4 ms·

It is paradoxical to suppose that high intelligence people might have less reproductive success Maybe you mean counterintuitive? Here is one plausible argumen

It is paradoxical to suppose that high intelligence people might have less reproductive success Maybe you mean counterintuitive? Here is one plausible argument: "Reproductive success" depends first on making other people like you and second on taking very good care of your children. It's hard to see how deep analytical insight would make either task much easier, especially given that so much of sex and child-rearing runs on simple, emotional scripts. On the other hand, tautology is possible if you're prepared to argue that intelligence causes a person to be significantly more popular, likable, and conscientious, it's hard to imagine positive mental traits that wouldn't be due to intelligence. In that case, all you're saying is that "success is caused by the agglomeration of factors that collectively cause success."

tokenadult 17y ago
Maybe you mean counterintuitive? Thank you for the suggestion on word choice. I hang around a lot with individual differences psychologists, so I'm used to hearing rather broad claims of what IQ ("psychometric intelligence") means. To some people, it is taken to mean general adaptive ability. But what would an organism adapt to if not overcoming challenges to reproducing, under selection pressure? But, yes, if what IQ tests estimate is something narrower than David Wechsler's claimed general ability to adapt to the environment, it is understandable that some high-IQ people never even get to first base in the biological task of reproduction.
- mnemonicsloth 17y ago
  But what would an organism adapt to if not overcoming challenges to reproducing, under selection pressure? Our minds -- whose involuntary emotional reactions drive our behavior and impart to us many of our basic values -- are evolved. Evolution tinkers, reuses, never redesigns or reorganizes. So instead of pushing us toward the single, monolithic goal of having children, we experience constant nudging to do things that are conducive to reproductive success. Support yourself. Be well-liked. Have sex. Love your children. Achieve status. In slogan form: evolution's instrumental values are humanity's terminal values. So to answer your question, we act to make ourselves happy, and what makes us happy approximates what is good for the next generation. There are gaps, though. Some people to focus on their careers to the exclusion of family, and contraception doesn't engender the same reaction as eating rancid meat. I tend to think this is a good thing, but I'm status-quo biased and my values are largely a product of the current arrangement, so that's unsurprising.

tokenadult 17y ago

Maybe you mean counterintuitive? Thank you for the suggestion on word choice. I hang around a lot with individual differences psychologists, so I'm used to hearing rather broad claims of what IQ ("psychometric intelligence") means. To some people, it is taken to mean general adaptive ability. But what would an organism adapt to if not overcoming challenges to reproducing, under selection pressure? But, yes, if what IQ tests estimate is something narrower than David Wechsler's claimed general ability to adapt to the environment, it is understandable that some high-IQ people never even get to first base in the biological task of reproduction.

mnemonicsloth 17y ago
But what would an organism adapt to if not overcoming challenges to reproducing, under selection pressure? Our minds -- whose involuntary emotional reactions drive our behavior and impart to us many of our basic values -- are evolved. Evolution tinkers, reuses, never redesigns or reorganizes. So instead of pushing us toward the single, monolithic goal of having children, we experience constant nudging to do things that are conducive to reproductive success. Support yourself. Be well-liked. Have sex. Love your children. Achieve status. In slogan form: evolution's instrumental values are humanity's terminal values. So to answer your question, we act to make ourselves happy, and what makes us happy approximates what is good for the next generation. There are gaps, though. Some people to focus on their careers to the exclusion of family, and contraception doesn't engender the same reaction as eating rancid meat. I tend to think this is a good thing, but I'm status-quo biased and my values are largely a product of the current arrangement, so that's unsurprising.