Let’s define “stupidity” as “low IQ” where IQ is measured by some standard tests.
IQ is largely hereditary (~70%, IIRC) and polygenic. This mean that attempting to “cure” it by anything short of major genetic engineering will have quite limited upside.
There are cases where IQ is depressed from its “natural” level (e.g. by exposure to lead) and these are fixable or preventable. However if you’re genetically stupid, drugs or behavioral changes won’t help.
we could, for instance, sequence a lot of peoples’ DNA, give them all IQ tests, and do a genome-wide association study, as a start.
IQ is largely hereditary (~70%, IIRC) and polygenic. This mean that attempting to “cure” it by anything short of major genetic engineering will have quite limited upside.
It is worth pointing out that the heritability estimates are determined from current variation, and thus are only weakly predictive of what interventions are possible but unknown. (I do expect that if there were an easy way to make improvements here, we would know about it already, but it’s very possible that there are hard ways to do this.)
Just because it’s genetic doesn’t mean it’s incurable. Some genetic diseases have been cured. I’ve read of drugs that increase neurogenesis, which could plausibly increase IQ. Scientists have increased the intelligence of mice by replacing their glial cells with better human ones.
A fair point, but I still expect gene-level interventions to work better and be developed noticeably earlier than any “cures” for low IQ in adults or even kids. Notably, after the low-hanging fruits have been picked (malnutrition, lead, etc.), there are no clear avenues for advancement. At the moment we don’t have a clue as to where even to start looking.
Well there is a lot of research into treatments for dementia, like the neurogenesis drug I mentioned above. I think it’s quite plausible they will stumble upon general cognitive enhancers that improve healthy people.
IQ is largely hereditary (~70%, IIRC) and polygenic. This mean that attempting to “cure” it by anything short of major genetic engineering will have quite limited upside.
Depression is, according to Google and web pages I haven’t studied, polygenic and 40-50% heritable, yet medicine often works for it.
It isn’t especially hard to develop drugs for genetic diseases. Genetic diseases have single points of attack—receptors to block, proteins to disrupt. “Polygenic” may not matter at all; that may just mean there is one pathway with 30 genes in it, and 300 genes impinging on it, and you need to supplement the pathway’s end product.
That, ahem, is exactly what’s happening already :-/
I wasn’t going to mention it, but I thought of that example because Harvard’s current admissions website boasts that it provides no merit-based financial aid. I thought that was odd when I read it, but it fits in with the idea that a meritocracy is morally objectionable.
It isn’t especially hard to develop drugs for genetic diseases.
For simple genetic diseases where an uncomplicated biochemical mechanism has been knocked out and you know how to fix it. We don’t know where even to start for intelligence.
Here is a different angle of view on basically the same problem: after people turn 60-70 years old, they start to become stupider and it’s a fairly rapid and continuous decline. Why? We don’t know. How to fix it? We don’t know.
Harvard’s current admissions website boasts that it provides no merit-based financial aid.
You misunderstand. Harvard, being a very rich and a very prestigious school, has a what’s known as “need-blind” admission. That means that if they accept you, they will find money to pay for your education even if you’re dirt poor. They will not turn away anyone who got accepted but doesn’t have the money. Given this, there is no particular need for merit aid.
I’m curious about your claim that at 60-70 years old people start rapidly becoming stupider for reason we don’t know. I thought that I recalled reading that while the various forms of dementia become immensely more common with age, those who are fortunate enough to avoid any of them experience relatively little cognitive decline. Unless you mean only to say that our present understanding of Alzheimer’s and the other less common dementia disorders is relatively limited, so you’re counting that as a reason we don’t know (it is certainly something we don’t know how to fix, so you win on that point).
Hmmm, thanks, but that research doesn’t seem to make any effort to distinguish people with diagnosable dementia conditions from those without, and does mention that the rates can be quite different for different people, so I can’t tell whether there’s anything about it which contradicts what I thought I remembered encountering in other research.
You can look at the UK study directly: paper. They explicitly mention that they are interested in “normative (i.e. non-pathological) age-related differences in cognition” and that they took pains to get a representative sample.
If you accept that their sample is representative, it does show major cognitive decline with age regardless of who got diagnosed with what. That decline is not subtle.
Let’s define “stupidity” as “low IQ” where IQ is measured by some standard tests.
That already seems pretty different to what OP is talking about. See -
“Stupidity,” like “depression,” is a sloppy “common-sense” word that we apply to different conditions, which may be caused by genetics (for instance, mutations in the M1 or M3 pathways, or two copies of Thr92Ala), deep subconscious conditioning (e.g., religion), general health issues (like not getting enough sleep), environment (ignorance, lack of reward for intelligent behavior), or bad habits of thought.
This seems more like stupidity is anything anti-instrumental rationality rather than IQ based. I don’t necessarily disagree with anything you’ve said, but I’m pointing out you might be talking past one another.
stupidity is anything anti-instrumental rationality
Instrumental rationality is often hard to judge since you don’t know what the person is optimizing for (not necessarily consciously).
The classic Hansonianism (“X is not about X”, e.g. “Politics is not about policy”, etc.) is one way is which you can be wrong about someone’s instrumental rationality.
Let’s define “stupidity” as “low IQ” where IQ is measured by some standard tests.
IQ is largely hereditary (~70%, IIRC) and polygenic. This mean that attempting to “cure” it by anything short of major genetic engineering will have quite limited upside.
There are cases where IQ is depressed from its “natural” level (e.g. by exposure to lead) and these are fixable or preventable. However if you’re genetically stupid, drugs or behavioral changes won’t help.
We could and people do that. If you’re interested in IQ research, look at Greg Cochran or James Thompson or Razib Khan, etc. etc.
That, ahem, is exactly what’s happening already :-/
It is worth pointing out that the heritability estimates are determined from current variation, and thus are only weakly predictive of what interventions are possible but unknown. (I do expect that if there were an easy way to make improvements here, we would know about it already, but it’s very possible that there are hard ways to do this.)
Just because it’s genetic doesn’t mean it’s incurable. Some genetic diseases have been cured. I’ve read of drugs that increase neurogenesis, which could plausibly increase IQ. Scientists have increased the intelligence of mice by replacing their glial cells with better human ones.
A fair point, but I still expect gene-level interventions to work better and be developed noticeably earlier than any “cures” for low IQ in adults or even kids. Notably, after the low-hanging fruits have been picked (malnutrition, lead, etc.), there are no clear avenues for advancement. At the moment we don’t have a clue as to where even to start looking.
Well there is a lot of research into treatments for dementia, like the neurogenesis drug I mentioned above. I think it’s quite plausible they will stumble upon general cognitive enhancers that improve healthy people.
Depression is, according to Google and web pages I haven’t studied, polygenic and 40-50% heritable, yet medicine often works for it.
It isn’t especially hard to develop drugs for genetic diseases. Genetic diseases have single points of attack—receptors to block, proteins to disrupt. “Polygenic” may not matter at all; that may just mean there is one pathway with 30 genes in it, and 300 genes impinging on it, and you need to supplement the pathway’s end product.
I wasn’t going to mention it, but I thought of that example because Harvard’s current admissions website boasts that it provides no merit-based financial aid. I thought that was odd when I read it, but it fits in with the idea that a meritocracy is morally objectionable.
For simple genetic diseases where an uncomplicated biochemical mechanism has been knocked out and you know how to fix it. We don’t know where even to start for intelligence.
Here is a different angle of view on basically the same problem: after people turn 60-70 years old, they start to become stupider and it’s a fairly rapid and continuous decline. Why? We don’t know. How to fix it? We don’t know.
You misunderstand. Harvard, being a very rich and a very prestigious school, has a what’s known as “need-blind” admission. That means that if they accept you, they will find money to pay for your education even if you’re dirt poor. They will not turn away anyone who got accepted but doesn’t have the money. Given this, there is no particular need for merit aid.
I’m curious about your claim that at 60-70 years old people start rapidly becoming stupider for reason we don’t know. I thought that I recalled reading that while the various forms of dementia become immensely more common with age, those who are fortunate enough to avoid any of them experience relatively little cognitive decline. Unless you mean only to say that our present understanding of Alzheimer’s and the other less common dementia disorders is relatively limited, so you’re counting that as a reason we don’t know (it is certainly something we don’t know how to fix, so you win on that point).
I mean things like this.
Hmmm, thanks, but that research doesn’t seem to make any effort to distinguish people with diagnosable dementia conditions from those without, and does mention that the rates can be quite different for different people, so I can’t tell whether there’s anything about it which contradicts what I thought I remembered encountering in other research.
You can look at the UK study directly: paper. They explicitly mention that they are interested in “normative (i.e. non-pathological) age-related differences in cognition” and that they took pains to get a representative sample.
If you accept that their sample is representative, it does show major cognitive decline with age regardless of who got diagnosed with what. That decline is not subtle.
I agree. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that all their aid is merit-based. Certainly they would believe it is.
When placebo’s have more of an effect on depression than the actual drug I’m not sure that’s s good description.
That already seems pretty different to what OP is talking about. See -
This seems more like stupidity is anything anti-instrumental rationality rather than IQ based. I don’t necessarily disagree with anything you’ve said, but I’m pointing out you might be talking past one another.
Instrumental rationality is often hard to judge since you don’t know what the person is optimizing for (not necessarily consciously).
The classic Hansonianism (“X is not about X”, e.g. “Politics is not about policy”, etc.) is one way is which you can be wrong about someone’s instrumental rationality.