Does very high IQ lead to obsession with eugenics?

[Blue Towlie]

I've seen five different people on online message boards now that are obsessed with eugenics. All five claim to have MENSA IQ, none lower than 140. I believe them and so does pretty much everyone on each message board. They are definitely in the top percent of the population.

But all of them obsess with eugenics. It makes me think, are all people with high IQs like this? If they are, maybe eugenics is right? What would society be like if people were only like these individuals?

Being of slightly above average IQ (according to an actual test not online ones), these people tend to worry me. I don't like their view of society for the future. It is good intentioned but it reaks of "slippery-slope".

Thoughts?

[Paragon]

none lower than 140

which SD?

Thoughts?
I think eugenics can be a good thing for the human society. But I don't know very much about eugenics.

[Zilal]

I suspect it goes like this... the people who score highest on IQ tests tend to have particular kinds of minds--that is, honestly, INTJ-ish minds, high on appreciation of theories and systems. If these people also have underdeveloped secondary functions, they can become a little too interested in theories... conspiracy theories, eugenics, etc., disregarding reality in favor of their ideas about how things "should" work.

So it isn't so much that it's these people's intelligence that's leading them to support eugenics. It's their particular type of intelligence coupled with immature or lopsided development. Heh. Don't I sound superior!

[thod]

Being of slightly above average IQ (according to an actual test not online ones), these people tend to worry me. I don't like their view of society for the future. It is good intentioned but it reaks of "slippery-slope".


Do not worry, everything will alright. There will work for the semi morons too. They will be set to work cleaning drains with their tongues, and be engineered to be happy about doing it.

All creatures speciate given enough time. We humans will go the same way. This future is inevitable. You too shall serve in time.

[Kotetsu]

Brave New World reference?

[coffeeloverfreak]

Nah, I think there are people like that of every IQ. It's only the very high IQ element who dress their beliefs up under the cloaks of "eugenics" or other quasi-scientific attempts at rationalizing or justifying them. The rest are just your garden variety dumbshit racists and intolerant idiots.

[Rick]

Hmmm. At next week's super secret Mensa "take over the world" meeting, I'll have to let them know the word is out.

Really, I've never seen eugenics discussions on the Mensa messageboards. I have seen them here.

I don't see breeding people for specific traits, whether it is high IQ or anything else. Actually, I believe an extremely high IQ is as much a handicap as a benefit. The more exclusive high IQ societies tend to be, to an extent, psychological support organizations. Lots of these people tend toward social isolation, and they need the network. I'm sure eugenics comes up as does any intellectual topic, but, really, it isn't anything that is given merit. Those people, as a rule, are not interested in power over others.

[mabts]

High IQ, in conjunction with an extremely objective personality type, such as INTJ, will certainly lead to a fascination with eugenics and IQ. Any objective look at the world will lead one to realize that those on the lower end of the IQ bell curve in modern industrial society are far more likely to be criminals, unemployed, have numerous children with different people, make less money, and generally live in chaos.

Most of the problems in politics and economics are how to reconcile equal rights and legislation with the clear fact that people do not have equal intellectual ability. And while basically no one ever talks about it, most people, in their heart of hearts, know this to be the truth.

[Rick]

Mabts, your post made me think.

There is a subconscious distinction you touched upon.

There are those who thrive in chaos including some who cannot create order in chaos. There are also those in that conditon that could do better, but become predators instead. Isn't creating order in the midst of chaos an intellectual activity?

If there's any doubt, I'm agreeing with you.

[DeadSpace]

I do believe in some genetic modification...but only for genetic diseases. Random selection has done a great job for a very long time, imprecise, can have seriously flawed outcomes (cf: spears, p.hilton, etc). But overall works quite well.
Slippery slope indeed, while there is an undeniable allure to an ordered rational society, seems it would also be an incredibly boring world to live in. Knowing each day how you're friends/co-workers will act, what they'll say...bleh. Random is good.

[mabts]

Rick,

Someone once asked me what I thought intelligence was and I said it was the ability to bring order to chaos.

In terms of political/societal chaos, in which I was speaking of, it seems virtually everyone prefers stable governments/economies/justice systems over Hobbesian madness, whether extremely intelligent or inept.

Deadspace,

I've often heard this argument, that an intelligently engineered society would be boring and fruitless. I couldn't possible disagree more and there is no reason to think this is true. People with high IQs tend to have distinct personalities, not to follow the herd, and be very diverse in their interests and opinions on things. The reason we have so little diversity of views in our society is because most people's intellectual abilities are so low that they just believe whatever the prevailing and acceptable views of society are.

[Rick]

Within our society, the majority are currently in denial.

[thod]

those on the lower end of the IQ bell curve in modern industrial society are far more likely to be criminals, unemployed, have numerous children with different people, make less money, and generally live in chaos

They are better adapted to their environment. They can produce more offspring whilst doing less work. Since none of the offspring perish they are the fitter and will leave more offspring into the next generation.

You were never meant to be evolutionarily successful. You are neuter service creatures created to ensure the breeding success of others. Each tribe produces a small number of INTJ's. Your efforts increase the breeding success of the tribe as a whole. You are as specialised as the soldier ant, which likewise serves its function to the nest.

[DeadSpace]

Rick,

Someone once asked me what I thought intelligence was and I said it was the ability to bring order to chaos.

In terms of political/societal chaos, in which I was speaking of, it seems virtually everyone prefers stable governments/economies/justice systems over Hobbesian madness, whether extremely intelligent or inept.

Deadspace,

I've often heard this argument, that an intelligently engineered society would be boring and fruitless. I couldn't possible disagree more and there is no reason to think this is true. People with high IQs tend to have distinct personalities, not to follow the herd, and be very diverse in their interests and opinions on things. The reason we have so little diversity of views in our society is because most people's intellectual abilities are so low that they just believe whatever the prevailing and acceptable views of society are.
Problem with that is...completely rational society would boil down to the exact right way to do everything. No diversity OR divergence. Why would they need to? their methods work...everytime, without fail. Art, Music, emotion...all quite useless. In fact...people waste an incredible amout of time on those three, speaking from a purely logical perspective. Love would be pointless, procreation would be entirely artficial. Why take chances? That's logic, what a pure rational society would devolve too. Risk assesment would control all major decisions, and minor ones as well. Time/schedule per individual society member would be carefully refined to produce maximum output. No one would complain...it would simply be efficient. No reason to complain...it's rational...it works. No differing opinions...because there would be nothing to have opinions about. Extreme? not really, one factor guides the scenerio...efficiency, that would guide the society towards logic...and produce those changes.

[mabts]

They are better adapted to their environment. They can produce more offspring whilst doing less work. Since none of the offspring perish they are the fitter and will leave more offspring into the next generation.

You were never meant to be evolutionarily successful. You are neuter service creatures created to ensure the breeding success of others. Each tribe produces a small number of INTJ's. Your efforts increase the breeding success of the tribe as a whole. You are as specialised as the soldier ant, which likewise serves its function to the nest.

Are you implying that the evolutionary structure of nature is always right or what should be sought after? While those on the lower end of the IQ curve may be breeding more, are they "winning?" Should smart people strive to breed as much as possible? I fail to see what your point is.





mabts added to this post, 6 minutes and 40 seconds later...

Problem with that is...completely rational society would boil down to the exact right way to do everything. No diversity OR divergence. Why would they need to? their methods work...everytime, without fail. Art, Music, emotion...all quite useless. In fact...people waste an incredible amout of time on those three, speaking from a purely logical perspective. Love would be pointless, procreation would be entirely artficial. Why take chances? That's logic, what a pure rational society would devolve too. Risk assesment would control all major decisions, and minor ones as well. Time/schedule per individual society member would be carefully refined to produce maximum output. No one would complain...it would simply be efficient. No reason to complain...it's rational...it works. No differing opinions...because there would be nothing to have opinions about. Extreme? not really, one factor guides the scenerio...efficiency, that would guide the society towards logic...and produce those changes.

I think you're confusing high IQ with perfect rationality. You act as if high IQ would turn everyone into these perfect functioning robots who only make perfectly calculated decisions. Why? Look at the diversity in personality and actions of geniuses; Einstein and Tesla, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, Goethe and Schopenhauer, Plato and Aristotle, Kant and Hegel, Daunte and Shakespeare, Mozart and Beethoven. While all of these people were insanely intelligent, in terms of personality and interests, they were also remarkably different.

You're completely mechanistic view of the world, the idea that as IQ goes up, people become robotic, and art, music, and love are to be rejected is completely insane. The problem with most modern scientists/engineers is their foolishness in rejecting the arts and love. True intelligence realizes the extreme value of these things.

[denaria]

Eugenics doesn't work anyway - it's the wonders of meiosis. As it happens dear husband and I have a combined IQ of well over 300. One child has an IQ of 115, the other 130. Fine, but nothing earth shattering. And before you ask, it's too late to try again ;).

[DeadSpace]

I think you're confusing high IQ with perfect rationality. You act as if high IQ would turn everyone into these perfect functioning robots who only make perfectly calculated decisions. Why? Look at the diversity in personality and actions of geniuses; Einstein and Tesla, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, Goethe and Schopenhauer, Plato and Aristotle, Kant and Hegel, Daunte and Shakespeare, Mozart and Beethoven. While all of these people were insanely intelligent, in terms of personality and interests, they were also remarkably different.

You're completely mechanistic view of the world, the idea that as IQ goes up, people become robotic, and art, music, and love are to be rejected is completely insane. The problem with most modern scientists/engineers is their foolishness in rejecting the arts and love. True intelligence realizes the extreme value of these things.
no, i value those things, did not assume anything, you however did i do have a fairly high IQ. Logically...once you start meddling to make society better...you have to modify those things that cause friction, for a smoothly flowing society. In my statement i leaped far ahead. Changes would start out small, unnoticible at first nearly. But as with any human endeavor towards perfection, they would quickly escalate. Art, Music, Emotion are not inherently valuable, and in fact, their 'value' varies wildly from individual to individual. all three produce an emotional response, take time from more productive endeavors, and furthermore, quite often lead to conflict. Rationally, conflict should be avoided as it works directly against a smooth running society, ergo thoughts, ideas, non-uniformity of purpose and plan would be eliminated, homogenised. So that everyone would have one mind on a subject = no conflict, smooth running society.
I enjoy music, art, and emotion. Differing opinions to mine own. But logically, i would be more productive without those. Eugenics is about making perfection, those babies grow up, become adults...and think of further ways to improve the next generation, and the next improves the next...ad infinitum.
Weeding out continually, qualities they believe are detrimental. How many generations do you think it would take before everything that caused conflict among humans was eliminated? It is the most rational goal.

[ssfanatic]

Being of slightly above average IQ (according to an actual test not online ones), these people tend to worry me. I don't like their view of society for the future. It is good intentioned but it reaks of "slippery-slope".


I can see the xxFx in you coming out in that statement.:p I dont see whats wrong with it. I dont want to get on a debate of abortion, but if it comes to aborting a child bec they have a defect, then i disagree. But would it not make the world a more peaceful and intelligent place to live. According to Voltaire, "Common sense is not so common" Oh how true. Just imagine if, not intelligence, the whole world had common sense. The dream of mankind :thinking:

[Alpha Prime]

People are all obsessed with eugenics, most on an unconscious, natural level, which is good.

[mabts]

Eugenics doesn't work anyway - it's the wonders of meiosis. As it happens dear husband and I have a combined IQ of well over 300. One child has an IQ of 115, the other 130. Fine, but nothing earth shattering. And before you ask, it's too late to try again ;).

That's why the genetic IQ deviations are on a bell curve. You and you're husband are more likely to have a child with a higher IQ than two people with a combined IQ of 200, but it isn't guaranteed that you will.





mabts added to this post, 1 minutes and 44 seconds later...

no, i value those things, did not assume anything, you however did i do have a fairly high IQ. Logically...once you start meddling to make society better...you have to modify those things that cause friction, for a smoothly flowing society. In my statement i leaped far ahead. Changes would start out small, unnoticible at first nearly. But as with any human endeavor towards perfection, they would quickly escalate. Art, Music, Emotion are not inherently valuable, and in fact, their 'value' varies wildly from individual to individual. all three produce an emotional response, take time from more productive endeavors, and furthermore, quite often lead to conflict. Rationally, conflict should be avoided as it works directly against a smooth running society, ergo thoughts, ideas, non-uniformity of purpose and plan would be eliminated, homogenised. So that everyone would have one mind on a subject = no conflict, smooth running society.
I enjoy music, art, and emotion. Differing opinions to mine own. But logically, i would be more productive without those. Eugenics is about making perfection, those babies grow up, become adults...and think of further ways to improve the next generation, and the next improves the next...ad infinitum.
Weeding out continually, qualities they believe are detrimental. How many generations do you think it would take before everything that caused conflict among humans was eliminated? It is the most rational goal.

Ah, I see. We're talking about two different notions of eugenics. The eugenics which I am speaking of are in the tradition of William Shockley i.e. concerned with the average IQ of the population and ways in which it could be improved.

[Colette]

Being of slightly above average IQ (according to an actual test not online ones), these people tend to worry me. I don't like their view of society for the future. It is good intentioned but it reaks of "slippery-slope".

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that why do we need to have a society consisting only of self-ordained 'highly intelligent people'? What possible advantage could be derived from restricting the human race (or a particular population subset) to such IQ-based evolutionary engineering? I'm afraid the proponents of Eugenics fall almost exclusively into the mindset of people who cannot or will not tolerate people who are different from themselves, and who cannot appreciate the positive qualities or contributions of anyone who is different. I personally don't think we ought to be breeding a proliferation of such people.

On a slight aside, I'm also unable to comprehend how it is that a large number of people (especially, it seems, forum goers) appear to regard 'high intelligence' as an inherent social good; to be aspired to in all people, and used as a basis for ignoring or diminishing those who do not share it. Can anyone explain to me the thinking behind such assumptions?

[mabts]

My thoughts are that why do we need to have a society consisting only of self-ordained 'highly intelligent people'? What possible advantage could be derived from restricting the human race (or a particular population subset) to such IQ-based evolutionary engineering? I'm afraid the proponents of Eugenics fall almost exclusively into the mindset of people who cannot or will not tolerate people who are different from themselves, and who cannot appreciate the positive qualities or contributions of anyone who is different. I personally don't think we ought to be breeding a proliferation of such people.

On a slight aside, I'm also unable to comprehend how it is that a large number of people (especially, it seems, forum goers) appear to regard 'high intelligence' as an inherent social good; to be aspired to in all people, and used as a basis for ignoring or diminishing those who do not share it. Can anyone explain to me the thinking behind such assumptions?

Statistical Facts:

IQ <75 75-90 90-110 110-125 >125
US population distribution 5 20 50 20 5
Married by age 30 72 81 81 72 67
Out of labor force more than
1 month out of year (men) 22 19 15 14 10
Unemployed more than 1
month out of year (men) 12 10 7 7 2
Divorced in 5 years 21 22 23 15 9
% of children w/ IQ in
bottom decile (mothers) 39 17 6 7 -
Had an illegitimate baby
(mothers) 32 17 8 4 2
Lives in poverty 30 16 6 3 2
Ever incarcerated (men) 7 7 3 1 0
Chronic welfare recipient
(mothers) 31 17 8 2 0
High school dropout 55 35 6 0.4 0

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) I would never support government mandated or forced eugenics.
2) I'm not intolerant of people with average or low IQs or any sort of IQ. I judge people by their character. But, people with very low IQs have trouble functioning in society, getting jobs, staying out of jail, or having any sort of life stability. Because I am not cruel or some sort of theist who doesn't believe in changing "God's creation," I think it would be preferable for people to not be born with such a genetic burden.

[Colette]

mabts: I can assure you that low functioning and criminal and deliquent behaviour, is not confined to those with a low IQ. Such behaviour simply manifests itself in different ways. To that extent I find your argument in favour of Eugenics to be somewhat disingenuous and untenable.

[ssfanatic]

We can all sit here and talk about how great this is, but how would a government ever administer this. There is no way this would ever go over in any country. Maybe Cuba, thats about it. And if it a government DID start a eugenics program, i would bet a pretty penny that the UN would shut it down. There would have to be blood shed, and it would have to happen either secretly (third world country) or a larger conflict (i.e. world war) would have to cover it up.
Thoughts?

[OneBadMother]

I think that we should hold off on eugenics until we have a significantly greater understanding of how the human mind works, combined with a better understanding of how mental traits are passed down from generation to generation. Plus, what kind of eugenics are we talking about? Having people selected to breed, or genetic engineering in the lab? No matter which one it is, isn't it better for human survival to have a more diverse gene pool? We might run the risk of becoming as overspecialized as pandas and koalas otherwise.

[mabts]

mabts: I can assure you that low functioning and criminal and deliquent behaviour, is not confined to those with a low IQ. Such behaviour simply manifests itself in different ways. To that extent I find your argument in favour of Eugenics to be somewhat disingenuous and untenable.

I'm interested in logical reasons and statistical facts -- you're "assurances" don't mean anything. Criminal and delinquent behavior is not exclusive to those with lower IQs, but it certainly is more likely. Isn't it obvious this would be the case? People with lower abilities to see long term consequences and/or make rational decisions are certainly more likely to commit crimes and have trouble functioning in modern industrial society. Furthermore, all statistics point to the same conclusion.

In terms of how eugenics would/will be implemented, it will be very troublesome. My guess is once the technology is available it will be suppressed and made illegal by governments. But, like any demanded drug or item, making it illegal will not completely prevent it. Wealthy people will begin to genetically engineer their children for large sums of money illegally. Other wealthy people will be forced to follow suit in the desire to give their children the best advantage possible. We will then have a divided society between a genetically engineered class of wealthy people and the average citizen. As the price goes down and the technology becomes more socially acceptable, as any technology does over time, virtually everyone will be genetically engineered except for a few extreme religious groups.

I'm not saying this is a good thing or a preferable thing. If anything, it sounds rather dreary. But it seems clear to me that this will happen -- it's just a matter of when, not if.

[coffeeloverfreak]

Your definition of criminal acts is troubling, because, at the core, something criminal is simply defined as something contrary to the law. Those of us who recognize that sometimes doing the right thing means acting against arbitrary rules or summary authority would argue that breaking the law is not only justifiable sometimes, but at times it's even mandated for the person of conscience. If the law told me to kill all people with red hair, and I refused, then I'm right and the law is wrong.

So the argument that criminal behaviour is genetically determined is a dangerous one, because it uses the faulty assumption that laws are somehow based in nature. Really, laws are set up by governments and societies, and are often arbitrary. In a good society, they are flawed but we try to improve them over time.

We also fail to distinguish between what kind of laws are being broken. Statistically, the poor and uneducated are more likely to commit certain types of crimes - petty crimes, violent crimes, crimes of opportunity. The educated and wealthy also commit many criminal acts that are often equally - or more - harmful, but are viewed differently by society. So-called "white collar crime" such as widescale environmental pollution, fraud or embezzlement. The execs at Enron, Conrad Black, these people are all criminals too, and merely being educated or smart doesn't prevent that. Could we genetically engineer someone not to commit white-collar crime?

When do we stop being humans with free choice and start being robots or automons?

[mabts]

Your definition of criminal acts is troubling, because, at the core, something criminal is simply defined as something contrary to the law. Those of us who recognize that sometimes doing the right thing means acting against arbitrary rules or summary authority would argue that breaking the law is not only justifiable sometimes, but at times it's even mandated for the person of conscience. If the law told me to kill all people with red hair, and I refused, then I'm right and the law is wrong.

So the argument that criminal behaviour is genetically determined is a dangerous one, because it uses the faulty assumption that laws are somehow based in nature. Really, laws are set up by governments and societies, and are often arbitrary. In a good society, they are flawed but we try to improve them over time.

We also fail to distinguish between what kind of laws are being broken. Statistically, the poor and uneducated are more likely to commit certain types of crimes - petty crimes, violent crimes, crimes of opportunity. The educated and wealthy also commit many criminal acts that are often equally - or more - harmful, but are viewed differently by society. So-called "white collar crime" such as widescale environmental pollution, fraud or embezzlement. The execs at Enron, Conrad Black, these people are all criminals too, and merely being educated or smart doesn't prevent that. Could we genetically engineer someone not to commit white-collar crime?

When do we stop being humans with free choice and start being robots or automons?

When did I define criminal acts? Yes, the statistics I gave were statistics concerning the breaking of the law. Obviously there can be a difference between what is right and wrong and what is legal. Did I ever say that there wasn't?

What is your point? -- That low IQ people are often doing what is morally right but getting screwed over by a completely corrupt and morally wrong justice system?

Your argument is a non sequitur. You state 1. The law isn't always right or wrong morally. 2. Therefore, using statistics that show people with low IQs are more likely to commit crimes is flawed.

The reason your argument doesn't follow is because you are assuming that when people with low IQs are busted for crimes they are often doing something morally right. We have to ask ourselves, does this seem true? Almost certainly it is not. Most crimes people are convicted for in the U.S. concern actions against someone's physical body or property. It seems any basic system of morality will guarantee such rights.

Yes, people with low IQs do often commit "crimes of opportunity" as you call them. This just furthers my point. Having a low IQ in modern society makes gaining wealth or success very difficult so they often resort to crime and violence. People would be better off not having to endure such genetic burdens.

The reason so many of you intuitively react contrary to IQ-based eugenics is for a few reasons. 1) You don't want to come off as elitist. 2) You feel that it is wrong to point out the difficulties of having a low IQ because it could lead to discrimination or worse (i.e. Hitler). 3) You feel that by stating the difficulties that many with low IQs endure, you are looking down on or saying that people with lower IQs should be treated with less humanity.

I certainly sympathize with your worries. But none of them have to follow from support for IQ based eugenics or at least an acknowledgment of some basic facts. I don't consider myself better or more deserving of rights and humanity than someone with a lower or higher IQ than me. Furthermore, I don't think governments and such should force people to be engineered or changed and all that business.

[pavman]

Statistical Facts:

Before delving too deeply into a discussion about this, where, on earth, did you get those statistics? You're telling me that there are 0 people who have a high IQ that have not dropped out of High School? Ditto with incarceration? That is really, REALLY hard to believe. Cite your source.

...And if it a government DID start a eugenics program, i would bet a pretty penny that the UN would shut it down.

That is, unless the UN started the program...

I'm not really concerned with this. I find that the women who would be ideally mated with me, as far as intelligence, looks, etc ... tend to not have an interest in me (perhaps I'm just too intelligent...or perhaps I'm really a moron pretending to be intelligent, or perhaps I'm just butt ugly and no one has the heart to tell me...the world may never know).

If you've ever seen The Simpson's episode w/ Stephen Hawkins, you will know there is no real hope for a society run by geniuses... its a really funny episode, I recommend it.

Oh, and Mensa people...are gay. Yep. They need to pay for friends because they can't make any on their own. I liken them to the sad sacks who join Frats and Sororities.... *ducks out of the way of all the rotten eggs coming his way*

pavman added to this post, 6 minutes and 12 seconds later...

The reason your argument doesn't follow is because you are assuming that when people with low IQs are busted for crimes they are often doing something morally right. We have to ask ourselves, does this seem true? Almost certainly it is not. Most crimes people are convicted for in the U.S. concern actions against someone's physical body or property. It seems any basic system of morality will guarantee such rights.

OMG. Statistics are horrible to use as a reference for this. Your premise is based on an assumption, backed up by statistics that most criminals have low IQs, which is most certainly an immeasurable statistic as, last I checked, they don't give you an IQ test when you are arrested.

Its like showing stats that most SUV accidents involve women drivers, then saying women driving SUVs will cause an accident, and concluding with: women should not be allowed to drive SUVs. (And yes, I agree with this, but that's a whole other thread :cool:). Flawed logic all around there.

pavman added to this post, 7 minutes and 16 seconds later...

Anyone else ever see the movie Idiocracy? :o)

[mabts]

My source is The Bell Curve, published in 1994, by the late Harvard professor Richard J. Herrnstein and American Enterprise Institute political scientist Charles Murray.

It would be incredibly easy to test such a hypothesis. I'm assuming you know how statistical analysis works... All you'd need to do is take a random sample of those who were incarcerated, dropped out of high school etc. and give them an IQ test. I'm not sure what part of this you don't understand.

I loved Idiocracy. I think Mike Judge was trying to make a very similar point as I am but in a round-about way so as not to cause everyone to freak-out.

[Vivid]

The IQ test is administered for the purpose of determining whether or not someone is mentally handicapped. It's not necessarily meant to measure intelligence.
An INTJ is likely to score higher than an ESFP because the INTJ is used to sitting down and applying their full attention to something.

[iamnotspock]

I just want to point out that Eugenics was the basis for forced sterilization of low-IQ people in *America* in the 20th century, as well as the whole Nazi experiment. So there are your real-world applications. It is pretty much a dirty word in most social sciences.

A society of super-intelligent people would be great. And I'd argue humanity has evolved toward higher intelligence over the past million years. But forced breeding programs and IQ exams are a recipe for disaster.

[vkut79]

A society of super-intelligent people would NOT be great. Why? Because super-intelligent people are generally deficient in other important qualities. For an individual, does this mean that being super-intelligent is bad? No, I think, because on an individual level having a great amount of intelligence instead of, say, emotional sensitivity, often is beneficial for that individual. What's better for an individual is not better for society as a whole, and that's the key thing. A society consisting entirely of super-intelligent people would have many problems. Who would do the simple, cheap labor that doesn't require any thinking, like working at a fast food restaurant or building houses? In these and other occupations where intelligence is very unimportant, other qualities are much more important by comparison, such as social skills and also just an appreciation for doing simple work, neither of which a super-intelligent individual would likely have (of course there can be some exceptions). Its all about balance. In the best society, there is the best balance of super-intelligent people, people with good communication skills, people with physical strength, people who like doing simple manual labor, people with all sorts of qualities that are necessary for a successful, functioning society. We don't need more brainpower if there is less demand to utilize the products of that brainpower. Society needs to be balanced. Naturally evolution will ensure, over a long period of trial and error, that such a balance is struck.





vkut79 added to this post, 8 minutes and 14 seconds later...

Eugenics itself is a swift path to self-destruction and chaos. There is a certain virtue in ceding power to nature rather than clumsily attempting to wield that power. Regardless of how much calculation and goodwill is brought into the project, humans are unstable and corruptible, and can also be quite flawed in their thinking. To take such a great responsibility as selection of who will pass genes to the next generation - essentially the control of the future of the human race - is simply an incredibly dangerous move that cannot be made sufficiently safely. And you also cannot ignore the immorality of it. Although individual sets of moral values have a great degree of subjectivity, what they in common is an important factor to consider when determining what is right or wrong, because we cannot simply ignore fundamental human nature and depend on reason as some kind of anchor that cannot go astray.

[iamnotspock]

I would imagine in a super-intelligent society we'd just create machines to do our manual labor. This has been achieved for both fast food service and home-building, btw. But as long as you can have teenagers and illegals do it for $5/hr it doesn't pay.

Also, it's a fallacy that you can only have one or the other. I know super-intelligent types who are not lacking in some other fundamental quality. They just got freaky smart. We should all have that level of intellect.

[burazekun]

Now, I dont beleive in eugenics. Well not for say. My theory is simple, I beleive that humans will evolve in three different forms. Intelegent, Reliant, and Worker. To put simpler. Reliant are people who become dependant on machines to think or act for them based off their will, or becoming complete Cyborgs. Intelegent are a group of people who continue to advance their knowledge and tool base. My vision for Intelegent's, are very simular to ET's. Weak body's, grey skin, large heads. And I beleive the Worker, would remain something simular to us. Living in great cities, working hive like styles with selected leaders guiding and looking out for them. Evolution may see Worker types may benefit from lower intelegence as they end up living in repetative lifestyles, shedding need for other functions of the brain.

My theory. That's all. But this is why I dont beleive in eugenics. I beleive we will evolve in the the best we can biased on the decisions we make for ourselves. I also only scored 136 on the test so maybe I dont apply to this "140+" rule.

[searcheagle]

Note: The below comment does not have anything to do with eugenics. It has to do with a hypothetical high IQ society.

If there was society of just high IQ people, say an average IQ of 200, all you would do is just the mean IQ to 200. Society would rebalance and having an IQ of 200 would be nothing special. You would have to have an IQ of 300 to be impressive.

(In fact, the IQ test is balanced couple of years to keep the median IQ around 100 and Standard deviation of 16. A sample people today were to take an IQ test of the 1940s, they would have an IQ of 113.8- a gain of 13.8 IQ points in the last 60 years. Source: Everything Bad is Good for You, Steven Johnson)

[E148]

First of all I joined Mensa not for friends. I joined for the national magazine, one of which has one of my opinions published in it. These people could not even get a new member party together. They had one scheduled but did not tell me that they had cancelled it.

Second, The Giga Society ---IQ-196 minimum.

Don't know much about eugenics except Nazi and perhaps others have tried it.

Gattica.

[Blacklustre King]

Eugenics is the result of monstrous fools with absolutely no moral fiber. Eugenics was created by the very same elitist groups who thought that inbreeding would create supermen offspring when in only two generations their bloodlines suffered mental and physical defects.

These people were and are all just as stupid as they made themselves out to be.

Even worse is America had its own eugenics project that still survives today secretly. The first problem with our world is how uninformed the populous is about the dealings of our so called greaters.

[Theodoric]

Statistical Facts:

Your statistics are fascinating and quite useful to understand how people with lower intelligence function in society. However, in regards to the incarceration and criminal statistics, it merely proves one thing.

Only the dumb ones get caught.

There is no end to white collar criminals that either get away by never being caught, manipulating the law to the extent where they slip out of the courts, or find enough loopholes in current laws to ensure that their punishment is grossly disproportionate to the crime, in their favor.

While a eugenics program may reduce violent and petty crime, it may also lead to increased white collar crime such as bribery and fraud.

[mxdntz]

Statistical Facts:

IQ <75 75-90 90-110 110-125 >125

Ever incarcerated (men) 7 7 3 1 0

what about the Unabomber? and me (15 days)? Drunk Drivers? Mandatory sentences? I do not buy these results and not just the incarcerated ones either. I want data.

Also Intelligence is more than a IQ test. Here jump through all these hoops and then you are smart.

What about entertainment? The most entertaining people I know are measurably dumb. We need variety... and entertainment.

[sriv]

It is definitely too idealistic to expect everyone to be incredibly smart and perfect. The people that have high IQ are drawn towards eugenics because they are more idealistic than people with lesser IQ and they have a superiority complex.

[raconteur213]

If we are all born leaders...who will follow?

Everyone has a place, without sheep the wolf would starve. A simple analogy for a simple question.

[sriv]

Unless there are greater leaders than others. Then the others will see the logic in stepping down and serving rather than inefficiently bickering.

[raconteur213]

Unless there are greater leaders than others. Then the others will see the logic in stepping down and serving rather than inefficiently bickering.

I believe they call that a Utopia. Come now...

[sriv]

Just trying to say a Utopia can be rather simple. It may work better in smaller groups where conversation is more intimate so people know for sure who is the better leader and they have less doubt.

[Beery Swine]

My IQ's in the mid 120s and I think eugenics is pretty cool. I don't obsess over it or anything, but yeah. Eventually designer babies will pretty much make eugenics obsolete though. A more compelling topic imho is, and I don't know if anyone's coined this term before, eumemics. That is, gene is to eugenics as meme is to eumemics. Maybe there's a better word for this. They're both basically forms of totalitarianism but would they actually benefit us? Eugenics, and eumemics - fascinating stuff.

[Ool]

I've seen five different people on online message boards now that are obsessed with eugenics. All five claim to have MENSA IQ, none lower than 140. I believe them and so does pretty much everyone on each message board. They are definitely in the top percent of the population.

But all of them obsess with eugenics. It makes me think, are all people with high IQs like this? If they are, maybe eugenics is right? What would society be like if people were only like these individuals?

Being of slightly above average IQ (according to an actual test not online ones), these people tend to worry me. I don't like their view of society for the future. It is good intentioned but it reaks of "slippery-slope".

Thoughts?

Having a bunch of impulsive yokels outbreed rationally thinking people is also a slippery slope—one which we’re already considerably down.

I mean, how do you think a moron like Bush could have been elected if the number of people with poor education and poor judgment hadn’t had just reached critical mass in the populace…?

Sophisticated, reliable birth control is a silent killer of intelligence, ensuring it’s mostly people too stupid to handle pills and condoms who produce offspring. Its effects aren’t immediately apparent, but once they become undeniable you’re already quite far gone. It’s like peak oil. It doesn’t seem quite real, even though you must be aware of the inevitability of the theoretical model. And then, suddenly, wham, it becomes all too real…

The movie “Idiocracy” was really about the present, not so much the far future. If you think the last eight years were bad, just wait another fifteen or twenty! That’s how long it took Germany to go from WWI and the Kaiser to WWII and the Führer. The people who thought in 2004 that the best person to keep protecting them from a largely imaginary threat was a sadistic sociopath, who liked to deny death row inmates clemency appeals and to mock them on national TV, are still around to vote another day. And so are their children…

In the interests of full disclosure, my IQ is 146 and I’m so self-absorbed and share so few common interests with others that I don’t get laid much…





Ool added to this post, 10 minutes and 58 seconds later...

A society of super-intelligent people would NOT be great. Why? Because super-intelligent people are generally deficient in other important qualities.

Yeah, you try sitting a baby if your own mind is the most fascinating thing in the world to you…!

The problem with a vivid imagination is that you can entertain yourself to death. Stupidity means there’s a certain emotional dependence on the world around you and the stimuli it provides, but it also ensures you remain in touch with reality. Very intelligent people, though, can simulate such cool worlds solely within their neocortex that they might never achieve anything for real and not mind.

It’s a delicate balance. Too stupid and you go down the road the US is now taking. Too smart and you succumb to sweet analysis paralysis…

[Monte314]

The morally weak believe the mentally weak should serve the mentally strong.

The morally strong believe the mentally strong should help the mentally weak.

[Aronnax]

I fit your criteria and I don't believe eugenics is a good idea. Genetic diversity isn't a joke, ever see the health problems associated with purebreds?