"What if people were twice as intelligent?"
122 views
Skip to first unread message
XFMQ902SF
Feb 7, 2012, 7:42:13 PM2/7/12
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Interesting and provacative article. What if people were twice as
smart as they are now, with an average of 200 IQ than 100? Imagine the
possibilities...
"You might someday be much, much smarter than you are now. At least
that's the hope of neuroscientists focused on understanding the basis
of intelligence.
They have discovered that the brains of people with high IQs tend to
be highly integrated, with neural paths connecting distant brain
regions, while less intelligent people's brains build simpler, shorter
routes. But no one knows why some brains construct much longer-range
connections than others.
"When the brain mechanisms that underlie intelligence are understood,
it is theoretically possible that those mechanisms can be tweaked to
increase IQ," said Richard Haier, a neuroscientist and professor
emeritus at the University of California at Irvine who studies
intelligence. For the first time in human history, he said, "the
concept that intelligence can be increased is reasonable."
It's a titillating thought but, considering the aphorism "ignorance is
bliss," one might wonder: Would it really be better to be brainier?
What would life and society be like if we all suddenly became, say,
twice as intelligent?
For simplicity, imagine that instead of our current mean IQ score of
100, humans had an average score of 200. (Experts say this isn't a
true "doubling" of intelligence because the IQ scale doesn't start at
zero — and furthermore, the test isn't actually designed to yield a
score as high as 200 — but we will set aside these qualifications for
the purpose of argument.)
According to Earl Hunt, professor emeritus of psychology at the
University of Washington and president of the International Society
for Intelligence Research, approximately one person in 10 billion
would have an IQ of 200. With a current world population of 7 billion,
there may or may not be one such person alive today, and in any case,
his or her identity is unknown. However, the 17th-century genius Isaac
Newton, discoverer of gravity, calculus and more, is sometimes
estimated to have had an IQ of 200 (though he never took an IQ test).
Using him as an archetype, what if we were all a bunch of Newtons?
Would the world be much more advanced than it is today? "
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45998325/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/what-if-humans-could-be-made-twice-intelligent/
smart as they are now, with an average of 200 IQ than 100? Imagine the
possibilities...
"You might someday be much, much smarter than you are now. At least
that's the hope of neuroscientists focused on understanding the basis
of intelligence.
They have discovered that the brains of people with high IQs tend to
be highly integrated, with neural paths connecting distant brain
regions, while less intelligent people's brains build simpler, shorter
routes. But no one knows why some brains construct much longer-range
connections than others.
"When the brain mechanisms that underlie intelligence are understood,
it is theoretically possible that those mechanisms can be tweaked to
increase IQ," said Richard Haier, a neuroscientist and professor
emeritus at the University of California at Irvine who studies
intelligence. For the first time in human history, he said, "the
concept that intelligence can be increased is reasonable."
It's a titillating thought but, considering the aphorism "ignorance is
bliss," one might wonder: Would it really be better to be brainier?
What would life and society be like if we all suddenly became, say,
twice as intelligent?
For simplicity, imagine that instead of our current mean IQ score of
100, humans had an average score of 200. (Experts say this isn't a
true "doubling" of intelligence because the IQ scale doesn't start at
zero — and furthermore, the test isn't actually designed to yield a
score as high as 200 — but we will set aside these qualifications for
the purpose of argument.)
According to Earl Hunt, professor emeritus of psychology at the
University of Washington and president of the International Society
for Intelligence Research, approximately one person in 10 billion
would have an IQ of 200. With a current world population of 7 billion,
there may or may not be one such person alive today, and in any case,
his or her identity is unknown. However, the 17th-century genius Isaac
Newton, discoverer of gravity, calculus and more, is sometimes
estimated to have had an IQ of 200 (though he never took an IQ test).
Using him as an archetype, what if we were all a bunch of Newtons?
Would the world be much more advanced than it is today? "
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45998325/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/what-if-humans-could-be-made-twice-intelligent/
Gwern Branwen
Feb 7, 2012, 8:26:22 PM2/7/12
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 7:42 PM, XFMQ902SF <kei...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Using him as an archetype, what if we were all a bunch of Newtons?
> Would the world be much more advanced than it is today? "
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45998325/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/what-if-humans-could-be-made-twice-intelligent/
>
> Using him as an archetype, what if we were all a bunch of Newtons?
> Would the world be much more advanced than it is today? "
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45998325/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/what-if-humans-could-be-made-twice-intelligent/
Almost surely. The Terman study found vastly many more patents and
publications towards the upper end of its spectrum, and IQ is strongly
correlated with positive externalities and cooperative behaviors; a
starting point in the literature would be
http://lesswrong.com/lw/7e1/rationality_quotes_september_2011/4r37
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net
cyberslaw
Feb 8, 2012, 5:28:35 AM2/8/12
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
If people were twice as intelligent they would not have iq 200...2 in
100 have iq 130+, 50 in 100 a 100-105 wich is average, so to be twice
as smart you would have 25 in 100 concentration or 1 in 4 and wich is
75 percentile and that is 110-115.So when you determine the average
"twice" you can start with the others and also,i think in this social
system being twice as smart for everyone would be a disaster if it
were to happen instantly there would be chaos and the worst kind of
anarchy, only in a system where everyone is treated equally a more
intelligent society could work, what we have now asks fo more stupid
people that live their lives on auto-pilot.
On Feb 8, 2:26 am, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
100 have iq 130+, 50 in 100 a 100-105 wich is average, so to be twice
as smart you would have 25 in 100 concentration or 1 in 4 and wich is
75 percentile and that is 110-115.So when you determine the average
"twice" you can start with the others and also,i think in this social
system being twice as smart for everyone would be a disaster if it
were to happen instantly there would be chaos and the worst kind of
anarchy, only in a system where everyone is treated equally a more
intelligent society could work, what we have now asks fo more stupid
people that live their lives on auto-pilot.
On Feb 8, 2:26 am, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 7:42 PM, XFMQ902SF <keif...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Using him as an archetype, what if we were all a bunch of Newtons?
> > Would the world be much more advanced than it is today? "
>
> >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45998325/ns/technology_and_science-scienc...
>
> > Using him as an archetype, what if we were all a bunch of Newtons?
> > Would the world be much more advanced than it is today? "
>
Włodzisław
Feb 8, 2012, 7:12:28 AM2/8/12
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
i dont agree with you because 2 seprate minds against a mind which is 2 times powerfull is not the same thing.
while it may be tru that 2 seperate brain have 20-25 points in crease doesnt mean 1 mind twice powerfull will have 20-30 increase. it may have triple increase in iq . because two seperate guys cant actually divide and calaborate in a perfecr way since they have two diffrent beings with free will of thei own without telepathy skills.
when you take one mind.... twice as powerfull there are no such pitfulls.its one free will one direction.
Aman Idle
Feb 8, 2012, 8:10:08 AM2/8/12
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
We would do amazing stuff. But then again the nuclear bomb was discovered by genuiuses. I think we'd self destruct as we would go beyond what they earth can provide. We would push it to the limit and people would create all sortf of self destructing mechanism. Wait, am i making sense? lol
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.
Brandon Woodson
Feb 8, 2012, 12:59:11 PM2/8/12
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
The article conjures up images of a very interesting world. Articles
like this are fun to read, but I would be wary of putting complete
faith into some of the conclusions reached in the article as many of
these are based on over-generalizations. Also, many of the "The world
would be 'x' because study 'y' shows that gifted people are more
likely to 'z'" statements would not apply to such a society since we
are talking about a profoundly gifted society. Most gifted persons
studies are based on a reasonably large sample of high I.Q.
individuals, which means it is likely comprised mostly of a large
number of bright, less moderately-gifted, and even fewer highly-gifted
individuals. These studies would probably not take into account trends
of the super high I.Q. because there is too small of a pool from which
to draw a sample; it is believed that the profoundly gifted are just
as different from the moderately gifted as is the moderately gifted
from those of average ability. Also, the average +200 I.Q. individual
(no oxymoron intended) from today's society has (or would) probably
develop much differently than a person of similar intelligence in our
hypothetical society of the future since humans are naturally social
creatures and many of the social difficulties faced by the gifted are
at least in part due to being an anomaly rather than being problems
inherent to having high I.Q. alone.
like this are fun to read, but I would be wary of putting complete
faith into some of the conclusions reached in the article as many of
these are based on over-generalizations. Also, many of the "The world
would be 'x' because study 'y' shows that gifted people are more
likely to 'z'" statements would not apply to such a society since we
are talking about a profoundly gifted society. Most gifted persons
studies are based on a reasonably large sample of high I.Q.
individuals, which means it is likely comprised mostly of a large
number of bright, less moderately-gifted, and even fewer highly-gifted
individuals. These studies would probably not take into account trends
of the super high I.Q. because there is too small of a pool from which
to draw a sample; it is believed that the profoundly gifted are just
as different from the moderately gifted as is the moderately gifted
from those of average ability. Also, the average +200 I.Q. individual
(no oxymoron intended) from today's society has (or would) probably
develop much differently than a person of similar intelligence in our
hypothetical society of the future since humans are naturally social
creatures and many of the social difficulties faced by the gifted are
at least in part due to being an anomaly rather than being problems
inherent to having high I.Q. alone.
☉
Feb 8, 2012, 6:04:14 PM2/8/12
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
One major incorrect assumption occurring here is that "twice as
intelligent" and "200 I.Q." are not equivalent. For something to be
two times something else, one would have to provide an absolute scale
according to which one may be able to assess all subjects independent
of each other.
cyberslaw in a post above points out rarities and percentiles
connected to I.Q. scores (and one assumes he's strictly referring to
those with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 - both must
always be specified when talking about I.Q. scores). To clarify on
that, I wrote up a little table and discussion on it:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3CipHGoYoYUMDM4YWM4NTUtZDU3OS00OTkxLWE4NDktNWUyZjE2NmZjMDk2
In short, an I.Q. of 110 is twice as great (i.e., rare) as an I.Q. of
100. No, an I.Q. of 200 isn't, if we understand what it is we're
talking about. If we regard the term "intelligent" to be restricted to
I.Q. scores, then the latter would also be twice as intelligent as the
former.
Since that is only two-thirds of a standard deviation greater, I don't
believe society (to avoid unnecessary and unjustifiable arbitrariness,
I take the world to be one society as a whole) would change
significantly. There would be fewer criminals and impoverished
persons, however.
argumzio
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45998325/ns/technology_and_science-scienc...
intelligent" and "200 I.Q." are not equivalent. For something to be
two times something else, one would have to provide an absolute scale
according to which one may be able to assess all subjects independent
of each other.
cyberslaw in a post above points out rarities and percentiles
connected to I.Q. scores (and one assumes he's strictly referring to
those with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 - both must
always be specified when talking about I.Q. scores). To clarify on
that, I wrote up a little table and discussion on it:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3CipHGoYoYUMDM4YWM4NTUtZDU3OS00OTkxLWE4NDktNWUyZjE2NmZjMDk2
In short, an I.Q. of 110 is twice as great (i.e., rare) as an I.Q. of
100. No, an I.Q. of 200 isn't, if we understand what it is we're
talking about. If we regard the term "intelligent" to be restricted to
I.Q. scores, then the latter would also be twice as intelligent as the
former.
Since that is only two-thirds of a standard deviation greater, I don't
believe society (to avoid unnecessary and unjustifiable arbitrariness,
I take the world to be one society as a whole) would change
significantly. There would be fewer criminals and impoverished
persons, however.
argumzio
☉
Feb 8, 2012, 6:08:00 PM2/8/12
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Not sure what happened there, but that link isn't correct. Here is the
correct one:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3CipHGoYoYUOGNjYmM4NzQtOTBhZi00MmI2LWFmMWQtZjVmOGY1NmIyODE3
argumzio
On Feb 8, 5:04 pm, ☉ <argum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One major incorrect assumption occurring here is that "twice as
> intelligent" and "200 I.Q." are not equivalent. For something to be
> two times something else, one would have to provide an absolute scale
> according to which one may be able to assess all subjects independent
> of each other.
>
> cyberslaw in a post above points out rarities and percentiles
> connected to I.Q. scores (and one assumes he's strictly referring to
> those with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 - both must
> always be specified when talking about I.Q. scores). To clarify on
> that, I wrote up a little table and discussion on it:
>
> https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3CipHGoYoYUMDM4YWM4NTUtZDU3OS00OTkx...
correct one:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3CipHGoYoYUOGNjYmM4NzQtOTBhZi00MmI2LWFmMWQtZjVmOGY1NmIyODE3
argumzio
On Feb 8, 5:04 pm, ☉ <argum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One major incorrect assumption occurring here is that "twice as
> intelligent" and "200 I.Q." are not equivalent. For something to be
> two times something else, one would have to provide an absolute scale
> according to which one may be able to assess all subjects independent
> of each other.
>
> cyberslaw in a post above points out rarities and percentiles
> connected to I.Q. scores (and one assumes he's strictly referring to
> those with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 - both must
> always be specified when talking about I.Q. scores). To clarify on
> that, I wrote up a little table and discussion on it:
>
☉
Feb 8, 2012, 7:03:38 PM2/8/12
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
And before anyone panics, there is indeed an arithmetical mistake in
the second paragraph. The coefficient (2) should be in the
denominator, i.e., (1/2*X). Nevertheless, it should be clear, so I
won't bother writing it up again.
argumzio
On Feb 8, 5:08 pm, ☉ <argum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not sure what happened there, but that link isn't correct. Here is the
> correct one:https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3CipHGoYoYUOGNjYmM4NzQtOTBhZi00MmI2...
>
> argumzio
the second paragraph. The coefficient (2) should be in the
denominator, i.e., (1/2*X). Nevertheless, it should be clear, so I
won't bother writing it up again.
argumzio
On Feb 8, 5:08 pm, ☉ <argum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not sure what happened there, but that link isn't correct. Here is the
>
> argumzio
Brandon Woodson
Feb 8, 2012, 7:32:31 PM2/8/12
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Well, I suppose that, given the likely-erroneous extrapolation of
super high I.Q. tendencies based on research-founded high I.Q.
tendencies and what I would consider a consensus agreement on the
inappropriateness (and ambiguity) of using rarity and/or actual I.Q.
scores to illustrate the author's intended meaning of Newtonian-like
intelligence, the intellectual integrity of the article has been
officially ripped to shreds. It was a fun read, though, overlooking
the above. :)
super high I.Q. tendencies based on research-founded high I.Q.
tendencies and what I would consider a consensus agreement on the
inappropriateness (and ambiguity) of using rarity and/or actual I.Q.
scores to illustrate the author's intended meaning of Newtonian-like
intelligence, the intellectual integrity of the article has been
officially ripped to shreds. It was a fun read, though, overlooking
the above. :)
Michael
Feb 8, 2012, 7:39:21 PM2/8/12
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
"think in this social system being twice as smart for everyone would
be a disaster if it were to happen instantly there would be chaos and
the worst kind of anarchy, only in a system where everyone is treated
equally a more intelligent society could work, what we have now asks
fo more stupid people that live their lives on auto-pilot."
+1
be a disaster if it were to happen instantly there would be chaos and
the worst kind of anarchy, only in a system where everyone is treated
equally a more intelligent society could work, what we have now asks
fo more stupid people that live their lives on auto-pilot."
Relative to a dogs own imagination, the smarter a dog gets the less
likely it is going to be obedient to an owners intellectually
unsophisticated commands, if it can otherwise avoid doing so.
I'm not confident in saying there would be 'total anarchy' in the form
of violence and it's related concepts but I think it is perhaps
feasible to predict that there would be anarchy to the extent that
fundamental social changes would result from the output. Under what
means however, I do not know, its fun to speculate but I'm just simply
not that smart!
;)
Michael
Feb 11, 2012, 5:44:20 AM2/11/12
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Yeah, I'm not too sure why this 'twice as smart' phenomenon is still
being packaged this way in the media. My only guess is that there is
perhaps too much concern with the amount of bubbles that can be
created as opposed to how well the soap performs at what its supposed
to do, clean. I overlooked this fact initially, choosing to reflect on
the broad idea as opposed to how it was presented, however it would be
nice if overtime this sort of stuff improves (maybe in a world of
Newton's?); shucks...
P.S - nice work argumzio
being packaged this way in the media. My only guess is that there is
perhaps too much concern with the amount of bubbles that can be
created as opposed to how well the soap performs at what its supposed
to do, clean. I overlooked this fact initially, choosing to reflect on
the broad idea as opposed to how it was presented, however it would be
nice if overtime this sort of stuff improves (maybe in a world of
Newton's?); shucks...
P.S - nice work argumzio
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages