Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Squashing the IQ curve.

  1. May 26, 2007 #1
    If it were possible to squash the IQ curve

    ie. speed and depth of reasoning between the best and worst is not as much as
    as it is in reality...would this be a powerful way of creating a less stressful reality for all?
  2. jcsd
  3. May 26, 2007 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Are you moving the new mean relative to the old one or just getting rid of the highest and lowest scores?
  4. May 26, 2007 #3
    Doing both.. Move the mean up and get rid of the lowest scores.
    Last edited: May 26, 2007
  5. May 26, 2007 #4
    Not by sterlizing people or some insane scheme like that...

    ...by using nanotech and neuro-eng to boost abilities of bottom..and genetic eng (once they are safe) so that both adults of current gen as well future gen may benefit.
  6. May 26, 2007 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Who cares about IQ scores?
  7. May 26, 2007 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member


    Which is supposed to affect stress, people being more alike or people being smarter? (You might want to associate some observable behaviors with "smartness" (besides doing well on IQ tests (that's not a good choice around here, methinks)).)

    It's probably not a good idea to say anything (read: start the bad kind of argument) about what IQ tests measure, unless you want to raise the seriousness level a lot. I would suggest asking to be granted the assumption that all tests measure something. This strikes me as basically just a definition. You could grant also that any claims made about what exactly a test does measure and what the results can be used for are of course not necessarily true. Though my guess is that it would probably be better if you didn't mention IQ at all.

    Anywho, I am busy enough with my own world domination plans to worry about those of others, but I wonder whether a world of smarter people would necessarily have less stress. Do you think there would be fewer stressors, or is it that smarter people are less susceptible to stress, or what?
  8. May 26, 2007 #7
    Am I just insane to think there is some grain of truth in the fact there is a large discrepancy between natural abilities of people all over the world?

    As a matter of fact..why restrict to IQ... why not do it with appearance as well...and every other trait possible..squash as many bell curves as possible.
  9. May 26, 2007 #8
    Why is this so important?
  10. May 26, 2007 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Good observations HRW.

    Actually, I think that the more intelligent, or more aware you are, the more you stress about things, at least that is what I see. What is that saying - dumb and happy?
  11. May 26, 2007 #10
    You could always squash the humor curve as well.
  12. May 26, 2007 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I think what Evo is getting at is that IQ tests do not necessarily accurately evaluate one's intelligence. Perhaps if one had posed developing a method/process to increase the intelligence of all to similarly high levels.

    In Afghanistan, e.g. it was found by either RI or IRC, that the lack of iodine in the food compromised the intelligence level of the population. Introducing iodine (e.g. iodized salt) into the diet has made a difference.

    To bring people to similar levels of intelligence would require improving the diets of billions of people, and then providing the appropriate environment or educational system.

    i.e. make everyone similar in as many aspects/respects as possible. Why?
  13. May 26, 2007 #12


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    :tongue2: Twas a joke.

    (P.S. You're on my list now...)
  14. May 26, 2007 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That would be impossible as there is no universal agreement on what is aesthetically pleasing.

    Personally, although I do get frustrated occasionally as we all do with other peoples apparent incompetance in particular areas, I would not seek to standardise the human race.
  15. May 26, 2007 #14
    I've noticed when I go a week eating junk food, I can barely concentrate, my short term memory goes to pieces and I have to read twice things that are harder to grasp. Eating all my vegetables and fruits and good meats definitely improves my ability to understand and remember things.

    I don't really think IQ tests are very realistic. First of all, they measure very specific kinds of tasks, and some of them require previous knowledge, which doesn't say much for a person's supposed in-born intelligence. And since when do we know anywhere near enough about the processes of the human brain and intelligence to quantify it?

    The example I always use is innovation and imagination. Surely innovation and imagination are important signs of intelligence. Yet many of the great innovators probably do not have genius IQ. (Especially in the arts; think of all the artistic geniuses through history, and many of them probably wouldn't score a "genius" IQ.— Some may say that this is because art involves "emotion" and not "thought." But emotions are a process of the brain, and therefore a form of intelligence. If anything, it could be called "abstract thought," and the ability to picture something outside of the ordinary is certainly something that IQ tests don't even touch— these were qualities that newton, for example, had; while looking at the same things everyone else was looking at (planets moving around in the sky, things falling), he pictured something completely out of the ordinary. of all the IQ-geniuses before him, he was the only one to see things from this brand new perspective; no IQ test tests for whatever this "innovation" quality is, even though it's a sure sign of high-intelligence).
  16. May 26, 2007 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Then Leonardo da Vinci would be an exception?

  17. May 26, 2007 #16
    haha well obviously there are artists of high IQ. I'm not saying all artists have low IQ's (I'm in the arts, so I wouldn't say that :biggrin:). What I meant to say was that IQ tests simply don't take that aspect of intelligence into account. IQ results neither confirm nor negate Imagination/innovation.

    To me, an IQ test is like predicting a basketball player's ability based solely on his running speed. While speed may help and can be a factor of being successful, many other factors are ignored (he might be fast as hell, but if his aim sucks...).

    IQ tests measure a very small part of what constitutes intelligence. I'm not saying they're worthless; they do measure a part of intelligence, just not all of it. And I think that innovativeness and imagination are very important aspects of intelligence; they are the ability to think outside of the norm and come up with new ideas.
  18. May 26, 2007 #17
    I think there is a connection between these tests and your intelligence but it is a not a good predictor of individual success. This is as much value as I place of IQ (I hate to use this word now) tests.

    Ok..loss of genetic diversity can be bad. This can happen if you squash the curve.

    But pushing the mean up I see as a positive. I think if technology is capable of pushing the mean up, it should.
  19. May 27, 2007 #18
    I think it should be left exactly the way it is. If people want to be more intelligent then they should strive to do so. They should show an interest in learning and create opportunities to do so. It would be nice if there were opportunities for everyone, but at the same time, not everyone would be interested. We shouldn't force people to be more intelligent than they are.

    Consider what kind of functions the people on the lower side of the bell curve have in society. I think if you flattened that bell curve there would be a great deal of social stress created. Many people, with their newfound intelligence, would want to pursue other goals in life. Thelabor pool for occupations that don't require a great deal of intellience would begin to dry up and there would be much more competition for occupations that do require intelligence. We could end up with lots of school teachers, but nobody to drive them [the children] to school.
  20. May 27, 2007 #19
    Are people who are in working class 'dumb and happy'..How come lot of criminals come from this community then? Why are lot of social problems associated with these groups? Dumb and happy..not quite.

    Forcing people to be more intelligent might sound unethical here but when you look at like a trade-off ie compare the social stress this creates against the drop in levels of crime and other things that blight the lower world. It might be worthwhile still.

    Having greater autonomy via higher intelligence might have a net stress reduction in the long run. People live long nowadays. I don't think one can argue that autonomy and intelligence are disconnected especially at the lower bell curve side.

    If you say you are forcing people to be more intelligent, then get rid of education! Go back to the feudal age..with overlords and suppressed uneducated masses.
  21. May 27, 2007 #20


    User Avatar

    But? But?? Having intelligence and having "success" especially when rated by another observer don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. Besides, I like intelligent people more than just "successful" people anyway.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: Squashing the IQ curve.
  1. Purpose of IQ (Replies: 3)

  2. Average IQ (Replies: 31)

  3. IQ of physicists (Replies: 14)

  4. An IQ conundrum (Replies: 60)

  5. IQ is everything? (Replies: 32)