3 ms·

Humans today are vastly superior in intelligence to humans centuries ago. Physical fitness, maybe not. Anyway, why be depressed? Would Columbus be depressed

by PakG1 8y ago

Humans today are vastly superior in intelligence to humans centuries ago. Physical fitness, maybe not. Anyway, why be depressed? Would Columbus be depressed to know that if he had lived a few centuries later, he could have just flown around the world on a plane instead of going on his big adventure to confirm his big claim? The guy got to go on an adventure that he firmly believed in. Be content with who you are and where you are, and find your calling to go farther and higher if you can't be content. Just... no reason to be depressed.

wallace_f 8y ago
How are you defining intelligence here? Today we have the benefit of knowledge and training. Do we have more innate intellectual horsepower? Speaking of more horsepower, could manufactured eugenics come at a cost of unintended side effects? How would we be benchmarking horsepower? Would we have the foresight to know some improvements would come at a cost of others? Would an intellectual arms race sacrifice traits such as altruism or curiosity or creativity for more easily measurable traits?
- PakG1 8y ago
  It's better for you to reply to the parent, rather than me. I was simply discussing the absurdity of being depressed at missing out on the future, not the validity, ethics, or consequences of modifying intelligence.
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    My first sentence was a direct reply to your statement about relative intelligence over generations.
- jaredklewis 8y ago
  > Do we have more innate intellectual horsepower? It seems very likely. Though not from genetic improvements. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    Take that with a grain of salt. According to IQ scores, the average person in the 1930s was within one standard deviation of litetally being retarded, and when Feynman was alive, he was a mere two standard deviations above the norm. Personally I dont believe IQ correlates with g. And anyways, how can you even define g in the first place, let alone IQ? There seems to be some colloquial tautology here: Ddoing so by defining it as IQ, then testing for IQ and calling that g. It is ridiculous. From Wikipedia: >Ulric Neisser estimated that using the IQ values of 1997, the average IQ of the United States in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80. Neisser states that "Hardly any of them would have scored 'very superior', but nearly one-quarter would have appeared to be 'deficient.'" He also wrote that "Test scores are certainly going up all over the world, but whether intelligence itself has risen remains controversial."
  - akvadrako 8y ago
    The Flynn effect seems to have been more of a short term thing and is now reversing in some countries.

by PakG1 8y ago

wallace_f 8y ago

How are you defining intelligence here? Today we have the benefit of knowledge and training. Do we have more innate intellectual horsepower? Speaking of more horsepower, could manufactured eugenics come at a cost of unintended side effects? How would we be benchmarking horsepower? Would we have the foresight to know some improvements would come at a cost of others? Would an intellectual arms race sacrifice traits such as altruism or curiosity or creativity for more easily measurable traits?

PakG1 8y ago
It's better for you to reply to the parent, rather than me. I was simply discussing the absurdity of being depressed at missing out on the future, not the validity, ethics, or consequences of modifying intelligence.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  My first sentence was a direct reply to your statement about relative intelligence over generations.
jaredklewis 8y ago
> Do we have more innate intellectual horsepower? It seems very likely. Though not from genetic improvements. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
- wallace_f 8y ago
  Take that with a grain of salt. According to IQ scores, the average person in the 1930s was within one standard deviation of litetally being retarded, and when Feynman was alive, he was a mere two standard deviations above the norm. Personally I dont believe IQ correlates with g. And anyways, how can you even define g in the first place, let alone IQ? There seems to be some colloquial tautology here: Ddoing so by defining it as IQ, then testing for IQ and calling that g. It is ridiculous. From Wikipedia: >Ulric Neisser estimated that using the IQ values of 1997, the average IQ of the United States in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80. Neisser states that "Hardly any of them would have scored 'very superior', but nearly one-quarter would have appeared to be 'deficient.'" He also wrote that "Test scores are certainly going up all over the world, but whether intelligence itself has risen remains controversial."
- akvadrako 8y ago
  The Flynn effect seems to have been more of a short term thing and is now reversing in some countries.