What are the limits of intelligence?

[fourier jr]

What are the limits of intelligence, both artificial and human?

 

[Kerrie]

will power, or a desire to understand.

 

[omin]

A quote I remember:

"Life is strange", said Jeremy.

"Compared to what?", said the spider.

 

[cragwolf]

What are the limits of intelligence, both artificial and human?

Nobody knows. Perhaps the brightest among us are close to these limits. Perhaps not.

 

[hypnagogue]

Can you give us a better idea of what you mean by 'intelligence'? What constitutes the limit of an intelligence? Do you mean to ask about currently existing or practical limits or do you mean to ask about theoretical limits?

 

[brandon.irwin]

For people, it probably has a lot to do with the the brain's "cache" used to hold many ideas at a time then bring them all together to come to a conclusion.

For a more philosophical answer, I think intelligence would have to be defined first. Is intelligence the recollection of knowledge? Of course not, if so, then a hard drive would be intelligent. So, intelligence must be the ability to create and bring ideas together...to make connections between things where direct connections don't exist. Right now, this seems to be the only difference between computers and humans. Computers can find similarities between things, but only when those similarities directly exist. Such as a green frog and grass...both are green and alive. We can make connections that don't exist through direct observation...we can ask questions, then find answers to those abstract questions, relating things by using something beyond physical observation.

I think to achieve AI, we must first create a way for computers to seek questions. From my observations, this is also a large factor in human intelligence. Some are good at solving problems, some are good at creating problems. Usually it seems to be one or the other. In my case, I am good at solving problems, but not very good at finding the problems. If you look throughout history at people who made big discoveries, many did so on accident, or with inspiration from observing. So, maybe incredible intelligence would come from a noisy mind...one that could create it's own reality or "noise" to create inspiration without necessarily having to use the senses. By doing this, someone will truly be able to think "outside the box". Gives a little more insight to the phrase, "There is a thin line between genius and insanity."

 

[Kerrie]

So, intelligence must be the ability to create and bring ideas together...to make connections between things where direct connections don't exist

an ability that requires some will power...not all of course, because an individual is wired to some extent with what they have. the old saying, "Practice makes perfect" is so cliche, yet so true. intelligence ecompasses more then academics...you have the arts, social intelligence, emotional intelligence, and even physical intelligence. anyone believing they cannot learn certain skills because they are not intelligent enough is already limiting themselves because of their lack of will.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Does it even matter

In all likely hood humans will never reach their limit of intelligence (if there is one) before they are wiped out for whatever reason.

 

[Microburst]

I think limits change as we evolve, intelligence is relative not a constant. Limits for AI is bound by the hardware and software available today, but tomorrow is another story. Some people say,.. well,... there'z only so many transistors you can put on a silicone wafer, but that’s just technology for today tomorrow we might use biological matter to construct our CPUs and program them with human brain like cognitive process, I think that’s what makes life so interesting, you discover things and your ideas change, along with your limits.

 

[Zantra]

If we survive through this technological infantcy I have no doubt we will continue to evolve. I believe we haven't yet reached our peak. I think we will continue to evolve to keep up with the curve, and so will our technology continually evolve. There may be no limits- at least none that we could concieve. Curiosity drives and separates us, and so it will continue to drive us to learn and grow. That is the curve of human intelligence.

 

[Kerrie]

If we survive through this technological infantcy I have no doubt we will continue to evolve. I believe we haven't yet reached our peak. I think we will continue to evolve to keep up with the curve, and so will our technology continually evolve. There may be no limits- at least none that we could concieve. Curiosity drives and separates us, and so it will continue to drive us to learn and grow. That is the curve of human intelligence.

I think you are referring to the culmination of knowledge rather then ability to comprehend and apply the knowledge.

 

[Blissfulpain]

http://www.singinst.org/

all of your questions can be found here. it defines intelligence and defines the expected limits of intelligence.. in fact it even tells you the current limits of human intelligence. and they're looking for singulartarian prgammers to boot... shame i can't program :(

 

[Zantra]

I think you are referring to the culmination of knowledge rather then ability to comprehend and apply the knowledge.

No, I'm saying that I believe intelligence is relatative, and that our raw intelligence has increase from what it was over the millenia to accommodate the increase demands on our brain. I takes a more advanced mind to handle life nowadays than it took at the dawn of man. As the flow of sensory input and knowledge to our brains increases over the eons, so must the speed at which we digest that information. Think of cromagnum man in today's society. He would have a lot harder time adjusting to life here, then a life of hunting and gathering. It's just a possibility to consider.

 

[Blissfulpain]

is that a cromagnum raised from birth in this time or transported after a certain portion of his life in his own time period... because if it's the latter then bloody well of course he'd have a tough time adjsuting :)
if the former.. then i don't know.. depends on brain stuctures and other such things.

 

[hypnagogue]

Someone needs to establish a mutually accepted definition or explanation of intelligence here. Between Kerrie mentioning physical intelligence, Zantra saying something about relative intelligence, etc... are we even on the same page here? It seems likely that we're not. Fourier, would you care to clarify what you meant by 'intelligence'?

 

[fourier jr]

how about:
"the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations"
or
"the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly"

(from www.m-w.com)

I wonder what a human being's capacity to learn or understand is, or a human's capacity to deal with new or trying situations is, etc etc Same with a machine/computer, I guess, if we take artificial intelligence to be "the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior"

 

[babsyco]

I'm sorry, but don't think that saying the limit of inteligence is relative to the system capability sheds any light on the question, it merely changes it to 'what is the most capable system possible'. Stephen Pinker in his book 'How The Mind Works' defines intelligence as 'the ability to attain goals in the face of obstacles by means of decisions based on rational (truth obeying) rules' (pg 62). In this sense, I think the limit to intelligence is to be able to comprehend ALL factors that cause an event (or obstacle), so that the system can overcome it. For example, intelligence for our ancestors was advantageous because it meant that if they saw a fellow man try to take an animal carcass from a lion and get killed in the process, they would conclude that the lion saw them try to take it, didn't want to lose it, so it simply killed the man. Were they much (MUCH) stupider, we would conclude that trying to take the animal carcass meant they would die. This incomplete reasoning would mean that they could starve to death, because they failed to comprehend that a huge factor was whether or not the lion was watching. Were they of our level of intelligence, they would recognize this fact and probably try to distract the lion then take his lunch. Were they much (MUCH) smarter than us they may realize that killing a frog 10 years ago would chain react to result in the scenario of them sitting comfortably eating a fresh carcass in the future (assuming that it is mathematically possible calculate that chain of events, which I believe it is).

So being able to comprehend factors in an event means that a system will have a greater ability to manipulate it to achieve objectives. So how great a comprehension can a system have of events? I think total. A total understanding of the mathematical formula that our universe abides by. Of course the uncertainty principle tells us that at a fundamental level the formula may actually be based on probability, meaning that there will be some randomness in the formula, but how much randomness is there in the physical world we live in? Very VERY little, if any. Obviously roulette is not random, it only reflects our inadequate knowledge of the event. If we could know the weight, velocity, composition, shape, etc, of all the physical components involved one probably could predict where the ball would land, just like Max from Dark Angel can (laugh). Brian Green says in his book the Elegant Universe that uncertainty principle means that we can't rule out the possibility that someone could walk straight through a solid wall and emerge on the other side unharmed, but the chances of it happening are so small that even if the person attempted it every second since the birth of the universe, chances are it would not have happened. Pretty solid odds.

So we can rely on the underlying formula of the universe to a pretty large degree to derive the cause and effect of events, and again, this means that (I believe) the highest possible level of intelligence is to be able to completely comprehend the formula of the universe, so that the intelligent system can manipulate events and objects (or Pinkers 'Obstacles') in the most efficient way to achieve its goals. I do agree with Brandon.Irwin in that intelligence has something to do with making connections, but I don't think creating connections is the most intelligent way to do it, as opposed to deriving them from a rational (truth obeying) set of rules as Pinker says. I assume you mean by 'noisy mind' a mind that in some way creates data and connections not based on any input, but a noisy mind is an inefficient mind, because some or most of what it postulates is untrue. It reminds of an episode of King Of the Hill where Boomhower manages to pick up by going to a shoe store and propositioning every woman: his rationale being that one at least is bound to say yes, and he does manage to score, despite all the 'noise' (failed attempts), but a more efficient and reliable way would be for him to develop some rational set of rules that would allow him to predict who will say yes and who will say no. The next step would be to understand why, so that he can manipulate and overcome the obstacles of his goal to finally score with much less effort and degredation.So a better way to make connections than to randomly (noisily) produce them (some of which will probably be true) is to derive them from logical truthful principles.

As for those who say that they think we will continue to evolve, what obstacles in our modern life are there that random mutation (the engineer of evolution) will overcome, resulting in a greater number of offspring? In the past being better off in ones environment due to inherent genetic traits meant that you would have a greater number of offspring, they would out perform the less advantaged and eventually outnumber them, resulting in evolution, but even it someone was born with double the IQ of Steven Hawking, they would be inherently advantaged but they would NOT have more offspring and would not be a force in natural selection. Stupid people don't have less offspring than smart people, so the human race may never evolve to be more intelligent, and I think using the progress of our technology and saying things like 'it takes a more advanced mind to handle life nowadays than it took at the dawn of man' to predict that our intelligence will continue to evolve as it has in the past is false, Zantra. Ask yourself, how would you fare in the world of the cromagnum man? Our world is no more demanding for our brains than it was millenia ago, what do you have to support this? technology? Just because we have jumbo jets now and 200 years ago they had horse and carts, that mean that either is a reflection of the intelligence of the people or demands of each time? Of course not.

Of course I can not say that evolution has stagnated, but I do think it has slowed down a hell of a lot, due to the fact that we no longer have more offspring if we are genetically advantaged. It is no longer a world based on natural selection for us. All qualities of people have around have the same amount of offspring. However I should point out, that this may mean that while the whole race may not change in the same direction, perhaps the effect of all having equal numbers of offspring could result in more genetic mutations living to fight another day, meaning that in the future mutations of the human genome that may have been wiped out in the past will actually survive, resulting in a much more diverse race, as the amount of mutations amongst a race is of course proportional to its population, not the demands placed on it by its environment. Another thing to note is whether or not certain cultures have more offspring. Of course all this is speculation, but there is no reason to think that we as a race in general will evolve to be more intelligent, because as I said intelligence doesn't mean that the person will have more children than less intelligent people.

It's a great question Fourier jr, but I just realized that if you meant is the limit of HUMAN intelligence, or human intelligence now, most of what I said is probably irrelevent. However, what is human intelligence as opposed to intelligence in general? Oh well, I still enjoyed writing it.I would love feedback and criticism of my remarks, so please post any disagreement you have. A great book on intelligence is Sephen Pinkers 'How The Mind Works', especially chapter 3, 'Revenge of The Nerds'. He talks about whether intelligence would necessarily evolve amongst life on another planet, and surprisingly and convincingly concludes NO, although I think there is more to be said than he addresses. For now I can't be bothered going into it, but if anyone would like to discuss this prospect please post a reply, I would love to talk. If anyone has any good books of sites of anything they can recommend me, I would also really appreciate it.

Thanks, Babsyco.

 

[babsyco]

Sorry, didn't mean to post that twice. The second one is only different in the last paragragh. I didn't realize how much I'd written. Thank you very much if you actually take the time to read it, I appreciate it.

 

[selfAdjoint]

... but a more efficient and reliable way would be for him to develop some rational set of rules that would allow him to predict who will say yes and who will say no. The next step would be to understand why, so that he can manipulate and overcome the obstacles of his goal to finally score with much less effort and degredation.So a better way to make connections than to randomly (noisily) produce them (some of which will probably be true) is to derive them from logical truthful principles.

Your definition of intelligence as the ability to derive consequences of a mysteriously created set of prior principles does not seem to me to be sufficient. You also need the ability to generate those principles. This is what Einstein and Feynman and Hawking and the mathematicians do, and to my way of thinking it is the highest use and quality of intelligence.

As for those who say that they think we will continue to evolve, what obstacles in our modern life are there that random mutation (the engineer of evolution) will overcome, resulting in a greater number of offspring? In the past being better off in ones environment due to inherent genetic traits meant that you would have a greater number of offspring, they would out perform the less advantaged and eventually outnumber them, resulting in evolution, but even it someone was born with double the IQ of Steven Hawking, they would be inherently advantaged but they would NOT have more offspring and would not be a force in natural selection. Stupid people don't have less offspring than smart people, so the human race may never evolve to be more intelligent...

Because of the radical genetic mix-and-match property of sexual reproduction, you can't draw instant conclusions from the reproductive strategies of "smart" and "dumb" people. Historically geniuses have come from mildly smart but not brilliant parents (both Einstein and Feynman did), while the children of geniuses have been all over the lot (Hilbert's son was mentally defective, Einstein's was a competent engineer, and many other cases. The Bernouillis, just by being so rare, are a demonstration of the statistical validity of this.).

The case of the Luria clan of Ashkenazi Jews, who all descend from the twelfth century genius Rashi show how just one individual, without any special emphasis on leaving descendents (unlike,say, Genghis Khan), can produce a brilliant progeny. Actually I could almost believe the "Rashi gene" is a single point mutation. There is no evidence that extremely high intelligence is adequately measured by IQ tests, and therefore no evidence it is a multiple gene effect.

 

[selfAdjoint]

... but a more efficient and reliable way would be for him to develop some rational set of rules that would allow him to predict who will say yes and who will say no. The next step would be to understand why, so that he can manipulate and overcome the obstacles of his goal to finally score with much less effort and degredation.So a better way to make connections than to randomly (noisily) produce them (some of which will probably be true) is to derive them from logical truthful principles.

Your definition of intelligence as the ability to derive consequences of a mysteriously created set of prior principles does not seem to me to be sufficient. You also need the ability to generate those principles. This is what Einstein and Feynman and Hawking and the mathematicians do, and to my way of thinking it is the highest use and quality of intelligence.

As for those who say that they think we will continue to evolve, what obstacles in our modern life are there that random mutation (the engineer of evolution) will overcome, resulting in a greater number of offspring? In the past being better off in ones environment due to inherent genetic traits meant that you would have a greater number of offspring, they would out perform the less advantaged and eventually outnumber them, resulting in evolution, but even it someone was born with double the IQ of Steven Hawking, they would be inherently advantaged but they would NOT have more offspring and would not be a force in natural selection. Stupid people don't have less offspring than smart people, so the human race may never evolve to be more intelligent...

Because of the radical genetic mix-and-match property of sexual reproduction, you can't draw instant conclusions from the reproductive strategies of "smart" and "dumb" people. Historically geniuses have come from mildly smart but not brilliant parents (both Einstein and Feynman did), while the children of geniuses have been all over the lot (Hilbert's son was mentally defective, Einstein's was a competent engineer, and many other cases. The Bernouillis, just by being so rare, are a demonstration of the statistical validity of this.).

On the other hand, the case of the http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=14653&intcategoryid=2 of Ashkenazi Jews, who all descend from the twelfth century genius Rashi, show how just one individual, without any special emphasis on leaving descendents (unlike,say, Genghis Khan), can produce a brilliant progeny. Actually I could almost believe the "Rashi gene" is a single point mutation. There is no evidence that extremely high intelligence is adequately measured by IQ tests, and therefore no evidence it is a multiple gene effect.

 

[graphic7]

The limits of intelligence are the limits of evolution's plans for our processing centers.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Evolution doesn't have plans, it's just random variation followed by selection of the result. Nobody knows what is being selected for; that will only appear when the selection has, over the course of many years (even "punctuated equilibrium" takes many years), produced a new species.

 

[graphic7]

I really wasn't suggesting evolution had a plan. I was merely stating, as you did, evolution's "mysterious" nature to select things. I suppose I'm personifying evolution, which I apologize for.

 

[hitssquad]

Evolution and the theory of natural selection - not necessarily the same thing

Evolution doesn't have plans, it's just random variation followed by selection of the result.

That is natural evolution. There may be other kinds. http://www.efn.org/~callen/ToC.htm substitutes educated guesses for random variation and substitues cooperative competition for natural selection - nature red in tooth and claw.

And what it means to generally evolve is perhaps something separate from what it means to be naturally selected. A given fundament might evolve via natural selection, but it might also devolve via natural selection. A good example of the latter might be the contemporary human race, which appears to be on the receiving end right now of devolution-biased selective pressure.

 

[babsyco]

Your definition of intelligence as the ability to derive consequences of a mysteriously created set of prior principles does not seem to me to be sufficient. You also need the ability to generate those principles. This is what Einstein and Feynman and Hawking and the mathematicians do, and to my way of thinking it is the highest use and quality of intelligence.



Because of the radical genetic mix-and-match property of sexual reproduction, you can't draw instant conclusions from the reproductive strategies of "smart" and "dumb" people. Historically geniuses have come from mildly smart but not brilliant parents (both Einstein and Feynman did), while the children of geniuses have been all over the lot (Hilbert's son was mentally defective, Einstein's was a competent engineer, and many other cases. The Bernouillis, just by being so rare, are a demonstration of the statistical validity of this.).

On the other hand, the case of the http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=14653&intcategoryid=2 of Ashkenazi Jews, who all descend from the twelfth century genius Rashi, show how just one individual, without any special emphasis on leaving descendents (unlike,say, Genghis Khan), can produce a brilliant progeny. Actually I could almost believe the "Rashi gene" is a single point mutation. There is no evidence that extremely high intelligence is adequately measured by IQ tests, and therefore no evidence it is a multiple gene effect.

I agree that there is no evidence that extremely high intelligence is measured by IQ (how can you give a system as complex and multi-tasked like the human brain a single numeric value), that just slipped out, imagine I had used the word intelligence instead if you like. As for your point that there is no evidence that high intelligence is a multiple gene effect, isn't that merely another point that supports mine? (mine being that there is no reason to think that further evolution will result in further intelligence). Did the Rashi chain of descendents increase the average Jewish intelligence by being able to reproduce more often? I can't really see where multiple or single points enter into it (I'm not saying it doesn't, but if you would care to elaborate). I don't know why you used the word 'strategies' either, I hope you don't think I was saying that smarter people are smart enough to reproduce more often, because I was saying that the criteria for a mutation to cause evolution is that that mutation will enable that lifeform to reproduce more than those without it. I wasn't drawing conclusions about smart and dumb peoples reproductive rates compared to each other, I was saying that being smart or dumb no longer means (if it ever did) that you will have more or less offspring continuously enough to influence the direction of evolution. Nowadays anyone might put of having children for any number of reasons-career, financial trouble, desire for freedom- I can't see anything you've said that contradicts that.

Your point about my definition of intelligence though I do agree with. My definition was inadequate, do you have a view on how we obtain these rules, or what the most accurate and complex system of rules we could attain is? I still hold that it is the underlying formula of the universe. As for attaining them, I agree with those who say that it's input being processed by a richly structured mind, and some or most of that structure was influenced by input in the eary development stages (NOT a blank slate, but rather that the input can affect the assembly of mental structures whose designs are contained in the genes. I think [or I agree with scientists who think] there are certain points in the development of these structures where the right input can make a huge difference to how it works), but does that mean (assuming you agree) that intelligence is how good a systems sensory inputs are or the quality of its hardwired facts (ie, how it obtains the set of rules it uses to overcome obstacles)? it still has to use the rules, to it's advantage to achieve its goals. I think this is AT LEAST equally as important to intelligence as how it obtained those rules. My computer is an expert in the 'rules' of sound recording (it can record the input to a hooked up microphone and store it on the hard drive at 24-bit quality, much better than I could store and reproduce a sound I hear), but can it record the sound of a lover having an affair to use as evidence in a divorce trial?

 

[selfAdjoint]

My point about the single locus for EXTREMELY high, g-loaded type intelligence is that IQ tests don't really discriminate at this level, therefore the common IQ test argument for multiple genes does not bear on it. That argument, recall, is that if the trait measured by IQ tests were due to a few alleles at one or a few gene sites, then the phenotypes would sort themselves out into observably discrete categories, whereas the results from thousands of tests suggest a continuum. Whereas the presence of this trait in the descendents of one individual who may have received a mutation, suggests a single locus. Mutations of course happen at single loci.

 

[TENYEARS]

There are no limits

 

[RingoKid]

as far as highly reproductive cultures go you can't go past us polynesians...

In terms of physical attributes we are up there as well. Intelligence potential, we are as good as anybody but given our history of star navigation and the understandings of the circular nature of the Earth and it's orbit around the sun long before it became common knowledge and our reliance on oral traditions forcing a greater capacity for memory combined with our lack of fear for sailing into uncharted territories both physical and mental, gives us a distinct advantage for survival and maybe a step up to another rung on the evolutionary ladder.

We have already assimilated numerous genotypes and culturally we have a lot to offer, so I'm looking forward to a bright future for me and my offspring off which i am up to 4 already and simple economics dictates any future additions.

Geograhically we are in a good space too the sth pacific is the place to be and New Zealand, where I'm at inspires creativity and alternative thought.

So any way is the futurist dream of combining nanotechnology, genetic research/cloning and artificial intelligence based on boyle's law a reality in the near future. A matrix like computer we marry into that signals the next step in human evolution or an upgrade chip that stimulates learning and cell regeneration that will prolong our lifetimes. Some predictions would have this happening around 2050 based on extrapolating currnet trends but like climate change those projections don't take ointo account uncertainties not yet forseen like human nature and our need to compete and hoard resources.

A pipe dream or a reality in the pipeline ?

 

[babsyco]

Are you saying that at the high end of IQ, the results are to ambiguous to draw any conclusions about genetic determinism for what IQ measures, let alone ones that support the 'common IQ test argument for multiple genes', which happens discounts determinism? As I said, I don't give much credit to IQ to measure intelligence (although, as Matt Ridley says, 'I don't think it measures intelligence, and yet it clearly measures something'), and I don't think that intelligence is completely genetically determined whether the 'common IQ test argument' is correct or not, but why do you think that the data that supports it in the mid or lower ranges of IQ wouldn't apply to the higher levels, even if the results are ambiguous? AND, I still have trouble seeing why it was brought up, because whether or not intelligence (or IQ's version of it) is determined, my point was that there is NO reason to think it will affect our further evolution.

Thanks, Babsyco

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well, the fact that IQ tests are weak at their upper ranges is an empirical fact, I don't need to make up some story to explain it in order to use the fact in an argument. But I think it would be necessary for the IQ that goes into making such a test to be at least as high as the IQ of the people taking it, and the extremely high g-loaded IQ people tend not to go into psychology.

As for your opinions about IQ and intelligence, we have long threads on this topic, and it's really pointless to hash the whole question out again whenever the subject of IQ tests comes up.

 

[RingoKid]

always knew IQ tests were culturally biased...

Gene tests prove that we are all the same under the skin By Mark Henderson

Racists' central argument and theories linking intelligence to ethnic origin have been destroyed
THE popular notion that skin colour can indicate physical or mental differences between groups of people has been demolished by a new analysis of the human genome, which declares race to be a biologically meaningless concept.

Every human being shares more than 99.9 per cent of their DNA with everybody else, and the tiny variations that remain differ more within ethnic groups than between them, a major review of the evidence says.

 

[babsyco]

My last one, I wasn't saying that IQ tests aren't weak in their upper ranges, merely that there is no reason to asume that evidence that is derived from its more accurate lower ranges would not apply to its more ambiguous high ranges, that evidence being the lack of result bands that would indicate genetic influence on intelligence. You said that that argument doen't bear on the EXTREMELY high ranges, but I think the fact that it bears on the lower ranges indicates that it would if the tests were more accurate. Forgive me for going on, I've only just joined so all this discussion is new to me and I haven't had time to check out many other threads.

thanks, babsyco.

 

[babsyco]

My last one, I wasn't saying that IQ tests aren't weak in their upper ranges, merely that there is no reason to asume that evidence that is derived from its more accurate lower ranges would not apply to its more ambiguous high ranges, that evidence being the lack of result bands that would indicate genetic influence on intelligence. You said that that argument doen't bear on the EXTREMELY high ranges, but I think the fact that it bears on the lower ranges indicates that it would if the tests were more accurate. Forgive me for going on, I've only just joined so all this discussion is new to me and I haven't had time to check out many other threads. And what was that message about Polynesians, Ringokid (laughs)? where did that come from?

thanks, babsyco.

 

[selfAdjoint]

You said that that argument doen't bear on the EXTREMELY high ranges, but I think the fact that it bears on the lower ranges indicates that it would if the tests were more accurate.

babsyco, I don't see how you can make that assumption; it seems to me to be assuming what you want to prove: that the extreme IQ has the same causality as more moderately elevated IQ. I made the suggestion that they are causally different - it was just a suggestion, I admit - but it doesn't refute that suggestion to say "No they're not".

 

[babsyco]

What I meant was, why would genetic causality only bear on high range on IQ, as opposed to IQ in general? Is likely there a few mutations that increase peoples IQ (hence effecting the higher ranges) but none that decrease it, or none that effect it in the mid ranges? I think that it's not a case of 'if genes bear on extremely high IQ', but 'if they bear on IQ'-period. My assumption not that all IQ has the same cause, but that if genes are a factor they would be a factor across the whole spectrum. Maybe a lot of High range IQ is caused by genes- hell, maybe all of it is- but if so why not low or middle range as well? (I know I said my last one, but I couldn't resist).

Thanks, Babsyco.