14 ms·

Honest question that keeps bothering me. In the absence of reasonably strong natural selection pressure to select for IQ, how could IQ not be falling over time

Honest question that keeps bothering me. In the absence of reasonably strong natural selection pressure to select for IQ, how could IQ not be falling over time?

Havoc 3y ago
Why would it fall? Steady seems just as fair an expectation in absence of pressure either way
- globalreset 3y ago
  Because the chance of random mutation to increase an IQ (or improve anything whatsoever) is far smaller than to lower it (or degrade anything). Change randomly a random line of code in any source code, and tell me how often it happens to work better than before.
- walkhour 3y ago
  Same reason animals living in darkness lose their sight. There's a cost to keeping the hardware, and no rewards.
runarberg 3y ago
It is not. IQ doesn’t measure a kind of intelligence which inherits, and is subject to natural selection (there is even a debate whether such intelligence exists; or at least is of any significant between individuals). IQ at best measures something that correlates with SAT. And with better education, less exposure to damaging pollutants, etc. it should always be on the rise (as demonstrated by the Flynn effect; an effect which this poor paper desperately tries to refute). IQ research has always been about proving the superiority of one race over others, this superiority doesn’t exist, but that doesn’t stop these pseudo-scientist from trying. They bend the definition of “intelligence” and device test batteries (and in this case, interpret test battery) in skewed and bias ways to manipulate results like these. Regrettably media outlets like the Popular Mechanics and lifestyle journalists like Tim Newcomb take these researchers at their words and publish their results, despite their results pretty much being lies.
- faeriechangling 3y ago
  The heritability of IQ is very well established, usually estimated in the 50-80% range. You are fighting an uphill battle here because even if people haven’t seen the scientific evidence this effect is so strong that virtually everybody has seen anecdotal evidence of high IQ parents having high IQ children, but just seem to assert a very heterodox and counter-intuitive position without further elaboration. It is incredibly arguable if during an obesity crisis if population wide health is actually improving and if population wide health isn’t improving that could certainly contribute to lower IQ. We’re also seeing population wide declines of health in other ways like sperm count. Food is becoming less nutritious as soil depletes. Our fish stocks being about to collapse is going to be another hit against brain health as omega 3s will become rarer in the diet.
  - Apocryphon 3y ago
    Thoughts on this post on the accuracy of IQ? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29798887 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29798887
    - faeriechangling 3y ago
      I find it interesting because I did REALLY badly on oral tests. On the WISC-III I was doing extremely badly on the test until the examiner allowed me to write down my answers instead of giving them verbally and my measured IQ shot up like two standard deviations. I've been as far as 3 standard deviations apart in psychiatrist administered IQ tests, and my best and worst results in any given IQ test have also been about 3 standard deviations apart. My biggest theory is that I'm bottlenecked by how I both take in and communicate the information, I'm not very good at listening orally nor am I very good at communicating with my voice nor can I write very fast with a pencil. Not shockingly I was diagnosed with multiple learning disabilities and it's my opinion and the opinion of one psychologist I had that IQ testing is neither a reliable nor valid means of testing my intelligence. I think the point being made more generally about IQ tests testing the wrong things is very valid and I do agree with it, but it extends beyond just IQ testing, it also raises questions about standardised academic testing. What I will point out though that any rebalancing of IQ tests or standardised tests at this point is likely to become an intensely political affair because these tests are used to justify gatekeeping access to status and societal resources, and any new tests would necessarily be far worse researched than existing tests, so I wouldn't expect current IQ testing methodology to be upended any time soon.
robocat 3y ago
Some guesses for why there may be hidden selection pressure: Academics often stereotype “jocks” and high social status seekers as stupid. However, it often requires brains to succeed in sports and social interactions. But it is technically difficult to measure high “intuition”. I know some very very smart people that fail academically (I know they are smart because I see them achieve seemingly impossible outcomes, not because I have their skills). I strongly suspect that selecting for high non-academic skills will select for general intelligence. If one lacks skill X (e.g. the stereotypical nerd[1] with low social skills) then one usually lacks the ability to recognise people that are highly skilled in skill X (and worse often assumes the skill is useless or denigrates those with the skill or thinks they could be highly skilled if they wanted to). There could be bubbles of selection pressure - subgroups where high IQ leads to having more kids. So long as the subgroup intermingles, then there is a population level pressure for higher intellect. It is possible that unsmart people remove themselves from the gene pool before reproduction, or unsmart people reproduce less. One or two outlier smart men that have thousands of children could have a massive selection pressure. Are we not all descended from Ghengis Khan? Smartness has thousands of factors, and selection pressure on some hidden factors could easily have an outcome on general intelligence. [1] Counterpoint “Being smart seems to make you unpopular” implies popular people are not smart: http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
scarmig 3y ago
Conscientiousness and having long-term time horizons is dysgenic. People afflicted with those traits tend to reproduce less, and, to the extent that they're heritable, the genes coding them will gradually decrease in prevalence in the gene pool.
- faeriechangling 3y ago
  I’ve floated this idea before especially in the context of ADHD being framed as a disease because it has social costs, personal costs, and causes disruptive behavior. That may all be true but people with ADHD also have more unprotected sex and the vast majority of western society is wiping themselves out on account of not having enough unprotected sex to sustain themselves. It’s just that anything which interferes with utilitarianism and hedonism is framed as a disease.
- tptacek 3y ago
  That is not how heritability works; it's how genetic determination works, which is a separate concept.
snowwrestler 3y ago
In the absence of reasonably strong natural selection pressure to select for red hair, how could red hair not be disappearing over time? This is somewhat tongue in cheek, obviously. But to spell out my point, genetic inheritance is way more complex than most of the comments here are treating it. If you can’t confidently explain how people with brown hair can keep having red-headed kids, it might be challenging to understand why average parents can produce smart kids (or vice versa).

Honest question that keeps bothering me. In the absence of reasonably strong natural selection pressure to select for IQ, how could IQ not be falling over time?

Havoc 3y ago

Why would it fall? Steady seems just as fair an expectation in absence of pressure either way

globalreset 3y ago
Because the chance of random mutation to increase an IQ (or improve anything whatsoever) is far smaller than to lower it (or degrade anything). Change randomly a random line of code in any source code, and tell me how often it happens to work better than before.
walkhour 3y ago
Same reason animals living in darkness lose their sight. There's a cost to keeping the hardware, and no rewards.

runarberg 3y ago

It is not. IQ doesn’t measure a kind of intelligence which inherits, and is subject to natural selection (there is even a debate whether such intelligence exists; or at least is of any significant between individuals). IQ at best measures something that correlates with SAT. And with better education, less exposure to damaging pollutants, etc. it should always be on the rise (as demonstrated by the Flynn effect; an effect which this poor paper desperately tries to refute). IQ research has always been about proving the superiority of one race over others, this superiority doesn’t exist, but that doesn’t stop these pseudo-scientist from trying. They bend the definition of “intelligence” and device test batteries (and in this case, interpret test battery) in skewed and bias ways to manipulate results like these. Regrettably media outlets like the Popular Mechanics and lifestyle journalists like Tim Newcomb take these researchers at their words and publish their results, despite their results pretty much being lies.

faeriechangling 3y ago
The heritability of IQ is very well established, usually estimated in the 50-80% range. You are fighting an uphill battle here because even if people haven’t seen the scientific evidence this effect is so strong that virtually everybody has seen anecdotal evidence of high IQ parents having high IQ children, but just seem to assert a very heterodox and counter-intuitive position without further elaboration. It is incredibly arguable if during an obesity crisis if population wide health is actually improving and if population wide health isn’t improving that could certainly contribute to lower IQ. We’re also seeing population wide declines of health in other ways like sperm count. Food is becoming less nutritious as soil depletes. Our fish stocks being about to collapse is going to be another hit against brain health as omega 3s will become rarer in the diet.
- Apocryphon 3y ago
  Thoughts on this post on the accuracy of IQ? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29798887 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29798887
  - faeriechangling 3y ago
    I find it interesting because I did REALLY badly on oral tests. On the WISC-III I was doing extremely badly on the test until the examiner allowed me to write down my answers instead of giving them verbally and my measured IQ shot up like two standard deviations. I've been as far as 3 standard deviations apart in psychiatrist administered IQ tests, and my best and worst results in any given IQ test have also been about 3 standard deviations apart. My biggest theory is that I'm bottlenecked by how I both take in and communicate the information, I'm not very good at listening orally nor am I very good at communicating with my voice nor can I write very fast with a pencil. Not shockingly I was diagnosed with multiple learning disabilities and it's my opinion and the opinion of one psychologist I had that IQ testing is neither a reliable nor valid means of testing my intelligence. I think the point being made more generally about IQ tests testing the wrong things is very valid and I do agree with it, but it extends beyond just IQ testing, it also raises questions about standardised academic testing. What I will point out though that any rebalancing of IQ tests or standardised tests at this point is likely to become an intensely political affair because these tests are used to justify gatekeeping access to status and societal resources, and any new tests would necessarily be far worse researched than existing tests, so I wouldn't expect current IQ testing methodology to be upended any time soon.

robocat 3y ago

Some guesses for why there may be hidden selection pressure: Academics often stereotype “jocks” and high social status seekers as stupid. However, it often requires brains to succeed in sports and social interactions. But it is technically difficult to measure high “intuition”. I know some very very smart people that fail academically (I know they are smart because I see them achieve seemingly impossible outcomes, not because I have their skills). I strongly suspect that selecting for high non-academic skills will select for general intelligence. If one lacks skill X (e.g. the stereotypical nerd[1] with low social skills) then one usually lacks the ability to recognise people that are highly skilled in skill X (and worse often assumes the skill is useless or denigrates those with the skill or thinks they could be highly skilled if they wanted to). There could be bubbles of selection pressure - subgroups where high IQ leads to having more kids. So long as the subgroup intermingles, then there is a population level pressure for higher intellect. It is possible that unsmart people remove themselves from the gene pool before reproduction, or unsmart people reproduce less. One or two outlier smart men that have thousands of children could have a massive selection pressure. Are we not all descended from Ghengis Khan? Smartness has thousands of factors, and selection pressure on some hidden factors could easily have an outcome on general intelligence. [1] Counterpoint “Being smart seems to make you unpopular” implies popular people are not smart: http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html

scarmig 3y ago

Conscientiousness and having long-term time horizons is dysgenic. People afflicted with those traits tend to reproduce less, and, to the extent that they're heritable, the genes coding them will gradually decrease in prevalence in the gene pool.

faeriechangling 3y ago
I’ve floated this idea before especially in the context of ADHD being framed as a disease because it has social costs, personal costs, and causes disruptive behavior. That may all be true but people with ADHD also have more unprotected sex and the vast majority of western society is wiping themselves out on account of not having enough unprotected sex to sustain themselves. It’s just that anything which interferes with utilitarianism and hedonism is framed as a disease.
tptacek 3y ago
That is not how heritability works; it's how genetic determination works, which is a separate concept.

snowwrestler 3y ago

In the absence of reasonably strong natural selection pressure to select for red hair, how could red hair not be disappearing over time? This is somewhat tongue in cheek, obviously. But to spell out my point, genetic inheritance is way more complex than most of the comments here are treating it. If you can’t confidently explain how people with brown hair can keep having red-headed kids, it might be challenging to understand why average parents can produce smart kids (or vice versa).