5 ms·

Has humanity reached ‘peak intelligence’?

30 points by sonabinu 7y ago

wolph 7y ago
I would argue that intelligence (as is muscle mass for example) is dependent on the need, and hence, training for it. If your life is simple and repetitive, why focus on getting smarter as it will probably make you bored more easily. Similarly, if you do physical work all day your muscles are bound to adapt.
- cheerlessbog 7y ago
  Your cleverness is likely to be oriented at other matters such as hunting and avoiding being hunted.
im3w1l 7y ago
Welfare systems are dysgenic, but we will be able to genetically engineer ourselves out of it before it becomes a serious issue. The notion that time scales are too short for evolution to be involved is not true. Some evolutionary effects can happen very quickly. The prevalence of an existing trait within a population can change quickly, if it's highly heritable, and the selection is strong.
- lsd5you 7y ago
  but we will be able to genetically engineer ourselves out of it before it becomes a serious issue. What is your level of uncertainty regarding this? It would seem to be merely a possibility, especially if we undershoot due to falling intelligence levels ...
  - cma 7y ago
    Even ignoring engineering, there is already preimplantation genetic screening with in vitro fertilization to screen out chromosomes with known heritable defects.
RyanAF7 7y ago
SEO fake crap.
js8 7y ago
No. The Internet, social networks and other distractions actually cause a slight decrease in intelligence due to shortening of the attention span. So if we fix the problem with the attention span, we can increase intelligence even further, I believe.
geowwy 7y ago
> Even the average person today would have been considered a genius compared to someone born in 1919 If you didn't already suspect that IQ is a load of crap, this sentence should tip you off. Can you really imagine a 100 IQ person being haled as a genius 100 years ago?
- lsd5you 7y ago
  IQ being 'a load of crap' doesn't follow from some journalists glib (and incorrect) claim. What is more, if it were true and the IQ differences were such that todays average measured as a genius then, if you were to witness someone ace the test, you could reasonably hail them a genius at least in the colloquial sense.
  - 0x8BADF00D 7y ago
    IQ simply measures general intelligence. How intelligence is measured when there is artificial general intelligence will be interesting.
- flukus 7y ago
  The Flynn Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect) is well known and a 100 IQ person toady may well have been considered as a genius by a significant number of people back then: > 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." Is it really that hard to imagine modern nutrition, abundance and education has produced smarter people compared to a group that ate bread and dripping for dinner and left school at 14 and had an education even more focused on rote memorization?
- onion2k 7y ago
  I wonder if this is a case of people abusing the word 'genius' more than a statement about the average IQ. When we think of a genius from the past it's usually someone like Einstein or Feynman. When people use the word today it's more often someone like Zuckerberg or TV celebrity.
olefoo 7y ago
Just a hypothesis, but often intelligence is a proxy for the mental and social stimulus a child is exposed to in their formative years. So you would expect that to grow and then taper off as the useful limit of childhood well-being is reached. Since childhood enrichment is heavily indexed to wealth in most couuntries...
ycombonator 7y ago
Yes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxzlq8DoXBw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxzlq8DoXBw
beambot 7y ago
And it will get worse, as intelligence is negatively impacted by CO2 concentration too: https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive-elevated-co2-levels-directly-affect-human-cognition-new-harvard-study-shows-2748e7378941/ https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive-elevated-co2-levels-dire...
alexashka 7y ago
We haven't even scratched the surface. It's not average intelligence that matters, it's how many outliers are we getting. Outliers make scientific break-throughs that trickle down to the masses. That's what matters. We're in the best spot of all time in terms of number of outliers, simply due to the population being the highest ever. Now it's a matter of realizing that potential.
delhanty 7y ago
As the intelligence (rather than the wisdom) of the network (i.e. the whole of humanity connected by the internet) goes up, wouldn't one naively expect the intelligence of individual average human to go down? (Like social insects - ants/bees/wasps.) I seem to recall somewhere an article about how native Australian hunter-gatherers had very highly developed memories to track animals through the bush. Not so necessary now - just ask Google Maps where to go. Also, as elsewhere in this thread - I agree, IQ is a fraud.
- trophycase 7y ago
  Yes I've theorized humans are evolving to be eusocial before our eyes. Essentially the "knowledge" is being transferred into the structure of the system itself rather than dispersed amongst humans.
papito 7y ago
Look at the absolute intellectual-curiosity-free morons the masses are electing to lead us across the world. We are past that point.

30 points by sonabinu 7y ago

I would argue that intelligence (as is muscle mass for example) is dependent on the need, and hence, training for it. If your life is simple and repetitive, why focus on getting smarter as it will probably make you bored more easily. Similarly, if you do physical work all day your muscles are bound to adapt.

cheerlessbog 7y ago
Your cleverness is likely to be oriented at other matters such as hunting and avoiding being hunted.

im3w1l 7y ago

Welfare systems are dysgenic, but we will be able to genetically engineer ourselves out of it before it becomes a serious issue. The notion that time scales are too short for evolution to be involved is not true. Some evolutionary effects can happen very quickly. The prevalence of an existing trait within a population can change quickly, if it's highly heritable, and the selection is strong.

lsd5you 7y ago
but we will be able to genetically engineer ourselves out of it before it becomes a serious issue. What is your level of uncertainty regarding this? It would seem to be merely a possibility, especially if we undershoot due to falling intelligence levels ...
- cma 7y ago
  Even ignoring engineering, there is already preimplantation genetic screening with in vitro fertilization to screen out chromosomes with known heritable defects.

RyanAF7 7y ago

SEO fake crap.

js8 7y ago

No. The Internet, social networks and other distractions actually cause a slight decrease in intelligence due to shortening of the attention span. So if we fix the problem with the attention span, we can increase intelligence even further, I believe.

geowwy 7y ago

> Even the average person today would have been considered a genius compared to someone born in 1919 If you didn't already suspect that IQ is a load of crap, this sentence should tip you off. Can you really imagine a 100 IQ person being haled as a genius 100 years ago?

lsd5you 7y ago
IQ being 'a load of crap' doesn't follow from some journalists glib (and incorrect) claim. What is more, if it were true and the IQ differences were such that todays average measured as a genius then, if you were to witness someone ace the test, you could reasonably hail them a genius at least in the colloquial sense.
- 0x8BADF00D 7y ago
  IQ simply measures general intelligence. How intelligence is measured when there is artificial general intelligence will be interesting.
flukus 7y ago
The Flynn Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect) is well known and a 100 IQ person toady may well have been considered as a genius by a significant number of people back then: > 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." Is it really that hard to imagine modern nutrition, abundance and education has produced smarter people compared to a group that ate bread and dripping for dinner and left school at 14 and had an education even more focused on rote memorization?
onion2k 7y ago
I wonder if this is a case of people abusing the word 'genius' more than a statement about the average IQ. When we think of a genius from the past it's usually someone like Einstein or Feynman. When people use the word today it's more often someone like Zuckerberg or TV celebrity.

olefoo 7y ago

Just a hypothesis, but often intelligence is a proxy for the mental and social stimulus a child is exposed to in their formative years. So you would expect that to grow and then taper off as the useful limit of childhood well-being is reached. Since childhood enrichment is heavily indexed to wealth in most couuntries...

ycombonator 7y ago

Yes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxzlq8DoXBw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxzlq8DoXBw

beambot 7y ago

And it will get worse, as intelligence is negatively impacted by CO2 concentration too: https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive-elevated-co2-levels-directly-affect-human-cognition-new-harvard-study-shows-2748e7378941/ https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive-elevated-co2-levels-dire...

alexashka 7y ago

We haven't even scratched the surface. It's not average intelligence that matters, it's how many outliers are we getting. Outliers make scientific break-throughs that trickle down to the masses. That's what matters. We're in the best spot of all time in terms of number of outliers, simply due to the population being the highest ever. Now it's a matter of realizing that potential.

delhanty 7y ago

As the intelligence (rather than the wisdom) of the network (i.e. the whole of humanity connected by the internet) goes up, wouldn't one naively expect the intelligence of individual average human to go down? (Like social insects - ants/bees/wasps.) I seem to recall somewhere an article about how native Australian hunter-gatherers had very highly developed memories to track animals through the bush. Not so necessary now - just ask Google Maps where to go. Also, as elsewhere in this thread - I agree, IQ is a fraud.

trophycase 7y ago
Yes I've theorized humans are evolving to be eusocial before our eyes. Essentially the "knowledge" is being transferred into the structure of the system itself rather than dispersed amongst humans.

papito 7y ago

Look at the absolute intellectual-curiosity-free morons the masses are electing to lead us across the world. We are past that point.