Robin Hanson wrote:
> Peter McCluskey wrote:
> > You seem to have a plausible model of how societies improve their
> >collective IQ and of how individuals are able to utilize social knowledge.
> > But IQ tests appear to do a fairly good job of filtering out these effects
> >and measuring mainly what individuals can do in isolation. It is hard to
> >believe that this is affected by the compute cycles of the rest of humanity.
> > I was mainly reacting to your claim that you had a good explanation for
> >the Flynn effect. Your model may well describe some effects that will be
> >important in predicting the social effects of AI.
> I was just accepting the usual claim that there hasn't been time for selection
> to produce the Flynn effect, which implies that IQ tests must not filter out
> important social effects. I grant that the standard claim could be wrong,
> but I do tend to accept it for now.
What about the impact of diet? Does not a better childhood diet (as well as a
decrease in childhood diseases) impact resultant IQs? Then again, you also have
the fact that the increase in women with higher education brings the
intelligence of the female into play when mating qualifications are examined.
Prior to highly educated women, there was no standard for comparison for men to
tell the intelligence of one woman from another without more extensive courting
experience. As a result, possibly more intelligent people marry each other now
than in the past...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:17 MDT