Squashing the IQ Curve - A Less Stressful Reality?

[CuriousArv]

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?

 

[honestrosewater]

Are you moving the new mean relative to the old one or just getting rid of the highest and lowest scores?

 

[CuriousArv]

Doing both.. Move the mean up and get rid of the lowest scores.

 

[CuriousArv]

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.

 

[Evo]

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?

Who cares about IQ scores?

 

[honestrosewater]

Doing both.. Move the mean up and get rid of the lowest scores.

Roger.

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?

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?

 

[CuriousArv]

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.

 

[CuriousArv]

Roger.

Anywho, I am busy enough with my own world domination plans to worry about those of others,

Why is this so important?

 

[Evo]

Roger.

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?

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?

 

[Huckleberry]

Roger.

Anywho, I am busy enough with my own world domination plans to worry about those of others,

Why is this so important?

You could always squash the humor curve as well.

 

[Astronuc]

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?

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.

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.

i.e. make everyone similar in as many aspects/respects as possible. Why?

 

[honestrosewater]

Why is this so important?

Twas a joke.


(P.S. You're on my list now...)

 

[Kurdt]

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.

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.

 

[moe darklight]

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'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).

 

[Astronuc]

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).

Then Leonardo da Vinci would be an exception?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci#Scientific_studies

 

[moe darklight]

Then Leonardo da Vinci would be an exception?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci#Scientific_studies

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 ). 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.

 

[CuriousArv]

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.

 

[Huckleberry]

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.

 

[CuriousArv]

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.

 

[Mk]

I think there is a connection between these tests and your intelligence but it is a not a good predictor of individual success.

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.

 

[honestrosewater]

And since when do we know anywhere near enough about the processes of the human brain and intelligence to quantify it?

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.

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?

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:

Youth with superior IQ are distinguished by how fast the thinking part of their brains thickens and thins as they grow up, researchers at the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) have discovered. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans showed that their brain’s outer mantle, or cortex, thickens more rapidly during childhood, reaching its peak later than in their peers — perhaps reflecting a longer developmental window for high-level thinking circuitry. It also thins faster during the late teens, likely due to the withering of unused neural connections as the brain streamlines its operations. Drs. Philip Shaw, Judith Rapoport, Jay Giedd and colleagues at NIMH and McGill University report on their findings in the March 30, 2006 issue of Nature.

“Studies of brains have taught us that people with higher IQs do not have larger brains. Thanks to brain imaging technology, we can now see that the difference may be in the way the brain develops,” said NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D.

While most previous MRI studies of brain development compared data from different children at different ages, the NIMH study sought to control for individual variation in brain structure by following the same 307 children and teens, ages 5-19, as they grew up. Most were scanned two or more times, at two-year intervals. The resulting scans were divided into three equal groups and analyzed based on IQ test scores: superior (121-145), high (109-120), and average (83-108).

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.

But emotions are a process of the brain, and therefore a form of intelligence.

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?

I don't have a precise definition of intelligence, but I usually think of it as something more specific than that. And it doesn't seem to me that your idea of intelligence is what these tests are even expected to measure, as they don't involve testing balance, vision, and other sensory processing, and I have never heard of IQ tests being given to earthworms, though earthworms do have brains.

If anything, it could be called "abstract thought,"

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?

the ability to picture something outside of the ordinary is certainly something that IQ tests don't even touch

Which tests don't allow this? Perhaps ones that are multiple-choice, pencil-and-paper tests. I don't know how all of the tests are done, but I had one in elementary school, and it was just a lady sitting down with me and asking me questions, giving me blocks to play with and tasks to do, stuff like that. It was more like a conversation than a normal test. This format doesn't preclude new answers being given. I don't know about the scoring, but perhaps you can tell me since you are so certain.

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).

Even if this were true, how is this a criticism of the test unless it actually attempts to test for this?

Your whole criticism seems to basically be that IQ tests don't test for everything that any human can possibly do, and 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.

 

[honestrosewater]

Forcing people to be more intelligent might sound unethical here but

What does this mean? You think that it is unethical, but you don't care, or you think that it is ethical?

I'd like to hear why you think you have the authority to make this decision, to control the intelligence level of others.

 

[Huckleberry]

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.

I thought I worded my post pretty carefully. I did not say that the average working man is unintelligent. I said that many people who do not require a lot of intelligence for their occupation would want to pursue other goals with that newfound intelligence. I'm in the working class myself. I just meant that someone who is suddenly capable of doing something else, might actually want to do something with their new capabilities. They may find their job does not challenge their intellect and they are suddenly bored and unfulfilled. An ambitious person would want to maximize their potential. I never once mentioned a dumb and happy working class.

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.

I think if everyone was smarter you would find that nothing would change. There would still be a lower class and ciminals would still consist primarily from this group. They would just be smarter criminals.

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.

Children need to have some type of learning and social interaction with peers so they can function in society as adults. They don't have to be all geniuses. What I'm advocating is that no one should be forced to do anything beyond what is required for them to live responsibly in society. If people want to be more intelligent they should do it the old-fashioned way. They should earn it.

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.

This isn't how western cultures work. We are all in competition with each other. Sometimes even the necessities of life are difficult to maintain. To get more than that requires a quality that gives you an advantage over your competition. If everyone were a millionaire then being a millionaire would be enough for the bare essentials of survival. This would leave people with no more autonomy than they had before. Unless the entire culture were changed, people would be in much the same situation as they were before everyone became more intelligent. More intelligent does not mean kinder or more peaceful. I think you would find that most competition is not very kind or peaceful at all, and with so many people competing on the same level, things could get quite out of hand.

 

[honestrosewater]

They would just be smarter criminals.

Haha.

I was going to suggest that if you really wanted to make the world a less stressful place, your time would be better spent teaching some ethics classes or getting them included in current curricula. Do they even cover ethics in high school and below?

 

[Huckleberry]

It's been a while, but I don't remember any ethics classes in high school. I think ethics are vitally important, but I kind of doubt that teaching them as anything other than a social logic accomplishes much. We pretty much are responsible for learning empathy on our own. Psychology and philosophy are somewhat useful for seeing things outside one's own persepective. Funny, I don't remember learning much of those in high school either. I was too busy day-dreaming probably.

 

[CuriousArv]

My motivation is to look for the best ways to provide for balance and progress at the same time for civilisation as corny as that sounds.

If it turns out that raising intelligence levels is completely the wrong thing to do then well..I'd stop supporting it. Given that there are is a big push nowadays to get people more skilled with technology (which usually involves using more higher order thinking skills) I thought that a push to raise intelligence was justified. I don't know if traditional educational methods which usually ends up producing trained 'monkeys' effectively addresses this problem.

 

[honestrosewater]

My motivation is to look for the best ways to provide for balance and progress at the same time for civilisation as corny as that sounds.

Defining your problem more precisely usually makes possible solutions easier to find or check. What does "balance and progress" mean? Also, as you might know, it would probably make it easier if you opt for quantitative rather than qualitative measures, e.g., lowering crime rate rather than increasing respect for social contracts.

 

[CuriousArv]

Balance: I really can't answer this too well yet...Perhaps just correcting destabilisations as the system described below comes into effect and starts to run is good enough

Progress: I can be more specific here.

Topic: Education/Living standards

Objectives: effective ways of getting people to transistion both sideways and upwards throughout lifetime.

Method:
1. In order for people to move effectively move sideways, provide effective
training technologies.. ie wearable computing tools as primers for new jobs.

2. In order for people for people to move upwards, develop a technology that
can effectively raise intelligence. Use nanotech/medicine/education together to develop such a technology. For effectively moving upwards, I think augmenting intelligence is vital.

Leave it up to the individual to choose to utilise these. However as an administrator, work out some way of nudging people in lower world to utilise these systems so that society as a whole
becomes safer and less confused. the quantitative bits will come in here as means of assessment.

Yeah I think this sounds finally right to me although this is room for much more precision obviously.

 

[honestrosewater]

But do you want to raise intelligence for the sake of raising intelligence, or do you want to do something else, e.g., reduce stress levels, and you assume that raising intelligence will accomplish this goal?

If you want to reduce stress levels, why not start by creating a society where people's basic needs are met, i.e., rid the world of poverty? Isn't not having enough food to eat, decent housing, adequate medical attention, respect or compassion from other people, etc. a big cause of stress? What difference does it make whether someone works all day digging a ditch or designing a robot to dig a ditch if that person isn't earning enough to get above the poverty line?

That is why I suggested teaching ethics classes in school so that people can learn better ethical-thinking skills. Perhaps then people would start valuing the welfare of others more and would do something to reduce everyone's stress levels, e.g., end poverty. (Really, is there some good reason why anyone in the world is starving? People can't even come together to end the friggin genocide in Darfur that's been going on since 2003! 2003! Genocide! And everyone knows about it! Hah, okay, I won't get started, but sheesh. Get people to care about each other if you want to end stress.)

Philosophy, and some philosophies in particular, can also help people to realize the destructiveness of stress and generally help them become more rational people who can exercise better control over their state of mind and be less easily bent out of shape by things in their environment that are beyond their control. You only need so much intelligence to understand these concepts and apply them to your life.

 

[CuriousArv]

No not for the sake of it. Just so that people in their jobs are competent enough to do them properly. Yeah this might sound conterversial because traits other than intelligence are needed but of-course it central for professionals. Have some form of 'earning credits' till your next upgrade or something like this..

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! Of-course i'd agree to ethics classes in schools and privision of sufficient intelligence in everyone to understand their significance..

Things like the Bill Gates Foundation and efforts by Bob Geldoff to help Africa are doing what you suggested yes? So there are some positive processes going on.

 

[honestrosewater]

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.

 

[moe darklight]

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 ).— 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.

EDIT: holy crap that was a long post. oops, I just made it longer.

 

[CuriousArv]

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.

 

[honestrosewater]

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.

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?

I did grant that I could have misunderstood you.

 

[CuriousArv]

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.