winners have IQs (based on real IQ tests) in the low 130s. No Nobel Prize winners were in the Terman Study for youth with IQ >135, but two Nobel Prize winners just barely missed the cutoff. "

To use a baseball metaphor, it seems hat an IQ of 130 is equivalent to a pitcher throwing a fastball in the low 90s (a velocity that would not impress an aficionado of baseball, but much higher than what the general population yet average among the population of MLB pitchers); pitchers with can throw fastballs 95+ consistently (approximately an IQ > 150) tend to be more successful than pitchers with a low 90s fastball. However, some exceptional pitchers have their fastball velocity ranging from 90-94, such as Cole Hamels, Cliff Lee, and Greg Maddux but they compensate for the lack of superlative velocity by possessing excellent offspeed and breaking pitches, movement on their fastball, and/or impeccable control. Others, such as Justin Verlander and David Price rely primarily on their velocity (and also have a good amount of control). R A Dickey might be the equivalent of an idiot savant, since he does not rely on baseball "g" (fastball velocity).

Academically, I always envisioned myself to be like Cole Hamels (and he's left-handed and I am far-left politically); I don't have exceptional fastball velocity, just one that sits in the low 90s, but I excel, relative to other students at the concrete things such as memorization, and can locate my fastball on the corners, so I don't walk many batters or give up home runs while still amassing a decent amount of strikeouts.

Matt in RTP,

Would you consider using selective-androgen receptor modulators?

"And that 90% of people who believe that they are good at critical thinking are completely self-deceived."

Define "good"? A person who has an IQ of 125 can be considered to be good at critical thinking, while a person who has an IQ of 105 and who considers himself to be good at that is just delusionally inflating his self-image.

*Poverty is about low IQ, low future-time orientation, and bad values.*

Sometimes, but sometimes poverty is about a crappy job market. Poverty has gotten worse in the last decade, and that's far too slow for the genome to change.

The most-rapidly-increasing cause of poverty that I can see operating is computerization, which tends to change middle class expert's jobs into dropout's jobs.

@Matt. "Y'all seem to think that an IQ of 150 is a lot higher than it really is. I've got an IQ of 150 and I'm just an ordinary IT guy. I'm pretty good at programming and sysadmin work, but I'm nowhere near as smart as the folks who are doing really amazing things."

True. I've got a 135 IQ and can understand all new elements of my finance-related job, but some of it takes some effort and multiple re-readings, and sometimes somethings stump me for a while. I often greatly wonder just how in the world the average IQ person gets through life. But, I guess, their jobs, lives, and interests are just not that complicated.

"I use exogenous testosterone now. Test is not some magic drug -- it does make you feel better, more decisive, and obviously adds muscle, but after puberty, it doesn't do anything for height or vocal range. I think people exaggerate how dramatic the mental effects of test are. Physical, yes. 'Roid rage', mostly a myth, lots of thing increase aggressiveness (including caffeine!), but I've yet to be menaced by bugged out, alpha Starbucks fanatics."

So, just out of curiosity, what were your levels before hand, and do you think that your current levels (after exogenous) are higher than your maximum level during puberty? If a male has fairly low testosterone during puberty, than I'm pretty sure that adding testosterone in adulthood will lower voice. For example, transsexuals can change their voices as adults just by using testosterone. Height and facial bone structure won't change and I'm not sure if there will be any impact on the brain.

I think that most changes from testosterone accumulate over an individual's development (bone structure, brain development, height) and won't change immediately if testosterone is introduced in adulthood.

***The first half of the Half Sigma approach is not likely to be implemented in my lifetime because eugenics is considered to be the most evil thing in the world.***

This Telegraph poll suggests people are largely opposed to genetic screening for behavioural traits. Although I was pleased to see this Oxford Professor is at least making the moral case for designer babies (his full article is now available in the Readers Digest link).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9480372/Genetically-engineering-ethical-babies-is-a-moral-obligation-says-Oxford-professor.html

An interesting post by this economist on making welfare payments conditional on using contraception:

"I have a hard time seeing how adding contraception as condition of receipt of benefit is different in kind from the other forms of coercion that already surround receipt of welfare payments. People still choose whether to accept the bundle of restrictions and payments. The exchange fails to be Euvoluntary as (5) is definitely violated. But (5) is pretty likely to be violated if any conditions are attached to welfare receipt...

I don't know which way things would fall on a full accounting. But ruling it out as eugenics misses that there are already pretty strong eugenic effects built into policy. Ex ante welfare policy subsidised childbearing by those who might otherwise chosen smaller families. Proposed changes to welfare policy imposing work requirements more quickly after the birth of additional children to those on benefits also have expected effects on fertility. So does free contraception for those on benefits.

...

Meanwhile, Kearney and Levine survey the evidence on teen childbearing in the United States. They find it pretty hard to find significant predictors of panel variation (why some states decline more quickly than others). Most targeted policies didn't have any effect. But two policies - expanded family planning assistance to poor women through Medicaid and reduced welfare benefits - did seem to matter and accounted for about twelve percent of the drop in teen childbearing. They frame this as being a fairly small effect, but it's still the only policy combination they found that had any effect. And, it's also the policy combination that National's looking at running: tighter work requirements for those with young children and enhanced access to contraception."

http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/coercion-everywhere-welfare-edition.html

The problem with eugenics is that your faction is unlikely to be the one making the decisions. Imagine Eric Holder and Janet Napoletano deciding who gets born.

Extensive training in civilized behavior including corporal punishment is a wonderful idea. Too bad we've lost the will to do it.

What we need is a jobs program for the low IQ. Such as ditch digging and street cleaning. It won't be very efficient compared to automation, but it will keep them from idling on welfare and troublemaking. The supervisors could always be robotic.

[HS: I've previously suggested in the future that the government will pay people to play a game like World of Warcraft: http://www.halfsigma.com/2011/09/the-future-when-people-will-play-wow-for-a-living.html ]

"Another important trend is computer entertainment. If NAMS can get more satisfaction from causing virtual chaos in a virtual reality system, they will likely leave the rest of us alone."

I like the idea of keeping blacks and non-white Hispanics hooked on some sort of habit that keeps them out of trouble. These policies would mostly involve lowering black and mestizo dopamine levels.

In addition to zoning out NAMs in virtual reality games, we should also remove weights from gyms because lifting weights increases dopamine and T and thus increases NAM sexual activity and aggression when they are released. If prisoners can no longer lift weights while serving time, they would be less likely to commit crimes and get underclass women pregnant. Even a smallish percentage decrease in the sexual activity of released criminals would have a eugenic effect because the fewer sexual encounters released criminals have the fewer number of women they will get pregnant.

We should also legalize marijuana because weed mellows out even aggressive people and lowers their sex drive. Legalizing marijuana would have a eugenic effect even if sexual activity among NAMs decreases by only a slight amount.

"150 is super high."

150 isn't rare.

Remember that white IQ distributions aren't Gaussian and white IQ tails are "fat at the end".

Specifically, there are 10% more whites with IQs over 130 than a Gaussian distribution would suggest, and there are 200% whites with IQs over 145 than there would be if the white IQ distribution were purely Gaussian.

160-180 are the most rare types of intelligence, not 150.

"If this trend continues, it's very likely that in 50 years it will be perfectly safe for a pretty white girl to stroll naked and alone through a black neighborhood at midnight on a Saturday night."


This comes across like your own personal fantasy and for someone who claims to be male (despite being addressed as female by others here and elsewhere) you make some rather peculiar posts. At any rate I think you and siggy overestimate technological progress. It's not the moron prole jocks in the police and military that give them their edge but the beta dweebs who can't get laid anymore. Progress is not inevitable. The history of eunuch societies is that of stagnation.

I think most people who claim an IQ of 150 took an online test. Subtract about 35 points, and stop thinking you are a genius.

As for eugenics, we are not that far from someone in their basement concocting a designer virus that looks for low-IQ genetic markers (or the absence of markers for high IQ). They already do pretty amazing stuff with genetic programming; all it takes is for the technology to be within the reach of 3d printers.

'At 150, you're screwed. Too smart to be happy at the mainstream high cognitive load jobs like doctor, lawyer or manager.'

At the top tier of any of these professions, the profession will challenge an IQ of 150. While the law, on the ground floor 'traffic ticket' or 'PI' level isn't so complex, try working it all the way up through the huge administrative scheme of environmental law. If that isn't enough, enter into the complex philosophical framework of top-end legal academia. The same goes for the other two professions. There's plenty of flexibility and challenge for high IQ individuals.
-----

HS talks a lot about how blacks are so alpha; if that's the case, why is the bi-racial population still so small? Most unmarried white women still have racist preferences in mating.

---
'I would guess that 98% of people who claim to have 150+ IQs are mistaken or lying'

I remember you making a similar claim awhile ago...but I suppose you'll respond that you're in the 2%.

-------------

HS, if you admit that the government won't accept or implement any eugenics policies in your lifetime (let's say, within the next 30 years), then it just seems better to promote genetics research. All the money we give to foodstamps, TANF, etc etc, could, one day, go to mandatory genetic 'IQ' upgrades. It's not so far-fetched to assume that within around 50 years, such a thing will be available.

***I recentely watch a film adaptation of "Lord of the Flies". It was exactely like this. They spontaneiously formed a group and acted like savages. ***

That describes a recent riot in France.

"The two nights of violence were apparently sparked by tension over spot police checks on residents.

The Amiens suburb which erupted in violence has already been identified as needing extra policing by Hollande's Socialist government.

Tensions remain high in France's rundown suburbs, where poor job prospects, racial discrimination, a widespread sense of alienation from mainstream society and perceived hostile policing have periodically touched off violence.

Weeks of rioting in 2005, the worst urban unrest in France in 40 years, led to the imposition of a state of emergency by the then centre-right government.

The violence provoked months of agonised debate over the state of the grim housing estates that ring many French cities and the integration of millions of black and North African immigrants."

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/9/50382/World/International/French-youths-riot-in-Amiens;-Hollande-vows-tough-.aspx

We don't even know with certainty any of the genes (or the multiple alleles at those loci) associated with intelligence, although we have a few low-effect candidates. There is much work left involved in finding them, and it will not be trivially easy (yes, I am aware of the existence of BGI). Don't believe every popular press article you read about "gene associated with x." Many of those turn out to be false positives.

As for IQ upgrades in adults, we would not only have to be able to edit DNA code extensively (remember, many genes all across the genome), but we would have to be able to deliver the revised code to a large number of cells. And we can't allow too many or too severe screw-ups. I expect that all of this will happen some day, but it's not close at hand. Even 50 years seems optimistic.

Limited ability to influence brain architecture in adults could be a further hindrance to genetic engineering of intelligence. Perhaps that will not be the case, but it isn't known for certain yet.

@Man Mountain Molehill: "What we need is a jobs program for the low IQ. Such as ditch digging and street cleaning."

Most of local, state, federal government, and the military is already a jobs program.

As long as humanity can last another 2-3 centuries, we're OK. That's about how long it will take before large numbers of people will be able to separate themselves out by living in space and genetically engineer themselves into whatever they want.

Continued from above,

Marijuana should be freely available in prisons and juvenile detention facilities because weed lowers male libido and aggression levels. Once prisoners have served their time and are released, they will be more docile and engage in less sex than they otherwise would have. Because their aggression levels will be lower, they may even be somewhat more capable of holding down a minimum wage job. Currently, we are raising prisoner sex drive and anger by letting them lift weights.

"specifically, there are 10% more whites with IQs over 130 than a Gaussian distribution would suggest, and there are 200% whites with IQs over 145 than there would be if the white IQ distribution were purely Gaussian."

How can there be more people with IQ's above 145 than the Gaussian curve predicts, when IQ scores are NORMALIZED to fit the Gaussian curve? IQ is not measured on an absolute scale like height and weight, so the distribution of IQ scores does not exist independently of whatever psychologists assign it.

Now in the past, and for children, IQ scores were calculated by the formula Mental Age/Chronological Age * 100, so it was possible to measure IQ with absolute units and observe a natural distribution, however this formula gave different standard deviations for different ages and different mental abilities and were meaningless for adults, so by the mid 20th century, these ratio IQ's were largely replaced by what's known as the deviation IQ, where IQ's are assigned based on the normal curve. So by definition there are only about 10 people in the U.S. with IQ's above 180, several of them too old or young to work, so the person who claimed there are jobs that recruit people above IQ 180 is certainly mistaken.

Saying an IQ of 150 is not that high is like saying a 6'9" man is not that tall. An IQ of 150 is 3.33 SD above the mean. Young white men have a mean height of about 5'11" with an SD of about 3" so 3.33 SD above the mean in height is 6'9".

"IQ is highly correlated with economic success within the range of 80-120. Pick up a copy of Murray's The Bell Curve. Or just Google it, the evidence is undeniable and overwhelming."

Murray never restricted the IQ-income correlation to 80-120, he just didn't have enough data to reliably investigate much beyond these limits, however he cited the Terman gifted study as evidence that the IQ-income correlation extends to much higher levels.

Generally speaking, this popular idea that IQ somehow becomes unimportant above the magic number of 120 is being debunked in more and more studies. They used to say IQ only made people creative up to 120, but there was a Harvard study that found IQ correlated with creativity all the way up to 150 (the ceiling of the test)

Sigma If robots make people unemployed, then why does Japan, and South Korea only have 4% unemployment while Singapore has 2%

http://www.swiss-miss.com/2009/01/top-10-countries-by-robot-density.html

These 3 countries have BY FAR more robots than any other country

"[HS: I've previously suggested in the future that the government will pay people to play a game like World of Warcraft: http://www.halfsigma.com/2011/09/the-future-when-people-will-play-wow-for-a-living.html ]"

And it still doesn't make any sense. Anyone who isn't retarded can develop marketable skills. It's not a question of IQ, it's a question of will.

The lowest IQ guy I was sort of friends with in school was practically illiterate and dropped out of schools at 15 because he just couldn't learn anything. He eventually made a decent living out of carpentry, restoring old handcrafted furniture - furnishing with unique items is higher status now that everyone can afford standardized IKEA sets so there is money to be made.

If we were to eliminate manual labour in manufacturing, it just means the goods got cheaper (no labour cost) and we suddenly have money to spend on services and entertainment and even the stupidest humans in the normal range of human intelligence are more than adaptable enough to develop some of those skills. You can go to Africa and find average NAMs around killing lions with spears. People who can do that (and that's pretty much all of us) can develop service skills or entertainment skills that people will pay for.

Sure, there are some face tattooed morons who go in and out of prison and they won't be fit for service jobs but those guys aren't really wanted at the factory either.

I wonder if half the readers of this blog have had any contact at all with below average IQ humans since childhood. Low IQ doesn't mean helpless and passive. Actually, the helpless and passive personality type that needs the government or some other authority to tell them what to do in life probably tends towards higher IQ, the academic types - the whole education system is one giant exercise in following orders.

'Saying an IQ of 150 is not that high is like saying a 6'9" man is not that tall. An IQ of 150 is 3.33 SD above the mean. Young white men have a mean height of about 5'11" with an SD of about 3" so 3.33 SD above the mean in height is 6'9".'

That's a good comparison; an IQ of 130 would equal about a height of 6'4...even that's pretty tall.

'We don't even know with certainty any of the genes (or the multiple alleles at those loci) associated with intelligence, although we have a few low-effect candidates. There is much work left involved in finding them, and it will not be trivially easy (yes, I am aware of the existence of BGI). Don't believe every popular press article you read about "gene associated with x." Many of those turn out to be false positives.

As for IQ upgrades in adults, we would not only have to be able to edit DNA code extensively (remember, many genes all across the genome), but we would have to be able to deliver the revised code to a large number of cells. And we can't allow too many or too severe screw-ups. I expect that all of this will happen some day, but it's not close at hand. Even 50 years seems optimistic.'

I don't believe every popular press article I read, but I have watched the incredible progress in the field of genetics even over the last decade. And it's accelerating. 50 years is probably optimistic for meaningful availability, so what about 100?

'True. I've got a 135 IQ and can understand all new elements of my finance-related job, but some of it takes some effort and multiple re-readings, and sometimes somethings stump me for a while'

Well, IQ isn't what movies portray it to be. You still have to work at complex fields to master them. It still requires a lot of effort. So, the fact that you have to put in 'work' doesn't mean that your brain has failed you...

When people say that they overestimate a 150 IQ, they mean that it does not such an IQ automatically make a person into a genius, meaning that other qualities become more important. Like in basketball, there is more ability and skills than just height, but it is still a significant barrier that precludes most people, even if they are athletic and dexterous, from being professional basketball players. For instance, by googleing I found this (http://nbadimensions.net/forums/nba-forum/22008-nba-size-overrated.html),the average NBA point guard is 6'2" and the average shooting guard is 6'5", meaning that at least half the male population, below 5'11" would not have any prospect of being in the shortest positions.

I have a +2.5 SD IQ tested by a school psychologist and later (1982) confirmed by a 1440 SAT score and let me tell you, it's sort of a curse.

The problem is that people get along best with other people having similar (say +/- 1 SD) IQs. Normal 100 IQ people get along with folks from 85 to 115 IQ, around 2/3 of the white population. "Bright" 130 IQ people get along best with people having 115 to 145 IQs. But very few people (only 1/6 of the white population) have such high IQs!

That means bright people have more trouble finding friends. Even for bright people success (like getting a high-paying job or a sexy girlfriend) depends mostly on social factors. High IQ is a handicap in most social situations because most people find high-IQ people uncongenial. (You can employ your high intelligence to put on an act that makes you pleasant to low-IQ people for a while but you will tire and slip eventually. Besides, while you are being pleasant to low-IQ people they will still seem dull to you.)

To add misery to scarcity, at +2 or +3 SD IQ you are quite bright enough to understand why you don't get along very well with most (84+% of) people (you and they bore each other-- you don't want to talk about their favorite TV shows and they don't want to talk about the cool new paper you found in PNAS), AND you are bright enough to realize you are not a genius like W.D. Hamilton or someone-- in fact, you will likely have met some very smart people at college and (if you are male) you will suffer envy and shame that you are smart enough to hang around with them but not smart enough to compete.

I would guess that an IQ of 115 predicts a happy life better than an IQ of 130. At 115 IQ you can mesh socially with 48% of the white population while being respected as a smart fellow and you won't feel like a loser in the presence of your hyper-smart friends because you won't have many of those.

"Generally speaking, this popular idea that IQ somehow becomes unimportant above the magic number of 120 is being debunked in more and more studies. They used to say IQ only made people creative up to 120, but there was a Harvard study that found IQ correlated with creativity all the way up to 150 (the ceiling of the test)"

Standard IQ tests beyond the normal range start to become "noisy" measurements. As someone else mentioned many Nobel prize winners have measured IQs around 130.

Do you really believe that the standard Nobel prize winner only ranks in the 98th percentile of intelligence? Or is a better explanation of IQ that the tests aren't designed to measure at the tail very well.

It's pretty clear that Terrence Tao should have a higher IQ than Marilyn vos Savant. It's also pretty clear that the typical Math Olympiad probably has a cognitive ability at least 5 standard deviations above baseline.

I would posit that beyond 2.5 standard deviations that tests like the Putnam become better measurements than typical IQ tests designed for the median.

[HS: I don't believe that IQ above 120 is unimportant or inconsequential. I believe that it often doesn't have any strong correlation with conventional measures of success such as earning a good income or having a high-status spouse. Although when high-IQ people are successful, they are somewhat more likely to be extremely succcessful like Bill Gates, but there are many more people with Bill Gates' IQ who are extreme failures.]

The idea that there's some ceiling above which higher IQ is not correlated with success is a myth. This is from an analysis of the Terman high-IQ sample by James Heckman et al.:

"Finally, note that even when controlling for rich background variables, IQ maintains a statistically significant effect on lifetime earnings. Even though the effect is slightly diminished from the uncontrolled association of the first column, it is still sizeable... While we do not want to argue that IQ has a larger role for the difference between 50 and 100, for example, than for the difference between 150 and 200, we do want to point out that even at the high end of the ability distribution, IQ has meaningful consequences."

I'd guess that the IQ-income association is stronger today than it was for the Terman sample. Here's a couple of studies that debunk the notion of IQ ceilings using more recent samples:

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/22/10/1336.short

http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/19/6/346.short

[HS: It's a very small correlation, which can be explained by the fact that smart people tend to flock to big cities like NYC or San Fran where salaries are higher, and the rest of the effect is simply because high-IQ people are more likely to get educational credentials that give them a slightly higher salary.

A 150-IQ person working as a cubicle-drone in Manhattan, making 80K, may STATISTICALLY be making twice the median income and thus proving a correlation, but he probably doesn't feel very successful.]

"Specifically, there are 10% more whites with IQs over 130 than a Gaussian distribution would suggest, and there are 200% whites with IQs over 145 than there would be if the white IQ distribution were purely Gaussian."

Source? I googled white IQ not gaussian and didn't get anything good.

"Generally speaking, this popular idea that IQ somehow becomes unimportant above the magic number of 120 is being debunked in more and more studies. They used to say IQ only made people creative up to 120, but there was a Harvard study that found IQ correlated with creativity all the way up to 150 (the ceiling of the test)"

So, maybe the reason people think that there is a downside to really high IQ is that people seem to notice a lot of very successful people with IQs in the 110-140 range, and far fewer people, even in mentally intense positions, in the 140+ range. So people think that a very high IQ is a disadvantage.

In reality, a higher IQ could always be an advantage, but if people with an IQ of 160 have a 2% chance of winning a Nobel Prize and people with an IQ of 130 have a 0.02% chance of winning a Nobel Prize, we will see more Nobel Prize winners with an IQ of 130.

"This comes across like your own personal fantasy and for someone who claims to be male (despite being addressed as female by others here and elsewhere) you make some rather peculiar posts."

I do happen to be a man, but what difference does it make? It's not like I'm trying to use my sex to add credibility to my arguments. Let's stipulate for the sake of argument that I'm a girl. So what?

"At any rate I think you and siggy overestimate technological progress."

How old are you? Even in the last 30 years, video cameras have gone from clunky and expensive to cheap and so small that they are a standard feature in portable cell phones. This trend has already had a significant impact on police work.

"How will all of the offspring of the ultra-religious sustain themselves in a dystopian robotic future without jobs? "

Probably the same way they do now -- by ruthlessly exploiting the welfare system and block-voting so as to have huge influence on the issues they care about.

"Do you think there is a possibility that the high birth rates will collapse?"

I think it's unlikely to happen before they are the majority of the population. (Of course this kind of exponential growth almost certainly has to end sooner or later.)

It seems to me that perhaps the biggest change in our evolutionary environment is that nowadays, people can generally speaking reproduce as much or as little as they want. Under such circumstances, it is almost inevitable that the population will come to be dominated by people who (1) think it's a good idea to reproduce like crazy; and (2) think it's a good idea to pass this idea along to their children.

By the way, I don't engage with "Insider" due to his past dishonesty.

Black_Rose,

"Would you consider using selective-androgen receptor modulators?"

No, too many unknowns, too difficult to obtain, not as effective as anabolics.

Alex,

"So, just out of curiosity, what were your levels before hand, and do you think that your current levels (after exogenous) are higher than your maximum level during puberty?

My levels were normal-high before starting out. When I cycle, total testosterone is higher (~2,300 ng/dL) than even the highest naturals (~1,100 ng/dL).

"It's a very small correlation, which can be explained by the fact that smart people tend to flock to big cities like NYC or San Fran where salaries are higher, and the rest of the effect is simply because high-IQ people are more likely to get educational credentials that give them a slightly higher salary."

In the Terman sample everybody has an IQ of 140 or more, so those factors you mention are not relevant there.

"I do happen to be a man, but what difference does it make? It's not like I'm trying to use my sex to add credibility to my arguments. Let's stipulate for the sake of argument that I'm a girl. So what?" - sabril


I definitely think you're female. I suspect you cover it up because you want to fit in and not have anyone give you a hard time or otherwise discredit you due to your gender. It's not relevant here but in past discussions it has been. Don't bother to ask when and where since I don't bookmark threads. The next time it's relevant I'll inform you not that you care what I think.


"How old are you? Even in the last 30 years, video cameras have gone from clunky and expensive to cheap and so small that they are a standard feature in portable cell phones. This trend has already had a significant impact on police work." sabril


We're nearing the end of progress for a variety of reasons. If you have faith in the "diverse" police force of the 21st century you're gonna be in for a surprise. Nothing but dykes, hippopotamus women, and NAMs, if you live in a major city. Keep in mind with new tech comes more sophisticated crime as well. Cops and robbers will always be evenly matched. It's really DNA testing that's tipped the scales more so than anything else.

Great observations. The scary part is that there is no mechanism to stop what you are talking about. Productivity will continue to increase. Support for redistribution is at all-time highs.

If you want to imagine the future, just imagine less and less consequences for women getting banged by alphas, and ever-more redistribution away from sexless beta males to pay for their spawn.

HS your posts get too many comments. Have you thought of upgrading your comment system to one with reply trees?

"As for IQ upgrades in adults, we would not only have to be able to edit DNA code extensively (remember, many genes all across the genome), but we would have to be able to deliver the revised code to a large number of cells. And we can't allow too many or too severe screw-ups. I expect that all of this will happen some day, but it's not close at hand. Even 50 years seems optimistic."

That's probably an over-statement. Lets remember that genes code proteins. If you know what genes cause intelligence, then you must have some idea about what proteins are related to high cognitive function. Maybe it won't be as good as changing the genes themselves, but we may be able to effectively create drugs or therapies that improve mental function.

"Standard IQ tests beyond the normal range start to become "noisy" measurements. As someone else mentioned many Nobel prize winners have measured IQs around 130.

Do you really believe that the standard Nobel prize winner only ranks in the 98th percentile of intelligence? Or is a better explanation of IQ that the tests aren't designed to measure at the tail very well."

Yes, just as I could believe that many Cy Young Award winners don't average 94+ mph on their fastballs, just as Cliff Lee did in the AL in 2008 when his fastball only averaged 91 mph (perhaps equivalent to an IQ of 135). Fastball velocity is a nice metaphor for g since like g is regarded to be talent that could not be trained and coached.

"To add misery to scarcity, at +2 or +3 SD IQ you are quite bright enough to understand why you don't get along very well with most (84+% of) people (you and they bore each other-- you don't want to talk about their favorite TV shows and they don't want to talk about the cool new paper you found in PNAS), AND you are bright enough to realize you are not a genius like W.D. Hamilton or someone-- in fact, you will likely have met some very smart people at college and (if you are male) you will suffer envy and shame that you are smart enough to hang around with them but not smart enough to compete."

You sound like me, although I am not at a 1440 on the old SAT, but on the new SAT. I am not three sigma, but as an autistic, I also possess some non-g cognitive gifts that augment a 2.0-2.5 SD g nicely, namely memory and passionate interest in intellectual subjects, although I lack the psychomotor component to be competent in a laboratory. Most of my knowledge is conceptual and concrete to have any practical value in the labor market, and I lack the requisite social skills and academic pedigree to get the connections to get a good jobs. Yes, I like to read scientific journal articles, too, and the general population isn't in reading scientific literature (or having an in depth understanding in any scientific topic, but still too broad and shallow to professional scientists who devote their careers to research) and I am largely introverted; at home, I mostly using my free time to exercise, read papers on a variety of scientific and non-scientific topics, and watch televised baseball games, and if I go out on walks, I go a church to say Five Decades. I sometimes joke to myself that I went to an Ivy, I would not be some meek, insecure, socially incompetent, single, autistic girl saying Rosaries (I converted after College), but I would be fucking a John Galt who went to an elite school. I feel like I am the patron saint of mediocrity, yet I don't feel miserable and I would most certainly not trade my lot in life to be a blissful prole (similar to JS Mills' satisfied pig).

"The scary part is that there is no mechanism to stop what you are talking about."

There is one. Its existence defies historical inevitability. It waits in slumber, an anomalous artifact of our particular age, holding immense potential power.

"Don't bother to ask when and where since I don't bookmark threads. "

i.e. you have no interest in actually backing up your claims.

"We're nearing the end of progress for a variety of reasons."

Dare I ask you to summarize those reasons?

And do you seriously believe that video cameras will not get much smaller and cheaper?

"Nothing but dykes, hippopotamus women, and NAMs,"

You're making the same mistake as HS of seizing upon one trend and assuming it will be the most important.

I have little doubt that -- all things being equal -- the overall competency of the police will decline to the extent that blacks, hispanics, and women enter the police force and rise through the ranks.

But there are other trends in play too. Even technology halts tomorrow, the percentage of the population which is super-observant Christian or Jewish is rising at a dramatic rate. These people are likely to end up with a lot of influence over government policy.

On this one, you're wrong on some important points:

"But liberals are completely wrong. Poverty is about low IQ, low future-time orientation, and bad values. The first item on the list is all about genes: people are born with low IQ and there’s not much you can do about it. I suspect that low future-time orientation also has a large genetic component, but I think it’s possible that it can be raised with proper training. Values are, by definition, learned attitudes and behaviors."

No, values are not "learned attitudes and behaviors" by definition. ALL of these are impacted by heredity, including values and attitudes (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/06/heritability-of-behavioral-traits/ ). Of the share of the variance in these things that cannot be attributed to heredity, socialization by peers seems to be to blame. In other words *parent aren't in the equation anywhere*.

"But poor people’s behavior doesn’t improve when their ability to survive is delinked from work. The need to work in order to survived enforced a certain amount of discipline and middle-class values on the poor, and that is being taken away...The delinking of work from survival has also changed the breeding habits of the poor. In the past, poor women needed to find a husband to help support their children. But now, with state support, poor women have sex with alpha males and give out-of-wedlock birth to their alpha-male spawn."

This is more of a result of the sexual revolution than it is of welfare. Marriage is simply not a prerequisite for sex. That's never going to change. Sure, if you took welfare away, the poor would die in greater numbers, but not without wreaking tons of havoc in the process in order to survive. That would create a *bigger* incentive to misbehave that no threat of punishment could deter (since it would be steal or die). The behavior of the poor would eventually improve, but this would purely through the eugenic effect the poor dying off.

The "values" train is a lost cause, but I understand that it's one HBD'ers hold on to because eugenics is a political impossibility.

'That means bright people have more trouble finding friends.'

Only because bright people tend to have attitudes that are bad for social interaction---and there's no need for them to have those attitudes.

'By the way, I don't engage with "Insider" due to his past dishonesty.'

I've never been dishonest with you. I've only called you out when your 'socratic' questioning has just served to answer questions unnecessary to the underlying discussion. Rather than confront the concept of irrelevance, you claimed dishonesty instead.

'Do you really believe that the standard Nobel prize winner only ranks in the 98th percentile of intelligence?'

Not necessarily, only that winning a Nobel Prize is quite possible with an IQ above the 98th percentile. Something like the Nobel Prize is a function of work...

'the percentage of the population which is super-observant Christian or Jewish is rising at a dramatic rate'

Speaking of having no interest in backing up claims....

Insider, it takes two to make a friendship. Very few people can sustain a friendship over a 2 SD IQ gap, because of mutual boredom plus envy one way and scorn the other. This is not an attitude problem, but even if it were, two people would need attitude adjustments, not just one.

I disagree that there is a general increased trend of crime and violence. "The Better Angels of Our Nature" talks about how violence is likely at its lowest point in human history. I think this is due to various societal changes such as information technology and surveillance.

'Insider, it takes two to make a friendship. Very few people can sustain a friendship over a 2 SD IQ gap, because of mutual boredom plus envy one way and scorn the other'

I see this asserted a lot without much to back it up. Even the smartest individual can appreciate carefree laughs and the feelings that social bonding gives. Plenty of people with 130+ IQ's are socially successful.

"Lets remember that genes code proteins... Maybe it won't be as good as changing the genes themselves, but we may be able to effectively create drugs or therapies that improve mental function. "

Alex,

Perhaps, but that brings up a couple of other issues. Some of the differences in the the component of IQ related to heredity are likely to be due to differences in non-coding regulatory regions that effect gene expression and make the role of candidate genes harder to unravel. Differences in intelligence may also reflect synergistic effects of interactions among multiple proteins coded by genes, which again is difficult to model. Lastly, to what extent is brain structure (e.g. thickness of cortical grey matter, etc.) malleable in adulthood? Some of those genes are coding for proteins that affect developmental sequence leading to establishment of brain architecture. If that is an important component of intelligence (and there are reasons to think that anatomic features might be important given the correlation between brain size and intelligence), then any ability to boost it would require that it be malleable. We don't really know at this point.

@Janon - it's much more than just brain size.

Quote:
================
The most striking finding is that g has structural and functional correlates across the entire brain: volume of white matter, grey matter, and total brain; white matter lesions, organization, and integrity; rate of cerebral glucose metabolism and nerve conduction velocity; various characteristics of resting EEG and average evoked potentials; and much more (Colom & Thompson, this volume; Deary, Penke, & Johnson, 2010). General intelligence represents a distributed network, not isolated modules in the brain, and research is now apace to trace task performance in real-time as it recruits different parts of the brain (Jung & Haier, 2007). Studies have used a mish-mash of tests, some more g-loaded than others or capturing more non-g variance, which makes the ubiquity of correlates all the more impressive.

As Jensen (1998) has suggested, the g factor is so thoroughly enmeshed in brain physiology that it may actually represent a property of the brain as a whole, for instance, its overall efficiency (capacity, speed, integration) or integrity (resilience, developmental stability), rather than an ability as we usually think of them. The pattern of phenotypic covariation between g and brain attributes seems to be reflected in genetic covariation as well. Many specific aspects of brain structure and function are 70% to 90% heritable, and genetic influences on intelligence that are shared across brain regions are stronger than those specific to any one region (Deary, Penke, & Johnson, 2010). Revealing additional consilience across bodies of research, Deary, Johnson, and Houlihan (2009) note that age-related patterns of heritability in brain structure suggest a partial explanation for the age-related rise in the heritability of g.
================

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2010inequality.pdf

Bad Santa,

Thanks for that interesting link. I think it suggests that the intelligence puzzle is so complex that it isn't going to be amenable to a quick fix like a simple drug or even "simple" genetic engineering in the future. Neuroscience and intelligence research are fascinating areas of inquiry to which I wish I had paid more attention when I was in school.

"Dare I ask you to summarize those reasons?" - sabrill


Author asserts America has technologically plateaued and all the low hanging fruit is gone. He's an economist so he doesn't even take into account the destructive social trends discussed here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_93CXTt2K7c

"HS talks a lot about how blacks are so alpha; if that's the case, why is the bi-racial population still so small? Most unmarried white women still have racist preferences in mating."

It's bigger than you think. Consider this: how many surveys and applications list "bi-racial" as a category?" And even if they did, most bi-racials wind up identifying as black. They simply add to the "black" category.

> I disagree that there is a general increased trend of crime and violence. "The Better Angels of Our Nature" talks about how violence is likely at its lowest point in human history. I think this is due to various societal changes such as information technology and surveillance.

Pinker is a load of moldy bananas. He cooks his data, for example comparing centuries of slave trade world wide, with particular democides narrowly defined over small areas and short times. He compares the genocides of the entire old testament, which covers several thousand years, with the genocides of the twentieth century.

Violence has increased, steadily and substantially. http://blog.jim.com/culture/pinker-on-violence.html

The comments to this entry are closed.