Yes, I understand all that (and have talked about and mentioned g in other comments in this thread). The point is, what's "improving intelligence"? It's somet

Yes, I understand all that (and have talked about and mentioned g in other comments in this thread). The point is, what's "improving intelligence"? It's something that we have a hard time quantifying on a linear, agreed axis. As you point out, IQ scores are a somewhat flawed measure of g, which itself is a somewhat handwavy observation of a underlying factor that is a strong correlate to human performance in a broad set of areas. And even if you could put that human performance in a linear measure, there's still a question of how you value different changes in that distribution. Which is better-- raising everyone by .1 standard deviations, or boosting a few people near the top by 1 standard deviation?