Rishon Rishon

depends on the field. arthur jensen, the doyen of modern psychometricians, argues that to be a top flight mathematician one must have an IQ of at least 140. but this is just one necessary condition, not the only one, and beyond this point the correlation between career sucess and g might not be so close. basically, what i'm saying is that there might be a strong linear correlation in mathematical aptitude up to about 140, but beyond this beyond there might no longer be any trend because other components of intelligence kick in (drive, focus, non-g mental aptitudes). one can generalize to other disciplines in the same way. g is not the be all and end all, but it is the one element that is most easy to characterize and probably the most significant of various psychometric factors....

Clearly, aptitude for a specific task is the result of a particular combination of characteristics, some of which might be quite mundane - e.g. it would be hard to be a good programmer if you can't type at all, but low-level typing skills are enough to be an excellent programmer.

I am particularly interested in the idea that g might have (direct) negative consequences. Any thoughts about that?

I am particularly interested in the idea that g might have (direct) negative consequences. Any thoughts about that?

there is some evidence that the genes that select for g might have a correlated response with various mental dysfunctions like schizophrenia or possibly depression. that is, what i mentioned in the thread about people with extremely high intelligences going overboard on running self-diagnostic checks in an obsessive compulsive fashion.

but in general the thing to remember is that if an IQ of 125 was the human ideal than human populations would have such an IQ. as it is, only one population, askhenazi jews even comes close at 115 (when measured on verbally skewed IQ tests, jews score lower on culture-fair raven's matrices that are visuo-spatially loaded). that implies that high IQ comes with fitness costs....

You're right, though I think we can make a pretty good case that in our current environment the optimum IQ is higher than it once was.

What I meant, however, was more specific (sorry I didn't say so): Given evolutionary pressure to increase IQ, the strategy of raising it though non-g characteristics was pursued not because the g factor was maxed-out, but because increasing g had serious negative consequences, whereas other factors, while less general, avoided them.

You're right, though I think we can make a pretty good case that in our current environment the optimum IQ is higher than it once was.

actually, i don't think so. i think the highest IQ career paths lead to the upper middle class, which also generally demands little emphasis on family life. many upper middle class men marry upper middle class women, who are the ones who want to have careers. in terms of evolution, i believe a high IQ is a fitness hit in terms of offspring.

Given evolutionary pressure to increase IQ, the strategy of raising it though non-g characteristics was pursued not because the g factor was maxed-out, but because increasing g had serious negative consequences, whereas other factors, while less general, avoided them.

1) i don't think the evolutionary pressure was that great for higher IQ. i believe this is true because IQ is a normally distributed trait, that is, you have most people in the middle and few people at the ends. in traits that are selected for because their fitness implications are unambiguous humans tend to be the same. for example, all humans have a capacity for language, though verbal eloquence varies, language capacity is either on or off. rule of thumb: on or off traits are those which have the biggest fitness implications. those with ranges tend to be more weak in their fitness implications in that it might pay to be tall in a certain environment, but later being short might be best, so the population never eliminates short or tall alleles....

2) the second part is called correlated response. animal breeders encounter this all the time. greg cochran and henry harpending argue that 'jewish' diseases like tay sachs are correlated responses for selection for high IQ. among cattle for example larger ones might be selected for bigger meat or milk yields, but breeders often find that at a certain point cow fertility starts to drop. so they keep going until they hit the optimum. for ashkenazi jews the fitness hit of tay sachs or gaucher (or one of the other various neurodegenerative diseases) might have been compensated by higher fertility.

i believe a high IQ is a fitness hit in terms of offspring

I guess I was thinking just from the prosperity angle, and not fertility! Would this imply that societies which encourage fertility (for a given IQ) also have higher equilibrium IQs? My personal experience is that members of organized religions have much higher fertility than their economic peers. Perhaps we will see an inversion of the current religious demographics, with the highest SES sectors the most religious?

My personal experience is that members of organized religions have much higher fertility than their economic peers. Perhaps we will see an inversion of the current religious demographics, with the highest SES sectors the most religious?

well, i think if you want to use this model one would assume that all sectors would become more religious since all religious SES levels would likely be more fertile than non-religious peers. i think historically this has not been born out, as freethinkers traditionally have been weirdos with fewer kids, but they seem to persist generation to generation. i have offered plenty of genetic possibilities on my blog, from balancing selection to some sort of oscillation.

btw, one thing you have to always distinguish is the proximate vs. the ultimate. if you are thinking in the long term you must focus on the ultimate, the genes or offspring. you are correct though that the proximate individual needs are most satisfied by high IQ, and personally i lean toward this way of life in my own existence, but in the broad scale of predicting social development i think the ultimate is more relevant.

p.s. i have seen a magazine in forward magazine which indicates that orthodox jews tend to always have higher fertility and defection rates to less frum forms of judaism. some of the latter drift back to orthodoxy while some drift into gentile religions and become lost to judaism. the implication is orthodox is the engine and other forms of judaism are transitory metastable equilibrium states.

this model one would assume that all sectors would become more religious

Yes, but you said that non-religious, high SES have negative natural increase, while for low SES it's positive.

Historically, things have gone back and forth. But the conditions of modernity are historically unique. Their advent has seen a great religious die-off, but I think the religion memes have evolved to cope with the new environment and we will see continual increase for at least the medium-term future.

I think that you are right about the high fertility and defection rates of orthodox Jews, but the super-high defection rates of ~1850-1950 are a thing of the past, and parallel the defection rates of other religions in the same societies. Currently I would guess it's around 5%, but certainly not more than 10%.