From: Brian Phillips (deepbluehalo@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Nov 22 2002 - 08:15:48 MST
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:20:31 -0500
From: "Alexander Sheppard" <alexandersheppard@hotmail.com>
Wow, Alexander there's almost a falsehood a sentance in this passage
<<<Well, actually, I may have spoken too soon here--I'm really not all sure
how
this would work out, thinking about it some more. It really depends on
things that I just don't know. I mean, say we can use genetic engineering to
give the children of the rich a boost in their IQ. >>
There is no fundamental and neccessary long-term (i.e. 50+ years)
linkage between wealth and genemods. Sure, early adopters tend to
have the financial means, but the technology cascades downwards.
The only things I know of which could *sustain* extremely high prices
is luddite suppression of newer better techniques (i.e. the "dignity
fascists")
and extremely strong IP protection. Even so the black market
will likely take care of that last possibility. In the meantime the rich may
keep
getting richer (genetically).
<<What's interesting is that wealth is not actually very correlated to IQ
in our society, though>>
Um.. Alexander this statement is just so much BS dude.You will
have to support this statement. The best I can do in advocating this
weird statement of yours is that IQ has a periodic correlative effect,
neccessary but not sufficient, and effacious only to a certain
level.
Example. There is a strong correlation between IQ and Socioeconomic
status. Not absolute to the point of absolute linkage but very strong.
Neccessary but not sufficient. : Virtually all persons who are
wealthy are either "bright" (i.e. around one standard deviation
above the mean population IQ) or are children of those who were
bright (from whence they derive their wealth). Exceptions exist,
entertainers spring to mind, but they are exceptions that highlight the
greater trend. IQ is effacious only to a point with respect to SES.
An IQ of 125 is about optimal, assuming you likable and diligent.
IQ of 140 means you often have deeper "life of mind" and find
the company of the bulk of the population annoying in the extreme.
Hence less wealth opportunity. People like this (like me) tend
to find highly specialized work that may not involve interaction
with normals or dulls, it's just annoying. Not as lucrative as sales,
but not starving either LOL..For genius or ultra-rich the
correlation "fades" progressively. But most self-made ultra-rich
are at LEAST 1.0 SD above baseline. (probably much higher).
But this is a mere 0.5% or less of the population. The usual rules
don't apply as much.
<<--so I really don't know how that would work out. Would a higher IQ mean
that
people would realize that exploiting others is not a desirable feature to
have in a society and voluntarily desist from it? I don't know.>>
To a degree. High IQ people are more willing to ally with others,
they think more to the long-term advantage, they have internal
locus of control, so you might find that they desist if they are not
penalized
for doing so. If they are penalized.. well then the brights can play THAT
game well to.
< And, really,
what do we even mean by increase intelligence? The IQ exam isn't necessarily
a firm measure of intelligence on the whole. So, thinking about this some
more, I'm not at all sure, really. Is "intelligence" defined as the ability
to develop and implement increasingly monstrous schemes to increase one's
personal power?>
:::::Sigh.::::: No Alexander, it's g factor. Pure and simple. Once you have
enough g other traits become increasingly relevant. An IQ exam measures
g very well. It's practically the only thing in psychology that *works*
like a physical law. Other trait theories can suggest new dimensions
of "personality" but this is NOT intelligence. You want emotional
and personality modifications, not intelligence mods.
regards,
Brian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:19 MST