3 ms·

What's the reason for thinking the gains are unbounded? AFAICT we could reasonably suppose something like 50 IQ points is within reach via embryo selection, but

What's the reason for thinking the gains are unbounded? AFAICT we could reasonably suppose something like 50 IQ points is within reach via embryo selection, but what would a something like a 300 IQ even mean, and even if it does mean something tangible, why should we assume that's biologically reachable in the same way that a 150 IQ would be?

gwern 9y ago
Since historical estimates of figures like von Neumann or Sidis are more like +70-100 points, I would add at least 20 to that as the lower bound on the upper bound. Since such people existed, at least that much must be possible. Of course, there's no way to definitively prove there's any potential to reach above that short of the existence proof of actually creating such people, but there's a lot of considerations which point to much more being possible: many complex traits have been pushed by selective breeding by many SDs, no one has ever been remotely close to genetically optimal and humans are minimally selected for intelligence, there's a large mutation load in terms of gene breakage, absolute measures of cognitive functioning like vocab size or digit span or reaction time generally show humans are nowhere near limits, brain scaling laws do not put humans at near any 0 marginal returns point, etc. Even if there really is a bound at +100 and being able to increase IQ that much doesn't impress you for some reason, then you can simply spend your selection power on selecting for everything else... I shouldn't need to point out that many other traits are very important aside from intelligence.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  When you wrote "largely unbounded gains" I thought not only in terms of genetic potential but also the impact on science / technology / society / culture this would likely have. Pulling numbers out of a hat here: if we could have even, say, 0.015% of the global population, approximately 1 million people, with an IQ of ~200, the effects on the evolution of knowledge could be staggering.
  - Retric 9y ago
    If you look at actual people with 190+ IQ's their contributions are generally minor. We estimate that historic people that did great things had very high IQ's but that's our biases talking. EX: Garry Kasparov is often said to have a sky high IQ but he tested at 135. He did however have an unusually good memory.
    - kbenson 9y ago
      Do we even know whether IQ is all that comprehensive a test of the different aspects of intelligence? Memory obviously plays a large role in many ways.
      - gwern 9y ago
        But IQ tests are affected by memory, quite a bit. Memory tests are in fact some of the best ways to measure intelligence, like backwards digit span. Unsurprisingly, the genetics of memory and IQ overlap as do lots of other cognitive traits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_correlation#Intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_correlation#Intelligen...).
        kbenson 9y ago
        Lol, I'll take your word as a good authority, and read up. I imagine you've looked into it more than the average person... ;)
baybal2 9y ago
>if it does mean something tangible, why should we assume that's biologically reachable in the same way that a 150 IQ would be? For that, consider the case of distinguished mathematicians who did not score high on IQ like tests.

gwern 9y ago

Since historical estimates of figures like von Neumann or Sidis are more like +70-100 points, I would add at least 20 to that as the lower bound on the upper bound. Since such people existed, at least that much must be possible. Of course, there's no way to definitively prove there's any potential to reach above that short of the existence proof of actually creating such people, but there's a lot of considerations which point to much more being possible: many complex traits have been pushed by selective breeding by many SDs, no one has ever been remotely close to genetically optimal and humans are minimally selected for intelligence, there's a large mutation load in terms of gene breakage, absolute measures of cognitive functioning like vocab size or digit span or reaction time generally show humans are nowhere near limits, brain scaling laws do not put humans at near any 0 marginal returns point, etc. Even if there really is a bound at +100 and being able to increase IQ that much doesn't impress you for some reason, then you can simply spend your selection power on selecting for everything else... I shouldn't need to point out that many other traits are very important aside from intelligence.

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
When you wrote "largely unbounded gains" I thought not only in terms of genetic potential but also the impact on science / technology / society / culture this would likely have. Pulling numbers out of a hat here: if we could have even, say, 0.015% of the global population, approximately 1 million people, with an IQ of ~200, the effects on the evolution of knowledge could be staggering.
- Retric 9y ago
  If you look at actual people with 190+ IQ's their contributions are generally minor. We estimate that historic people that did great things had very high IQ's but that's our biases talking. EX: Garry Kasparov is often said to have a sky high IQ but he tested at 135. He did however have an unusually good memory.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    Do we even know whether IQ is all that comprehensive a test of the different aspects of intelligence? Memory obviously plays a large role in many ways.
    - gwern 9y ago
      But IQ tests are affected by memory, quite a bit. Memory tests are in fact some of the best ways to measure intelligence, like backwards digit span. Unsurprisingly, the genetics of memory and IQ overlap as do lots of other cognitive traits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_correlation#Intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_correlation#Intelligen...).
      - kbenson 9y ago
        Lol, I'll take your word as a good authority, and read up. I imagine you've looked into it more than the average person... ;)

baybal2 9y ago

>if it does mean something tangible, why should we assume that's biologically reachable in the same way that a 150 IQ would be? For that, consider the case of distinguished mathematicians who did not score high on IQ like tests.