
Algernon's Law - kiba
http://www.gwern.net/Drug%20heuristics 
======
Cushman
This is an interesting article, but there's something about it that bothers me
I'm trying to put my finger on. I think I'm a little wary of using this sort
of analytic argument to validate a theory like this _ex post facto_ while
ignoring a much simpler theory that trivially explains the same results:

Medicine is hard.

It has nothing to do with evolution; take an intelligent person with no
mechanical experience, tools, or instructions, give them a car which is
behaving oddly, and ask them to fix it. It will be a _miracle_ if they manage
to properly diagnose and fix the problem without destroying _at least_ a
couple of engines. The fundamental rule is "Interfering with a complex system
for which you don't have the manual by trial and error is as likely to do harm
as good."

I guess I don't see why this is treated as an insight into human intelligence.
No one with mechanical experience thinks you can make a car go faster by using
hotter gasoline. No one with technical experience thinks you can make a
computer run faster by boosting the input voltage. For the same reason, no one
with medical experience thinks there's a drug that can make you smarter. It
just doesn't make _sense_.

But that doesn't mean you can't make a faster car, or computer, or brain, or
that it need be terribly difficult. For all of these, the answer lies in
_structure_. And in this respect, brain modification may be the easiest of the
three, because modifying brain structure is one of the primary functions of
the brain.

~~~
pjscott
> No one with technical experience thinks you can make a computer run faster
> by boosting the input voltage.

Fun fact: some computers actually _can_ be made to run faster by raising the
input voltage! The higher voltage decreases the delays of the logic gates, and
lets you clock it faster. The big problem is that this also raises the power
consumption -- both energy per second and per clock cycle.

~~~
Cushman
That's a good note, but I did mean the _computer's_ input voltage, not the
CPU's. You can increase an individual neuron's firing speed plausibly
trivially, but the brain (like the computer) is a complex regulated system
that can't be played with that way without causing problems.

~~~
pjscott
Okay, fine -- but bear in mind that there _are_ computers which run
everything, from the CPU to the memory to the I/O, off a single (variable)
input voltage. Most microcontrollers, for example, meet this description. I
googled one at random to get some specific numbers; the PIC18F4550 runs on
anything from 2 to 5.5 V, and this is not unusual.

~~~
Cushman
Okay, okay, you got me. I'll concede the point entirely :) Feel free to
disregard the analogy as it applies to computers which may be made to run
faster by raising the input voltage.

------
ghshephard
Excellent article all around - I wish more people wrote this way. The author
initially puts forth a thesis, "Any simple major enhancement to human
intelligence is a net evolutionary disadvantage." - and then sets forth to
both support it, while simultaneously identifying all of the major issues with
this concept, the possible loopholes, and touching on all the popular memes
that the HN crown will likely want to bring up (modafinil) and examining them
through that lense of "If it's so great, why didn't we evolve that direction."

The author is opinionated, controversial, entertaining, and educational - with
citations to boot.

~~~
Scene_Cast2
Yep - awesome author. I'll definitely be taking a look at some of his other
articles. IMHO - the reason for the lack of IQ right now is that evolution is
slow. We haven't really needed high IQ (that badly) for more than, say, 500
years - which is a ridiculously small amount of time.

~~~
tokenadult
_I'll definitely be taking a look at some of his other articles._

I've noticed his user name here on HN and over on Wikipedia for a while. I was
just doing some more browsing around for his writings, prompted by the article
submitted here today. I see "My Mistakes"

<http://www.gwern.net/Mistakes>

provides a lot of food for thought.

------
vibrunazo
> If the proposed intervention would result in an enhancement, why have we not
> already evolved to be that way?

Really? This is getting upvoted here? How disappointing.

"Evolution doesn't have a goal, it doesn't make future plans. Evolution is an
accident." \- Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene

Did you know giraffes have a nerve connecting the points in it's head that are
about 5cm apart? But instead of connecting those 2 points directly, the nerve
goes all the way down through the neck, then all the way back up, to connect
its end point. Is there any advantage in this design instead of just
connecting directly? No there isn't, giraffes are that way only because,
historically, that's how they evolved. Evolution doesn't make intelligent
plans. Mutation happens randomly, then natural selection will sometimes prune
out bad mutations. That's all. Evolution is imperfect. Alluding there's
anything intelligent about evolution is alluding to intelligent design and
creationism.

~~~
tikhonj
Just to reiterate: upvoting an article does not mean "I agree". It means that
it's interesting.

If I see a well-written and interesting article that may not be correct, I'm
likely to upvote it. Why? Well, I want to read an interesting discussion about
it: perhaps its premise is wrong, but I'm not equipped to answer so I want to
farm it out to the HN reader base.

~~~
beernutz
That DOES seem to be the right way to use upvotes. Surface the interesting
content for comment and debate.

------
tikhonj
This is slightly off-topic, but I've always been suspicious of the "TANSTAAFL"
principle. Maybe reading some books by Heinlein soured me on it :P. (He's
normally a great writer, but either I didn't understand _To Sail Beyond the
Sunset_ , which is likely, or it wasn't any good, which is unlikely but
possible.)

Basically, the assumption there is that the current equilibrium is optimal or
close to optimal. The problem is that this is often untrue. If I'm being
inefficient, there is no reason for an improvement not to be completely free,
after all.

It also smacks of "conventional wisdom" which is often much more conventional
than wise.

More pertinently, I think this can apply to evolution. Now, clearly, I am no
expert on evolution, so I could be completely off-base. But my understanding
is that evolution can get caught in local maxima. That is, there could be some
sufficiently remote global maximum in the fitness function that isn't reached
because any probable mutation hits a lower value between the current state and
this possible maximum.

I suppose an example could be about how evolution never came up with the
wheel. I think there are cases where wheels would increase fitness, but they
are simply too remote from existing organisms to reasonably evolve.

If such an effect exists, then some sort of design process could overcome it.
In this case, we could strictly improve on evolution. Now, I'm not sure if
this is an actual effect, but it seems plausible. If anyone has any actual
studies on the subject, I would like to see them.

~~~
andreasvc
This indicates it is actually a theorem (proven in the area of machine
learning):

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_free_lunch_theorem>

------
spindritf
Especially the changed trade-offs regarding nutrition are interesting. Right
now in the west we can meet pretty much arbitrarily high calorie intake
requirements with decent control over its composition but we're still in the
energy conserving mode, making us fat and "lazy".

Another trade-off completely changed by modern civilization is risk aversion.
We can afford much more risk because of modern medicine, because of living in
populous, anonymous cities, because of immense wealth to fall back on... And
yet it takes a lot of courage for most people to approach and talk to a
stranger (an attractive stranger of the opposite sex in particular), fight in
a martial arts tournament, or stand out in any significant way (by dressing
differently, by speaking loudly). Those who do usually aren't making a
calculated decision but are simply unadjusted.

~~~
guard-of-terra
This it true. Humans are optimised to live in environment in which modern
humans won't want to live.

We want to live in big cities with high tech, medical care, abundant food.
Let's make a genome optimized for that!

------
Goladus
Among other things, the author of the OP does not adequately address the role
of environment in survivability, reproductive success, and genetic expression
itself. He mentions birth control. Birth control is a valuable adaptation in
certain environments, particularly where sex plays an important social role
beyond reproduction (see: Bonobos) or where resources are scarce and would be
wasted on excess offspring. But obviously, birth control can be severely
maladaptive for an individuals genes and populations that overuse it may be at
greater risk of extinction than those that don't.

~~~
gwern
All your examples are examples which show that birth control is perfectly
doable and easy; hence modern birth control - often no births at all, rather
than spacing or infanticide - easily passes under the 'that would not be
reproductively fit but we want it anyway' criterion.

------
Alex3917
"Any simple major enhancement to human intelligence is a net evolutionary
disadvantage."

An individual who is more intelligent might be less likely to pass on their
own genes, but may well make the species as a whole more resilient. Looking at
evolution from the perspective of the individual is a mistake.

~~~
pjscott
How would helping "the species as a whole" increase the frequency of that
person's genetic traits in the population? It sounds very pretty and virtuous
-- get ahead by helping others, hooray -- but the math just doesn't work.

~~~
Alex3917
"How would helping 'the species as a whole' increase the frequency of that
person's genetic traits in the population?"

I mean that's pretty much just standard evolutionary theory. C.f. sickle cell
anemia.

~~~
pjscott
How so? Having the sickle cell trait (i.e. being heterozygous for the gene
which, in homozygous individuals, causes sickle cell anemia) gives an
advantage to _individual_ evolutionary fitness in areas where malaria is a big
problem. There's no need for group selection arguments to explain the
prevalence of that trait.

------
tokenadult
I guess I will have to be the first here to join issue directly with the
thesis statement of this interesting article:

"The lesson is that Mother Nature know best. Or alternately, TANSTAAFL: 'there
ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.' Trade-offs are endemic in evolutionary
biology. Often, if you use a drug or surgery to optimize something, you will
discover penalties elsewhere. . . .

"In 'The Wisdom of Nature: An Evolutionary Heuristic for Human Enhancement' 12
(Human Enhancement 2008), Nick Bostrom and Anders Sandberg put this principle
as a question or challenge, 'evolutionary optimality challenge' (EOC):

"If the proposed intervention would result in an enhancement, why have we not
already evolved to be that way?"

The answer to the evolutionary optimality challenge (EOC) comes from any
properly taught Biology 101 course: evolution is not a teleological process,
and it neither seeks nor is driven by "enhancement," but results in haphazard
adaptations of ancestral systems through stochastic survival of genes.

I will make the counterclaim here that it is by no means clear (and it is
certainly not conclusively shown by any of the examples in the interesting
submitted article) that anything that can properly be called "optimizing" of
human beings or of humanity as a whole necessarily results in a "penalty."

The staggering additions to human well being (and to the number of living Homo
sapiens individuals) as a result of cultural innovations around the globe look
to be mostly gain with remarkably little pain. I can eat foods that are grown
in environments I have never visited, use this Internet device to communicate
with all of you, fly to places far away without sprouting wings, and learn the
thoughts of deep thinkers who are long dead. The progress of humankind in the
last few thousand years has been a story of casting off natural constraints.

I may have to use the full Hacker News editing time period for comments to
"optimize" this reply some more after I spend some time with my family, so
please don't penalize me yet for the brevity of this reply. Before someone
builds a chain of conclusions based on a supposed natural law, to reach other
conclusions, it is first necessary logically to demonstrate the truth of the
claimed natural law. "The only way of discovering the limits of the possible
is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarkes_three_laws>

Thanks for bringing up this topic of discussion.

First edit: I see another comment mentions group selection. That is not a
widely accepted idea (as contrasted with kin selection) in evolutionary
theory. See three recent posts (there are more where those came from) from
Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True website:

24 June 2102 "The Demise of Group Selection"

[http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/the-
demis...](http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/the-demise-of-
group-selection/)

26 June 2012 "Did human social behavior evolve via group selection? E. O.
Wilson defends that view in the NYT"

[http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/did-
human...](http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/did-human-social-
behavior-evolve-via-group-selection-e-o-wilson-defends-that-view-in-the-nyt/)

28 June 2012 "I (and others) comment on Steve Pinker’s discussion of group
selection"

[http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/i-and-
oth...](http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/i-and-others-
comment-on-steve-pinkers-discussion-of-group-selection/)

Oh, and since we are talking about human intelligence as a big part of the
discussion here, I should mention the Wikipedia user bibliography
"Intelligence Citations,"

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Intellige...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji/IntelligenceCitations)

a reference pathfinder that will always need more editing, as there is
continually new research on this topic, but which already gathers many of the
best monographs on the subject and some good review articles in one place.

Second edit: pjscott's thoughtful reply asks,

 _I don't think you've actually disagreed with the article. Did you read the
'Loopholes' section?_

I've reread the article again, now that you've asked, and I think what I see
here is a certain degree of rhetorical incoherence. I wouldn't compose an
article this way if I wanted to make a tight argument, but perhaps the author
desires to "essay," and try out ideas, and is still making up his own mind.

Anyway, based on the author's yeah-buts in some of the examples given after
the "Loopholes" section of the article, and on the artitle's title, and on the
first wave of comments received here on Hacker News, I have to take a stand
and strenuously disagree with the idea that there is any "evolutionary
optimality challenge (EOC)" to be met by human beings endeavoring to improve
themselves, to improve human society, or to improve the world in general.
There is plenty of scope for further optimization of individual human beings
and of the human condition.

~~~
rcthompson
I definitely agree that the use of teleological terms to describe the process
of evolution (as in this article) is inappropriate. However, I will note that
biologists often do so anyway as a shortcut because our language doesn't
really provide any good concise way to describe the actions (happenings?) of a
process that is without intention (English certainly, probably most others as
well). I would hope that most biologists understand the intellectual shortcut
they are taking by using such terms, but I suspect that in many cases they may
not.

I know that I have definitely described evolution in such terms when
explaining it to non-scientists, but when participating in discussions with
other scientists I try to stick to purely the intention-free ways of saying
things.

~~~
narrator
Evolutionary psychology is bullsh*t because it pretends to know how an
incalculable array of factors interacted to cause certain people to
successfully reproduce over generations. The thing is, the complexity of
reality is far far more awesome than that and making simplistic sounding
plausible evolutionary arguments for certain behaviours is just hubris. Yes,
evolution is happening but we're really overestimating ourselves if we think
we know just how it's happening in the absence of archaeological fossil
evidence.

~~~
rcthompson
How is this in any way a response to this comment thread? When did anyone say
anything about evolutionary psychology? I only said that biologists sometimes
get sloppy and say things about evolution they don't actually mean, and that
this confuses other people who take them at their word.

------
APelletier
I believe there is far too much emphasis placed on genetic and/or
chemical/biological explanations of intelligence. Whether you agree with the
sentiment of the linked essay or not, the only real and true control we can
ever have over intelligence through genetics/biology is via eugenics.

Until such a practice is accepted (and here's hoping it never is) we need to
focus on what we can control: Culture. The unfortunate thing is this is
difficult to approach from a geuinely scientific/empirical approach. The
fortunate thing is that some common sense can go a long way: Feed
babies/children well, set the bar high from an early age, start teaching them
a second language at an early age, expose them to new and many experiences,
etc.

~~~
AngryParsley
>the only real and true control we can ever have over intelligence through
genetics/biology is via eugenics.

There are plenty of other ways: Drugs[1], surgery, somatic gene therapy, and
transcranial direct-current stimulation. All of these technologies offer much
greater potential for enhancement than cultural changes. Also, changing
culture is hard. Really hard. Creating intelligence-enhancing technologies is
probably easier.

1\. <http://www.gwern.net/Modafinil> and <http://www.gwern.net/Nicotine> are
early examples of the potential of pharmaceuticals.

------
phlee
IQ != Intelligence, Intelligence doesn't necessarily imply evolutionary
success

~~~
Ygg2
Funny, I've always thought that definition of intelligence meant to be able to
solve a huge array of various problems. Which should imply evolutionary
success in theory. OTOH I can see how it can cripple you (e.g. a 'dumb' car
salesman can sell cars for more because he doesn't know if the car is worth
less than his offer).

------
Xcelerate
The whole premise of his argument is based on the statement "There's no such
thing as a free lunch". His logical conclusions are then derived from this.
However, he never actually proves the statement, and I for one don't believe
it.

Why must there necessarily be a tradeoff for anything good? There's no law
requiring that, and what makes one person happy may make another person
miserable.

EDIT: I just realized there's about 15 people on HN that said the same thing.
And that's why I visit this place!

------
msellout
Pangloss.

------
rubashov
"The Bell Curve" way back in the 90s touched on the many ways substantially
above average IQ appears to be maladaptive. You get much more than 1.5
standard deviation for the parents on IQ and infant mortality actually spikes.

Also various neuro diseases appear strongly correlated to IQ of the parents,
like tay-sachs, for example.

~~~
rdl
Tay Sachs is highly correlated with certain types of Jewish people. The same
group is highly above median iq. I don't think smart East Asians populations
have higher rates of Tay Sachs. The Cajun and québécois who also have high
rates of Tay Sachs are not statistically smarter than median.

It is probably more generally that closed mating groups are more likely to
amplify traits good and bad.

~~~
Ygg2
I'd say its other way around. They mate for good traits, but the proximity of
their genes leaves them open to vulnerabilities like Tay Sachs. That's my view
of it at least.

