Squashing the IQ Curve - A Less Stressful Reality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CuriousArv
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Curve Iq
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the hypothetical concept of "squashing the IQ curve," which involves reducing the disparity in intelligence levels across the population. Participants explore whether this could lead to a less stressful society by raising the average intelligence while eliminating the lowest scores through advanced technologies like nanotech and neuro-engineering. The conversation raises ethical concerns about the implications of artificially enhancing intelligence and whether such changes would genuinely reduce stress or create new social challenges, such as increased competition for jobs. Participants question the validity of IQ tests as measures of intelligence, arguing they do not account for creativity, innovation, or emotional intelligence. There is a debate about whether raising intelligence levels would lead to a more competent workforce or simply create smarter individuals who may still engage in criminal behavior. Some suggest that addressing basic needs and fostering ethical education might be more effective in reducing societal stress than merely increasing intelligence. Overall, the discussion highlights the complexity of intelligence, its measurement, and the potential societal impacts of altering intelligence distribution.
  • #31
CuriousArv said:
No not for the sake of it. Just so that people in their jobs are competent enough to do them properly.
Do you think that incompetence is a problem now, or are you thinking of job requirements rising in the future? I would guess, from personal experience, that incompetence has a lot to with people, again, not caring. Have you researched this yet? Have you found a correlation between performance and intelligence? I would think that job satisfaction would affect performance more. I imagine there is plenty of research on this since companies have an interest in improving employee performance. Have you looked into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee-owned_corporation" or anything like that? Haha, or do you just want to make people smarter?

Anyway I just looked up Darfur and its horrifying. People near the top of the food chain who have authority and power and resources should do something!
They are. They have been making empty threats and promises for years.

Well, there has been a lot of divestment recently, including some large companies. And humanitarian groups have been in there the whole time, even when the governments can't even provide enough peacekeepers, or support them well enough, to protect the aid workers. But, yeah, the governments have done jack and done it slowly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
honestrosewater said:
But they are not dealing with brain processes, are they? They are dealing with responses to questions. You don't have to know what is going on elsewhere. The response is observable and measurable.
Ok, that's true.
What do you think they are trying to measure? Is it possible that you are the one attributing the wrong things to these types of tests?
The name of the test is "Intelligence Quotient." This implies that it is measuring intelligence— not just various aspects of intelligence; not just wits or book smarts, not just math skills, not just inventiveness— but intelligence, in its entirety, as a definite thing.
Ok, that's all fine and dandy. Problem is that even the most learned definitions of what intelligence actually is are somewhat vague.
I don't have a precise definition of intelligence, but I usually think of it as something more specific than that.
And you're not alone; that seems to be the general stance on what intelligence is: "well, you know: 'intelligence'... you know what we mean, right?... INTELLIGENCE... come-on, we all know what intelligence is— ok, now let's measure it!"
Any process of the brain is a form of intelligence? Computation is a process of the brain. Are all computers intelligent? Staying balanced is a process of the brain. Is a balance intelligent? Feeling pain is a process of the brain. Is feeling pain a form of intelligence?
No, of course the ability to stand is not a form of intelligence nor an aspect of it. But that just shows how hard it is to express the idea of intelligence. So I'll try again, and this time I'll try and be as specific as I can. The best definition for what I would consider intelligence as a whole would go something along the lines of:
"a collection of mental processes involved in the individual's ability to understand and analyze his environment, problems presented by his environment, possible future situations (and their consequences); and hypothetical situations, problems, and environments."

Ok, that's still pretty vague ... but search wherever you like a for a definite definition. Impossible. Intelligence seems to fall into the same category as "love" and "beautiful;" gut-feelings and the assumption that we all, more or less, know what they are talking about when they say the word. I don't think that's good enough. Either way, that's the best I can express my definition of intelligence.

On correlations between IQ scores and brain structure and development, you might find https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=116267" interesting places to start. From the latter:
That's really interesting. And again, I'm not saying there is no correlation between IQ tests and intelligence or brain functions; there is obviously a connection, or else history would be full of men of high influence and low IQ (I'm trying so hard not to turn that into a George Bush Joke :biggrin:).— All I'm saying is that IQ tests are incomplete.
Note specifically that the researchers don't claim that people with higher IQ scores are better people or better artists or more successful or anything of that sort.
Success is not in question. I used the example of art because my career of choice is in the arts, so it's something I know more about than I would if I had used an electrician or a plumber as an example.

When I get "inspired," it's not magic. Nothing is "channeling through me," my art doesn't come from my "soul;" there is nothing magical about art. Dali imagining a beautiful painting is no different from my cab-driver figuring out my exact change, or Einstein thinking up relativity— these are all products of mental processes, they all occur in the brain, and, therefore, they are all a product of intelligence.

Yet the ability to be creative and original, to think of things no one's ever thought of (whether in the arts or philosophy or politics or physics), does not affect IQ tests either way. A musician with an IQ of 150 has no guarantee of writing more beautiful or original songs than another with an IQ of 125. Originality/inventiveness is an aspect of intelligence, but it's not really tested for.
As opposed to concrete thought? Or as opposed to computation or deductive reasoning? I don't really understand this distinction. Are you talking about emotion, art, or creativity here?
I'm not talking about any of them in particular, I'm saying they are all contributing factors.
Which tests don't allow this?
They allow it; they don't quantify it (if that's even possible).
Even if this were true, how is this a criticism of the test unless it actually attempts to test for this?

(...) I fail to see how that is a valid criticism. Or did I misunderstand you? Perhaps your main point was that CuriousArv should consider more than just IQ scores or something.
My criticism is that it doesn't test for these things. In my view, if the idea behind the IQ test is to quantify intelligence, then IQ tests should be only a part of a much larger set of tests (how exactly one would test for these other qualities, I have no idea).
Your whole criticism seems to basically be that IQ tests don't test for everything that any human can possibly do.

:smile: :smile:

EDIT: holy crap that was a long post. oops, I just made it longer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
honestrosewater said:
Do you think that incompetence is a problem now, or are you thinking of job requirements rising in the future? I would guess, from personal experience, that incompetence has a lot to with people, again, not caring. Have you researched this yet? Have you found a correlation between performance and intelligence? I would think that job satisfaction would affect performance more. I imagine there is plenty of research on this since companies have an interest in improving employee performance. Have you looked into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee-owned_corporation" or anything like that? Haha, or do you just want to make people smarter?
QUOTE]

yeah, these things are critical no doubt.

but still I think there is a case for such a technology to be developed. That way you would have removed doubt in most people's minds about making their lives better. More people would possibly strive more to earn their 'upgrade' . They'd see a concrete and very real ticket to a better life.

iF they are unmotivated and don't care I guess they'd stay where they are.

I think the system should do as much as it can do allievate the idea of limits and restricted freedom. Motivation is up to individuals.

People can be exploited here and could try to cheat like crazy but that's what the regulatory authorities are for.

Given longer lifespans I think people in lower IQ regions should needn't to just endure a lifetime of suffering.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
moe darklight said:
The name of the test is "Intelligence Quotient."
Hahahaha... you know, I actually had to stop for a second and think about that. Oh, right, I guess it does say that in the name. Okay, fair enough. :biggrin:

I was thinking of how I see them used more recently in research and such, and no one -- or, rather, none of the people that I consider worth listening to -- really talks about "intelligence", whatever it is supposed to mean. It seems like more of a historical accident, the name of the test. But I don't read enough about these things to say more.

I agree that all of the things that the concept of intelligence is taken to mean is not easy to sort out in a few dozen words.

When I get "inspired," it's not magic. Nothing is "channeling through me," my art doesn't come from my "soul;" there is nothing magical about art. Dali imagining a beautiful painting is no different from my cab-driver figuring out my exact change, or Einstein thinking up relativity— these are all products of mental processes, they all occur in the brain, and, therefore, they are all a product of intelligence.
Yes, I basically agree.

Yet the ability to be creative and original, to think of things no one's ever thought of (whether in the arts or philosophy or politics or physics), does not affect IQ tests either way. A musician with an IQ of 150 has no guarantee of writing more beautiful or original songs than another with an IQ of 125. Originality/inventiveness is an aspect of intelligence, but it's not really tested for.
I don't know whether they test for this or not, but I do personally think that creative thinking is more complicated and harder to understand. And I imagine that if they could test decently enough for this, they might also have a way to make a creative program. But I have not seen this yet. (I hope to write a program that can write creatively (as well as any human writer can) myself one day.)

My criticism is that it doesn't test for these things. In my view, if the idea behind the IQ test is to quantify intelligence, then IQ tests should be only a part of a much larger set of tests (how exactly one would test for these other qualities, I have no idea).
Roger. I see your point, but I must ask: what's in a name?

:smile: :smile:
I did grant that I could have misunderstood you. :-p
 
  • #35
Actually 'earning an upgrade' wouldn't quite work. People'd cheat and find a way to access it without earning. So the best would be introduce it to society in the same way as a pharmaceutical drug and make it as cheap as possible.

People who use it and make good use of it benefit..others who get it and don't make an effort will still lose out. So it won't make society lazier. Atleast those who make it into their jobs would be definately competent even if they don't perform afterwards. The people hiring them would know this for sure and people requiring services from these places can trust that people working there are atleast competent enough.
 
  • #36
OH! the strategic mind would think of another way of succeeding if intelligence wasn't in its favour. I don't know if the two are mutually exclusive though. People with greater natural intelligence have greater capacity for strategy...they have a bigger 'pie' to work with. So introduction of the tech might be still warranted..but..hmm... ok this is tricky
 
  • #37
Haha, so the betterment of humanity was really just a pretext for you to play with people's brains. I knew it. :-p
 
  • #38
No, such a mind possibly only cares about success anyhow..I don't think I'm supportive of such a world which is part of reality we are all experiencing.

I am genuinely looking for a better way... If I could answer this question successfully I'd be happy. I'm unable to do it so far.

Will supplying intelligence augmentation to people be the best way towards building a reality where a path to prosperity without sinister behaviour is available to anyone?

So far I can say, you can weave and dodge and plot..and get some way..but possibly causing great amounts of mayhem when you aren't too smart to yourself and others... hmm... even if you are smart but insecure..you could wreck the world worse..

So you really need an intelligence/sense of altruism enchancement device to do the job.. I think this'd work. How would you build an altruism enchancement device?! 'It Zaps your brain when your evil!' haha.. I don't know but would be really curious to find out.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
CuriousArv said:
Will supplying intelligence augmentation to people be the best way towards building a reality where a path to prosperity without sinister behaviour is available to anyone?
I think, as Huck pointed out, you will at least make smarter criminals.

Why do you think that an increase in intelligence will be accompanied by an increase in goodness? And what does either have to do with happiness or prosperity? (I'm not suggesting that they aren't connected. I'm just asking for your thoughts.)
 
  • #40
Well I just want that connection between level of intelligence and happiness/prosperity to be severed... I don't people to have to point that out as a genuine excuse because in some cases they really couldn't work out a better way.

A simultaneous intellgience/altruism enchancement device is what should be created and marketed. People wanting more intelligence should pay the price of becoming more good. I think this is fair.

But will this actually increasing their chances of perishing because suddenly freedom is curtalied as a result of their increased good? Do you always need a bit of evil to live? is it essential? Damn! i think unfortunately this might be true..i don't know though...maybe one can make such beings incredibely robust. Any thoughts? Perhaps there should be an 'undo' mechansim so faced with extinction, the alturistic super being steps down to a lower meaner existence to survive.. this could be the only way.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
CuriousArv said:
A simultaneous intellgience/altruism enchancement device is what should be created and marketed. People wanting more intelligence should pay the price of becoming more good. I think this is fair.
Hm, that sounds like a lopsided kind of fairness. Why do you think you own this device? I mean, you are presuming that this technology is someone's property, right, by wanting to sell it? On what does this concept or right of property and ownership depend? Or, if you want to regulate its use, on what does the authority to regulate its use depend? Are you in the US?
 
  • #42
No not in U.S. I don't own any device. There'd be much more care about the way this should be handled but I'm just throwing around considerations as they occur to me. Okay I see the hope for building and marketing such a device relatively quickly just vanish now. But maybe there is a case (albeit complex one) for the idea to be implemented.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
CuriousArv said:
No not in U.S. I don't own any device. There'd be much more care about the way this should be handled but I'm just throwing around considerations as they occur to me.
Right, I understand.

Oh, first, I meant to say that I don't see how you can make people good. Setting aside the fact that there is more than one possibility for what good actually is, what exactly is morality if there are no moral choices? If you don't have any choice in the matter, if you can't decide to do the right thing, how is your action still a moral one? I'm not sure I actually have answers to those, but it strikes me as suspect that you can force people to be good. Anywho...

Wherever you are, your ownership or regulation of this device, unless you are going to do this by brute force, depends on people honoring the social contracts that create things like ownership and regulatory authority and whatever. So you are presupposing some capacity for goodness in people already, no? Of keeping promises and such? Why not build on this rather than whatever it is that you want to force on people or trick them into?
 
  • #44
Mabye not altruism, but ethical enchanement and majority survival oriented even at the expense of self sacrifice..

man.. we might end up becoming robots governed by axioms in the long term future! Perhaps we already are so maybe
its not really losing out in any way.
 
  • #45
honestrosewater said:
Right, I understand.

Wherever you are, your ownership or regulation of this device, unless you are going to do this by brute force, depends on people honoring the social contracts that create things like ownership and regulatory authority and whatever. So you are presupposing some capacity for goodness in people already, no? Of keeping promises and such? Why not build on this rather than whatever it is that you want to force on people or trick them into?

Are you saying the best strategy is strongly push for ethically minded people to power and remove support from the 'smart criminals' and forget about intelligence augmentation? Supposing you are saying this, most people are still going to be conned anyway ebcause they can't tell diff between ethically positive and smart criminal so well..


So best we can do is keep 'smart criminals' in check by keeping them as accountable as possible. Is this best we can hope for?
 
Last edited:
  • #46
CuriousArv said:
Are you saying the best strategy is strongly push for ethically minded people to power and remove support from the 'smart criminals' and forget about intelligence augmentation?
No, like I said, I am busy enough with my own (secret) world domination plans already.

Supposing you are saying this, most people are still going to be conned anyway ebcause they can't tell diff between ethically positive and smart criminal so well..
What do you mean conned? Into what?

So best we can do is keep 'smart criminals' in check by keeping them as accountable as possible. Is this best we can hope for?
Does every crime have the same motivation, and does every criminal have the same ethical system? I don't think so. Someone who steals because their children are hungry might not have much at all in common with someone who steals only to see if they are clever enough to not get caught. So no, I think that you can, for starters, stop some crime by making the system fairer (to everyone).
 
  • #47
honestrosewater said:
Roger. I see your point, but I must ask: what's in a name?

an IQ is an IQ is an IQ :biggrin:
I know, I'm really picky about certain things.

I did grant that I could have misunderstood you. :-p
haha my bad, it did come off that way once I read it again, which is why I found your comment funny.

sorry curiousarv for going so off-topic with my nitpicking
 
  • #48
I can't help but think that handing out some smart pill to people will not solve the worlds problems. It's like being given the answers to the test before you take it. What would be the purpose of learning anything if the answer to everything comes in a pill?

It sound slike you are suggesting a pill to make people more altruistic as well. That could be 10 times worse than any smart pill. When you combine altruism with authority over others the consequences become so much greater. In a selfless quest to do good and right the wrongs in the world, people do some heinous things, thee holy crusades, The Salem witchcraft trials, the premise for the war in Iraq. Selling a pill to make people altruistic would be another such misconstrued act of altruism. Terrorism is an altruistic act that places higher regard on ones beliefs than themselves or others. Can you imagine a world where everyone held such strong beliefs?

In truth these acts are not selfless at all. It is just another way of manipulating people into what one believes is the correct method of thinking. People need to be free to choose what is correct for themselves, regardless of how strongly one feels about their decisions. People are more important than beliefs, but I'm not sure there is a way to separate the two.
 
  • #49
What if it was available in the market and it actually worked and it was cheap? Okay all of these arguments up to now have questioned the merit of this action but I'm thinking this

what if some despot or hostile government decided to hand out such 'pills' to all of their citizens and through their vast intellectual superiority over other nations/simply wipe them out and take over the world. It could just be a handful of evil people. Alternatively what if these people decided, we are just going to wipe out the lower classes because we can replace them with machines and rid ourselves of minding their problems. 'the nazis of world war 3' How would you fight this? Have no choice but actually give these pills to everyone? nanotech and medicine and scientists aren't scarce or only available to few nations. They're everywhere.
 
Last edited:
  • #50
CuriousArv said:
It could just be a handful of evil people.
Who gets to decide which people are evil?

How would you fight this?
How would you fight it, by any means necessary?
 
  • #51
If these people actually intend to secretly be good by staging this..and causing the world to then rush to buy the pill..then hopefully they know exactly what their doing because if it went wrong somehow lot of people could get killed. Whoever's selling these pills is going to rake it in.
 
  • #52
CuriousArv said:
What if it was available in the market and it actually worked and it was cheap? Okay all of these arguments up to now have questioned the merit of this action but I'm thinking this

what if some despot or hostile government decided to hand out such 'pills' to all of their citizens and through their vast intellectual superiority over other nations/simply wipe them out and take over the world. It could just be a handful of evil people. How would you fight this? Have no choice but actually give these pills to everyone? nanotech and medicine and scientists aren't scarce or only available to few nations. They're everywhere.
Brute force is a pretty good equalizer. A bullet doesn't care how intelligent you are. Intelligent people still need to eat food and drink clean water. They would need their factories and materials and economic structure. Take those resources away and it doesn't matter how intelligent they are. Besides, intelligence isn't the main requirement of a soldier.

To take over the world with intelligence you would have to act within the existing system and play one nation against another. Don't present oneself as a target for people's hatred. Use the armies of other nations to destroy themselves. Create politics to cause unrest in citizens. Manuever resources to cause resentment between cultures. Control the information that people can receive so as to spread the propaganda that you want the citizens to believe. Change the law to justify ones actions and proclaim that it is in the best interests of the security of the nation. Discredit any opposition and make them appear foolish and irrational. Spread distrust and insecurity and fear and when people start to believe it they can be manipulated to whatever end is desired. When one controls all the resources one has all the power.

Giving out smart pills would make people harder to deceive. It is much better to make people believe that tomorrow will be much the same as today. And when the time is right they can be set in a panic and pointed in the general direction of the thing one wants destroyed. People are smart enough to take care of the rest. So if they gave out smart pills they would be inhibiting their ability to control people. And if smart pills were given out to make people aware of the deceptions then there would eventually be all the downfalls mentioned in the previous posts. There is no shortcut to peace and understanding. They primarily require respect for others and their beliefs.

(Don't get any ideas HRW. I know how bent you are on world domination.)
 
  • #53
haha... if I was a really about world domination..i don't think i'd be telling people ideas just like this not that any of them are clever anyway. just curious as usual.
 
  • #54
Ok..Finally understand.. You would only allow a reserach program with the intention of augmenting intelligence if you knew that the risk that posed (of smarter criminals being produced and being easily capable of destroying the world) is lesser in magnitude compared to if you did nothing. Unless somebody can point out that this is the case, all moves towards artifically enchancing intelligence should generally be opposed. By doing this one is doing the right thing and preventing the possibility for life to be severely threatened.



If somebody is in the lower world though, then yes things are tougher for them and yes they have the greater chances of getting culled. But nobody in the smarter world is going to life a finger unless
1. they are a caring sort and provide educational oppurtunties for sideways movement
2. they realize that the risk posed to their lives is otherwise magnified.

chances are only if 2 kicks in, they'll do something.

So people in robotics and bio-medical engineering...is anybody doing something to stop them coming up with such devices?
If there is nothing one can do they must these people then just start building guarding techs right way because they realize that
intelligence augmentation is inevitable?
 
Last edited:
  • #55
No, I don't know of any reasons that the search for knowledge should ever be opposed. (Edit: Well, actually, I suppose I do. It's probably not worth it if it causes unnecessary suffering. Knowledge is probably not the highest on my list, but it is pretty high. (Edit: Or, rather, I should have distinguished between the knowledge itself and actually conducting the search for it. I don't know of any reason that knowledge itself should ever be declined, but I realize that it can't always be gained ethically. Does that make sense? Blarg.))

It sounds like you still haven't taken the step back that I was trying to get you to take. Say that you can divide the population into two groups, X and Y. One group is good and right and one group is bad and wrong. How do you decide which group is which? Does it depend on which group you are in? Are you ever in the bad and wrong group?

As far as criminals go, have you ever heard the expression "might makes right"? Do you think Nelson Mandela should still be in prison?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Is having a genius IQ a prerequisite to be the next Einstein
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
7K
A Project Progress Report and possible Radio Astronomy Technique?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
698
If there is God why there is such a difference between high and low Iq people?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
Solving constant worry over one's intelligence [very long]
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Stress Analysis of Lifting Plate With Bail
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
I Are fields' reality only a relative one?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
250
Would Advanced Aliens Need Our Resources?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
I Question of accuracy of galactic collision simulations
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
620
Can you explain this video? (An I-beam cut in half, springs apart, curved)
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Is Absolute Nothingness the Same as Limitlessness?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K