They’re also causally upstream, given that intelligence is the problem. Meaning the problem is one of bootstrapping. This doesn’t actually change any implications.
Yes, it does, if you cannot bootstrap in the first place because you cannot implement the measures because of a population with low intelligence, high discounting, high crime and corruption rates etc.
If genetics is a limiting factor, correcting the environmental factors will still improve things.
You’re equivocating and it is not the case that regardless of genetics, all environmental interventions are equally profitable a priori. If genetics is a limiting factor on intelligence and other traits, then an environmental intervention—if you can manage it in the first place—will be restricted to its proximate effects and will not have the huge spillovers which led to the Great Divergence. If a population is at its genetic limit already and you successfully implement, say, iodization, the benefits will be limited to the immediate effects of reducing goiters and low energy, but you will not get the spillovers to homicide, the spillovers to greater education, the spillovers to higher income, the spillovers to lower discount rates and higher capital formation, etc. The cost-benefits for iodization are based on these benefits, not merely eliminating goiters! Likewise, if you cure malaria and a population is at the limit, you’ll reduce how many people die of malaria and that’ll be it. Maybe that much lower impact will still be worth it, but given how close to the edge a lot of interventions already are… It is not the case that all environmental interventions are always profitable and should always be done.
Yes, it does, if you cannot bootstrap in the first place because you cannot implement the measures because of a population with low intelligence, high discounting, high crime and corruption rates etc.
The intelligence levels are roughly analogous to 1930′s America. The issue isn’t intelligence.
You’re equivocating
No, I’m assuming everything you say is true, and telling you your conclusions are still wrong.
it is not the case that regardless of genetics, all environmental interventions are equally profitable a priori. If genetics is a limiting factor on intelligence and other traits, then an environmental intervention—if you can manage it in the first place—will be restricted to its proximate effects and will not have the huge spillovers which led to the Great Divergence. If a population is at its genetic limit already and you successfully implement, say, iodization, the benefits will be limited to the immediate effects of reducing goiters and low energy, but you will not get the spillovers to homicide, the spillovers to greater education, the spillovers to higher income, the spillovers to lower discount rates and higher capital formation, etc. The cost-benefits for iodization are based on these benefits, not merely eliminating goiters! Likewise, if you cure malaria and a population is at the limit, you’ll reduce how many people die of malaria and that’ll be it. Maybe that much lower impact will still be worth it, but given how close to the edge a lot of interventions already are… It is not the case that all environmental interventions are always profitable and should always be done.
Except that we know that intelligence benefits -can- still be achieved, because we are still seeing improvements. The Flynn effect is still being observed in lower-than-average IQ populations in the US, although it appears to have tapered off if not ended for populations already at or above average.
The intelligence levels are roughly analogous to 1930′s America. The issue isn’t intelligence...Except that we know that intelligence benefits -can- still be achieved, because we are still seeing improvements. The Flynn effect is still being observed in lower-than-average IQ populations in the SU
Only if you believe in the Flynn effect and you are willing to extrapolate backwards and infer that Western populations were border-line retarded then and were of comparable levels to other populations now.
No, I’m assuming everything you say is true, and telling you your conclusions are still wrong.
This does not address the point I made about proximate versus indirect effects of interventions.
Only if you believe in the Flynn effect and you are willing to extrapolate backwards and infer that Western populations were border-line retarded then and were of comparable levels to other populations now.
The Flynn Effect is borne out by data. Are you saying you -don’t- believe in it, and if not, on what grounds?
(Note that an average IQ of 80 doesn’t imply borderline-retarded people, provided, as suggested by the correlation between improving literacy and improving IQ, that IQ is partially some form of trainable skill.)
Yes, it does, if you cannot bootstrap in the first place because you cannot implement the measures because of a population with low intelligence, high discounting, high crime and corruption rates etc.
You’re equivocating and it is not the case that regardless of genetics, all environmental interventions are equally profitable a priori. If genetics is a limiting factor on intelligence and other traits, then an environmental intervention—if you can manage it in the first place—will be restricted to its proximate effects and will not have the huge spillovers which led to the Great Divergence. If a population is at its genetic limit already and you successfully implement, say, iodization, the benefits will be limited to the immediate effects of reducing goiters and low energy, but you will not get the spillovers to homicide, the spillovers to greater education, the spillovers to higher income, the spillovers to lower discount rates and higher capital formation, etc. The cost-benefits for iodization are based on these benefits, not merely eliminating goiters! Likewise, if you cure malaria and a population is at the limit, you’ll reduce how many people die of malaria and that’ll be it. Maybe that much lower impact will still be worth it, but given how close to the edge a lot of interventions already are… It is not the case that all environmental interventions are always profitable and should always be done.
The intelligence levels are roughly analogous to 1930′s America. The issue isn’t intelligence.
No, I’m assuming everything you say is true, and telling you your conclusions are still wrong.
Except that we know that intelligence benefits -can- still be achieved, because we are still seeing improvements. The Flynn effect is still being observed in lower-than-average IQ populations in the US, although it appears to have tapered off if not ended for populations already at or above average.
Only if you believe in the Flynn effect and you are willing to extrapolate backwards and infer that Western populations were border-line retarded then and were of comparable levels to other populations now.
This does not address the point I made about proximate versus indirect effects of interventions.
The Flynn Effect is borne out by data. Are you saying you -don’t- believe in it, and if not, on what grounds?
(Note that an average IQ of 80 doesn’t imply borderline-retarded people, provided, as suggested by the correlation between improving literacy and improving IQ, that IQ is partially some form of trainable skill.)