
How Fragile Is Our Intellect? - dredmorbius
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3c4TxciNeJZN0I0NzAzVU0zeDQ/view
======
aaron695
Since there seems to be an attack on the source and not the science it is
interesting that Jim Flynn (Flynn effect) does agree with the premise of
dysgenics.

[http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti...](http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10450313)

(The contraception in the water supply he clarified later was a joke)

------
thewarrior
I know I might downvoted for saying this but this paper is saying what many in
favour of eugenics were saying at the beginning of the 20th century.

~~~
applecore
You would think that eugenics was thoroughly discredited during the twentieth
century, but apparently we need a phrase that means the opposite of “throwing
the baby out with the bath water”—unleashing a terrible negative upon the
world in order to attain something desirable, but relatively minor and
probably attainable by other means.

~~~
gizmo686
Thankfully a horrible implementation of a concept does not completely
discredit it forever.

------
hbdman
There's your solution to the Fermi Paradox. If the IQ decline is on the order
of 1.23 points per decade (with steeper drops on the right tail of the
distribution), I can definitely see technological civilization becoming
untenable in a few centuries and before we develop strong AI.

~~~
aaron695
I don't think so.

I'd guess the singularity is decades away not centuries.

Genetic engineering babies for higher intelligence is already here. But I'd
guess it'll become more effective and common place in decades.

The intelligent tend to clump and interbreed. They breed less, so % might go
down but numbers are probably relatively stable.

Add to this many counties like the billions in China currently don't have this
problem atm. When they get their education system / poverty sorted they'll add
huge numbers to last us out the centuries.

Plus I also think communal intelligence should not be under rated. Even if g
drops, systems of group collaboration might keep the issue at bay.

~~~
Retra
What does any of this have to do with a singularity?

~~~
lstamour
When talking about AI, I'd assume this is the context? ;-)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity)

------
jostmey
While I would not be surprised if Humanity is sliding downward, I am cautious
about trying to draw conclusions about how evolution works. I feel that
evolution works a little bit like that episode in South Park where the
disabled turkey named Gobbles is the only turkey to survive the slaughter
house because its neck is bent (reference
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller!_The_Musical](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller!_The_Musical)).

------
GFK_of_xmaspast
Check the references, he cites Cattell, about whom this was written:
[http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bios/cattell/genetica.htm](http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bios/cattell/genetica.htm)

"""Cattell’s critical remarks about Hitler in later years trivialize the
horrors of the past and the dangers inherent in fascist ideology. In Cattell
(1972, p. 406), for example, he compares Hitler to "the murderous Hippie cults
of California.""""

""" Despite this, Cattell could write in 1938 that the "envy" and "hostility"
of the "Atlantic Democracies" over "the rise of Germany, Italy, and Japan,"
was uncalled-for. Citizens in these fascist states had "disciplined their
indulgences" and focused their energies on "a religious purpose." The rise of
fascist Italy and Nazi Germany "should be welcomed by the religious man as
reassuring evidence that in spite of modern wealth and ease, we shall not be
allowed to sink into stagnation or adopt foolish social practices in fatal
detachment from the stream of evolution" (Cattell, 1938, p. 149). After five
decades of reflection, Cattell has concluded that the legacy of this
catastrophe has been a mental "disorder" he calls "ignoracism" \- the
inability "to consider the scientific possibility that races may show
statistically significant differences" (Cattell, 1972, p. 262). In other
words, the Nazis created such a revulsion to racism that it resulted in
"ignoracism" \- the refusal to accept the reality of racial differences! """

~~~
throwaway90446
And how, exactly, is this relevant?

~~~
dredmorbius
It's relevant because I find I've posted a paper from a researcher associated
with a strongly eugenicist, White Nationalist organization with ties to neo-
Nazi and Fascist groups. I did _not_ realize this when I posted the item.

~~~
throwaway90446
Again, how is this relevant? Science is to be pursued on the merits of the
research, not the researchers.

~~~
dredmorbius
I've addressed this in several comments elsewhere. But briefly: if research is
conducted with an overt agenda and with predetermined conclusions, then its
validity is called strongly into question. At the very least, those reading
the research should be exceptionally skeptical.

As a specific example concerning Richard Lynn, his division of "three major
racial groups" (see the SPLC article linked elsewhere here) falls flat in the
face of numerous fallacies, among them that "negroid" isn't a single racial
category (whatever that means), but as a collective of _all_ indigenous
populations of Africa is generally held to represent greater diversity than
all other human populations combined.

It's just bad science.

If the assumption is that humans are destined to ever greater intelligence --
well, that may well not be true either. Evolution is _not_ teleological, it is
not goal-oriented. It is _variation_ subject to _selection_.

I _do_ think that the question of _what_ selective pressures are being exerted
on human populations presently is an open question. That genetic drift and the
cost and complexity of sustaining our complicated brains is an interesting
area for research. It's _exceptionally_ fraught though. And the affiliations
of the researcher and institutions in question, as well as my source on this,
lead me to question its value strongly.

------
dredmorbius
Interesting related concepts are the Flynn Effect (mentioned in the paper) and
Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget%27s_theory_of_cognitive_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget%27s_theory_of_cognitive_development)

------
ballstothewalls
Out of curiosity, isn't it a violation of copyright to make an academic
article from a paid database available publicly?

~~~
samclemens
Technically yes, but with the advent of academia.edu and the cratering public
profile of for-profit academic publishers like Elsevier, it's becoming normal.
In my field, at least, there's a perception that Elsevier and Wiley won't
further damage their reputations by going after individuals posting papers
(although I am surprised they haven't targeted Academia.edu as a whole).

Unrelatedly, the author's odd name "Michael Woodley of Menie" caught my eye.
It would seem that he's the heir to a Scottish barony (Menie). I hesitate to
even go there, but it's at the very least interesting that the (supposed)
decline in general intelligence since the Industrial Revolution is being
studied by an ancestral nobleman.

Edit: after reading the article and following up on the author's affiliation,
the Ulster Institute for Social Research, this is definitely something to be
taken with a grain of salt. The Ulster Institute has ties with "racialist"
fringe scientists promoting what is essentially a 21st century take on
eugenics. The paper is not necessarily inherently flawed because of this, but
certain assumptions in it (like the uncited claim that lower socioeconomic
classes have been historically correlated with lower g) seem fishy to me as a
result.

~~~
dredmorbius
Updating my earlier response -- these aren't just "ties", the Institute was
founded, and is headed, by a noted White Nationalist.

The source I'd picked up the item from is, it seems, quite the racist himself.
I should have seen it earlier given the topics he covered and how he was doing
so in his blog.

The area of research interests me, but I'm _exceptionally_ dubious about this
paper.

Oh, and Woodley appears to be the son of Michael Woodley, aerial effects
coordinator for several James Bond films. The elder acquired the estate in
1995. So this doesn't appear to be old money, per se.

------
botman
It's worth noting that embryo selection might be coming really soon
[http://nautil.us/issue/18/genius/super_intelligent-humans-
ar...](http://nautil.us/issue/18/genius/super_intelligent-humans-are-coming)
and that will have a much bigger influence on the evolution of human
intelligence than any effects related to natural selection.

What worries me much more than dysgenic effects is the fact that people in
western countries tend to have a strong aversion to any discussion of genetics
and intelligence, which means that these countries may end up being late
adopters of embryo selection or genetic engineering technology.

------
arximboldi
I find interesting that while the issue about the connection between race and
IQ has been widely commented here, nowbody questions (an many reapeat) the
idea that wealth and IQ are correlated. In fact, surveying the Internet one
can quickly find that this idea is widely considered wrong. However, the fact
that it is accepted acritically here shows a lot about how the American-dream
ideology and this false sense of meritocracy is so deep inside the
contemporary tech culture.

------
dredmorbius
I'm regretting posting this, though I suppose it may well serve as an advisory
and notice to others.

My source for the article is a UK psychologist, James Thompson, who'd been
posting a few interesting and provocative bits of speculation on the Ebola
situation. It seems he's got quite an interest in the works of one Richard
Lynn, whose name appears in 65 postings to

[https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=site:drjamesthompson.b...](https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=site:drjamesthompson.blogspot.com+%22richard+lynn%22&hl=en&ei=_tN7VNfcG43qoATdtIHYBg&start=10&sa=N&biw=1529&bih=960)

So, who is Richard Lynn, you ask?

This is what the Southern Poverty Law Center, an American nonprofit civil
rights organization noted for its legal victories against white supremacist
groups, its legal representation for victims of hate groups, its
classification of militias and extremist organizations, and its educational
programs that promote tolerance, has to say about him, whom they describe as a
White Nationalist:

 _For 50 years, Richard Lynn has been at the forefront of scientific racism.
An unapologetic eugenicist, Lynn uses his authority as professor (emeritus) of
psychology at the University of Ulster to argue for the genetic inferiority of
non-white people. Lynn believes that IQ tests can be used to determine the
worth of groups of people, especially racial groups and nations. The wealth
and power of nations, according to Lynn, is due to their racial intelligence
and “homogeneity” (or “purity”). He argues that the nations with the highest
IQs must subjugate or eliminate the lower-IQ groups within their borders in
order to preserve their dominance._

Mr. Lynn himself is quoted:

 _I am deeply pessimistic about the future of the European peoples because
mass immigration of third world peoples will lead to these becoming majorities
in the United States and westernmost Europe during the present century. I
think this will mean the destruction of European civilization in these
countries._

—Interview with neo-Nazi Alex Kurtagic, 2011

[http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-
files/pro...](http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-
files/profiles/Richard-Lynn)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center)

Michael A. Woodley of Menie's Google Citations pulls out any number of
interesting titles:

"Inbreeding and national IQ revisited: Postscript to Woodley (2009)"

"Were the Victorians cleverer than us? The decline in general intelligence
estimated from a meta-analysis of the slowing of simple reaction time"

"Political orientations, intelligence and education"

[http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=mmoY0-kAAAAJ&hl=en](http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=mmoY0-kAAAAJ&hl=en)

Woodley's own background is of some interest:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balmedie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balmedie)

I'm prepared to say at this point that the paper should probably be read with
_extreme_ skepticism. There may be merits to research in this area, but the
affiliations of this researcher call into serious question any possible
impartiality.

My apologies.

~~~
pippy
Because civil rights groups don't like him, it doesn't invalidate his work.

~~~
mikeash
Conversely, just because something is published as a scientific paper doesn't
mean it's worth the paper it's printed on.

~~~
bogodynamics
That's true, but it's properly an argument against all peer-reviewed
scientific works.

I would like to see more awareness of the increased skepticism that attaches
to scientific work whose conclusions we find morally repugnant.

~~~
mikeash
I don't see that this conclusion is particularly repugnant. However, the
author has a strong bias in the form of related opinions that are both morally
repugnant and highly irrational, and that casts strong doubts on his
objectivity here.

While it's good to point out that this _also_ does not invalidate the
conclusions, it's a rather different thing from what you've said.

------
hackaflocka
Please clarify:

In the third paragraph, should the word "complimentary" have been spelled
"complementary"?

