5 ms·

"Surprisingly we do it all the time, on animals, and we call it breeding. It is very successful" Breeding is successful in some sense, but certainly not withou

"Surprisingly we do it all the time, on animals, and we call it breeding. It is very successful" Breeding is successful in some sense, but certainly not without its issues. For example, by breeding pedigree dogs we've left them with a number of genetic defects that are hard to remove due to the reduced gene pool, e.g. Dalmatian deafness, Bulldog respiration, King Charles Spaniel syringomyelia, etc... Addressing the article, I find the idea of quantifiable intelligence to be one of the dumbest ideas we ever came up with. What does an IQ point mean, really? From my understanding, testing it basically boils down to using a specific subset of symbolic puzzles. Intelligence can be quantified numerically in the same way love can be quantified numerically, i.e. not at all, without losing the essence of what you're looking for. Also, intelligence by itself is not a goal in its own right, it's the purpose to which it's applied that matters. If super intelligent people exist, what would we have them do? The same things we do but faster? No thanks. Instead of wasting our time trying to group ourselves into categories, we should be looking to bring out the best of the talents we find in the people around us. That seems like a better goal than chasing a 1000 IQ person.

readerrrr 12y ago
Breeding is successful in some sense, but certainly not without its issues. For example, by breeding pedigree dogs we've left them with a number of genetic defects that are hard to remove due to the reduced gene pool, e.g. Dalmatian deafness, Bulldog respiration, King Charles Spaniel syringomyelia, etc... I agree the research would have to be gradual and aware of those issues. I doubt dog breeders really care for those. Addressing the article, I find the idea of quantifiable intelligence to be one of the dumbest ideas we ever came up with. What does an IQ point mean, really? From my understanding, testing it basically boils down to using a specific subset of symbolic puzzles. Intelligence can be quantified numerically in the same way love can be quantified numerically, i.e. not at all, without losing the essence of what you're looking for. IQ can be measured, there are many tests that do so. More time you spend checking more accurate you can get. Not infinitely accurately but good enough. Also, intelligence by itself is not a goal in its own right, it's the purpose to which it's applied that matters. If super intelligent people exist, what would we have them do? The same things we do but faster? No thanks. That makes little sense. Speed is not a requirement for new research and discovery. Original though is. That is what we should strive for. Instead of wasting our time trying to group ourselves into categories, we should be looking to bring out the best of the talents we find in the people around us. That seems like a better goal than chasing a 1000 IQ person. Eugenics could do exactly that.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- ZenoArrow 12y ago
  "I agree the research would have to be gradual and aware of those issues. I doubt dog breeders really care for those." Are you suggesting dog breeders don't care about dogs? From what I've seen they tend to be quite fond of them. The issue is we breed dogs for different traits, with the issues I mentioned before the dogs might've been bred for their looks, but other dogs that were at some point bred for work still have issues... Golden Retrievers are high risk for developing cancer, German Shepherds are high risk for hip dysplasia, Dachshunds are high risk for back problems, etc... It's not that dog breeders want to give dogs issues, it's a byproduct of selective breeding, as defects that do creep in are harder to remove. "That makes little sense. Speed is not a requirement for new research and discovery. Original though is. That is what we should strive for." The tests we are talking about do not measure creativity in any meaningful sense. "Eugenics could do exactly that." How could eugenics do exactly that? I'm talking about bringing out the talents of people around you, i.e. they already exist.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
threatofrain 12y ago
I think that to many people, the phenomena behind IQ is a suspected general mental ability. It may also be fitting to describe this as a general or arbitrary analogical or mapping ability. I think this definition also captures what people think of when they say "artificial", or non-organic intelligence. When you say that IQ is just "a specific subset of symbolic puzzles", I believe you are criticizing IQ as ungeneralizable, or as having external validity issues. I think the reason why IQ has remained as a widespread construct is because it is actually so useful in predicting performance across an array of situations, such as general job performance, of which IQ or g is often a top-tier or unmatched predictor, better than years of relevant work experience. And whenever someone accuses IQ of being inadequate, and they come out with their More Complete test, it turns out that their measurements and predictions are insufficiently distinctive from IQ, which even further supports the idea of a "general" mental ability.
- ZenoArrow 12y ago
  "And whenever someone accuses IQ of being inadequate, and they come out with their More Complete test, it turns out that their measurements and predictions are insufficiently distinctive from IQ, which even further supports the idea of a "general" mental ability." Here's the thing... I'm criticising IQ tests, but I'm not suggesting we create a more complete test, I'm suggesting the whole idea of measuring intelligence numerically is fundamentally flawed. There are a few reasons I believe measuring intelligence numerically is flawed, but probably the central one is that I don't believe it exists as a fixed entity, I believe it's adaptive depending on the circumstances we find ourselves in. As with any debate on human traits the tendency is to go back to the nature vs. nurture question. I believe you can have a natural aptitude for something, but the environment you live in is what helps your intelligence develop, and this is the largest differentiator in what we perceive as intelligence. Put simply, change the environment and you change the intelligence. Therefore scores like IQ do not measure someone's true potential, they only hint at what they've already been exposed to. That's why to me such tests are a waste of time.
  - eitland 12y ago
    > Therefore scores like IQ do not measure someone's true potential, they only hint at what they've already been exposed to. That's why to me such tests are a waste of time. Hmmm. As far as I know you are allowed to retake IQ-tests if you want, still the differences are there. Some people will never pass 120 no matter how many times they take the test.

readerrrr 12y ago

Breeding is successful in some sense, but certainly not without its issues. For example, by breeding pedigree dogs we've left them with a number of genetic defects that are hard to remove due to the reduced gene pool, e.g. Dalmatian deafness, Bulldog respiration, King Charles Spaniel syringomyelia, etc... I agree the research would have to be gradual and aware of those issues. I doubt dog breeders really care for those. Addressing the article, I find the idea of quantifiable intelligence to be one of the dumbest ideas we ever came up with. What does an IQ point mean, really? From my understanding, testing it basically boils down to using a specific subset of symbolic puzzles. Intelligence can be quantified numerically in the same way love can be quantified numerically, i.e. not at all, without losing the essence of what you're looking for. IQ can be measured, there are many tests that do so. More time you spend checking more accurate you can get. Not infinitely accurately but good enough. Also, intelligence by itself is not a goal in its own right, it's the purpose to which it's applied that matters. If super intelligent people exist, what would we have them do? The same things we do but faster? No thanks. That makes little sense. Speed is not a requirement for new research and discovery. Original though is. That is what we should strive for. Instead of wasting our time trying to group ourselves into categories, we should be looking to bring out the best of the talents we find in the people around us. That seems like a better goal than chasing a 1000 IQ person. Eugenics could do exactly that.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ZenoArrow 12y ago
"I agree the research would have to be gradual and aware of those issues. I doubt dog breeders really care for those." Are you suggesting dog breeders don't care about dogs? From what I've seen they tend to be quite fond of them. The issue is we breed dogs for different traits, with the issues I mentioned before the dogs might've been bred for their looks, but other dogs that were at some point bred for work still have issues... Golden Retrievers are high risk for developing cancer, German Shepherds are high risk for hip dysplasia, Dachshunds are high risk for back problems, etc... It's not that dog breeders want to give dogs issues, it's a byproduct of selective breeding, as defects that do creep in are harder to remove. "That makes little sense. Speed is not a requirement for new research and discovery. Original though is. That is what we should strive for." The tests we are talking about do not measure creativity in any meaningful sense. "Eugenics could do exactly that." How could eugenics do exactly that? I'm talking about bringing out the talents of people around you, i.e. they already exist.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

threatofrain 12y ago

I think that to many people, the phenomena behind IQ is a suspected general mental ability. It may also be fitting to describe this as a general or arbitrary analogical or mapping ability. I think this definition also captures what people think of when they say "artificial", or non-organic intelligence. When you say that IQ is just "a specific subset of symbolic puzzles", I believe you are criticizing IQ as ungeneralizable, or as having external validity issues. I think the reason why IQ has remained as a widespread construct is because it is actually so useful in predicting performance across an array of situations, such as general job performance, of which IQ or g is often a top-tier or unmatched predictor, better than years of relevant work experience. And whenever someone accuses IQ of being inadequate, and they come out with their More Complete test, it turns out that their measurements and predictions are insufficiently distinctive from IQ, which even further supports the idea of a "general" mental ability.

ZenoArrow 12y ago
"And whenever someone accuses IQ of being inadequate, and they come out with their More Complete test, it turns out that their measurements and predictions are insufficiently distinctive from IQ, which even further supports the idea of a "general" mental ability." Here's the thing... I'm criticising IQ tests, but I'm not suggesting we create a more complete test, I'm suggesting the whole idea of measuring intelligence numerically is fundamentally flawed. There are a few reasons I believe measuring intelligence numerically is flawed, but probably the central one is that I don't believe it exists as a fixed entity, I believe it's adaptive depending on the circumstances we find ourselves in. As with any debate on human traits the tendency is to go back to the nature vs. nurture question. I believe you can have a natural aptitude for something, but the environment you live in is what helps your intelligence develop, and this is the largest differentiator in what we perceive as intelligence. Put simply, change the environment and you change the intelligence. Therefore scores like IQ do not measure someone's true potential, they only hint at what they've already been exposed to. That's why to me such tests are a waste of time.
- eitland 12y ago
  > Therefore scores like IQ do not measure someone's true potential, they only hint at what they've already been exposed to. That's why to me such tests are a waste of time. Hmmm. As far as I know you are allowed to retake IQ-tests if you want, still the differences are there. Some people will never pass 120 no matter how many times they take the test.