You are even meaner than Shulman. We don't know how human intelligence evolved and we need to know it in order to answer your question I think. This is where evolutionary psychology and differential psychology (Am I using that term right?) must come together to work this out.

We think that we know a little bit about how to raise intelligence. Just turn down the suppression of early CNS growth. If you do that in one way the eyeball grows too big and you are nearsighted, which is highly correlated with intelligence. BRCA1 is another early CNS growth suppressor, and we speculate in the book that a mildly broken BRCA1 is an IQ booster even though it gives you cancer later. BTW Greg tells me that there a high correlation between IQ and the risk of brain cancer, perhaps because of the same mechanism.

But these ways of boosting IQ are Red Green engineering. (Red Green is a popular North American comedy on television. The hero is a do-it-yourselfer who does everything shoddily.)

On the other hand IQ seems to behave like a textbook quantitative trait and it ought to respond rapidly to selection. We suggest that it did among Ashkenazi Jews and probably Parsis. IQ does not seem to have a downside in the general population, e.g. it is positively correlated with physical attractiveness, health, lifespan, and so on. Do we get insight into the costs of high IQ by looking at Ashkenazi Jews? Do they have overall higher rates of mental quirks? Cancer? I don't know.

HCH

From The 2% Difference, an article by Robert Sapolsky:

Given the outward differences, it seems reasonable to expect to find fundamental differences in the portions of the genome that determine chimp and human brains—reasonable, at least, to a brainocentric neurobiologist like me. But as it turns out, the chimp brain and the human brain differ hardly at all in their genetic underpinnings. Indeed, a close look at the chimp genome reveals an important lesson in how genes and evolution work, and it suggests that chimps and humans are a lot more similar than even a neurobiologist might think.

...

... Still, chimps and humans have very different brains. So which are the brain-specific genes that have evolved in very different directions in the two species? It turns out that there are hardly any that fit that bill. This, too, makes a great deal of sense. Examine a neuron from a human brain under a microscope, then do the same with a neuron from the brain of a chimp, a rat, a frog, or a sea slug. The neurons all look the same: fibrous dendrites at one end, an axonal cable at the other. They all run on the same basic mechanism: channels and pumps that move sodium, potassium, and calcium around, triggering a wave of excitation called an action potential. They all have a similar complement of neurotransmitters: serotonin, dopamine, glutamate, and so on. They're all the same basic building blocks.

The main difference is in the sheer number of neurons. The human brain has 100 million times the number of neurons a sea slug's brain has. Where do those differences in quantity come from? At some point in their development, all embryos—whether human, chimp, rat, frog, or slug—must have a single first cell committed toward generating neurons. That cell divides and gives rise to 2 cells; those divide into 4, then 8, then 16. After a dozen rounds of cell division, you've got roughly enough neurons to run a slug. Go another 25 rounds or so and you've got a human brain. Stop a couple of rounds short of that and, at about one-third the size of a human brain, you've got one for a chimp. Vastly different outcomes, but relatively few genes regulate the number of rounds of cell division in the nervous system before calling a halt. And it's precisely some of those genes, the ones involved in neural development, that appear on the list of differences between the chimp and human genomes.

That's it; that's the 2 percent solution. What's shocking is the simplicity of it. Humans, to be human, don't need to have evolved unique genes that code for entirely novel types of neurons or neurotransmitters, or a more complex hippocampus (with resulting improvements in memory), or a more complex frontal cortex (from which we gain the ability to postpone gratification). Instead, our braininess as a species arises from having humongous numbers of just a few types of off-the-rack neurons and from the exponentially greater number of interactions between them. The difference is sheer quantity: Qualitative distinctions emerge from large numbers. Genes may have something to do with that quantity, and thus with the complexity of the quality that emerges. Yet no gene or genome can ever tell us what sorts of qualities those will be. Remember that when you and the chimp are eyeball to eyeball, trying to make sense of why the other seems vaguely familiar.

It must be simple in some way since it is so heritable. People with IQs of 90 and IQs of 140 both prosper and do fine. although there are lots of statistical differences between two such groups.

Other other hand if we take a trait like "propensity to learn language in childhood" this seems to me to be relatively invariable and fixed and so probably very complex.

Certainly one could breed for IQ and raise the population mean a lot. But what would we be doing to our children? People with 140 IQ seem to do all right but I would worry a lot about the kind of life a kid with an IQ of 220 would have.

Moved to the kibitzing thread.