You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Lumifer comments on Open thread, December 7-13, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: polymathwannabe 07 December 2015 02:47PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (223)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: passive_fist 07 December 2015 08:39:07PM *  3 points [-]

I don't think we are at the point where we can adequately assess the risks involved. It's known that higher IQ is correlated with major depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. What use is having a super-intelligent child if they have to spend most of their teenage and early adult years away from society, in a medicated stupor?

There may also be other genetic side effects to increased intelligence, such as increased risk of alcohol dependence and substance abuse.

I think I remember a study saying that over an IQ of 130, there is no correlation between increased intelligence and success/happiness.

It would probably be far more worthwhile to focus on having children of moderate-to-high IQ score (120-130 range), and put more emphasis on better upbringing, instilling values such as the importance of socializing and putting effort into one's goals. The focus that some transhumanists seem to have on raw intelligence seems a bit childish and naive.

Comment author: Lumifer 07 December 2015 08:54:00PM 2 points [-]

It would probably be far more worthwhile

What are you optimizing for?

Comment author: passive_fist 07 December 2015 08:57:38PM *  0 points [-]

The optimal mix of intelligence and ability to make use of intelligence.

Comment author: Lumifer 07 December 2015 08:59:24PM 1 point [-]

You just shifted all the meaning to the word "optimal".

Optimal when maximizing for what?

Comment author: passive_fist 07 December 2015 09:13:43PM *  0 points [-]

No I did not.

If James_Miller meant 'genetic basis of intelligence' (and I think he did) then I am pointing out that that may not be predictive of actual intelligence when measured in the real world after development. You could just as well say I'm 'optimizing for intelligence'. I am simply making it clear that I'm not optimizing for at-birth intelligence.

Comment author: Lumifer 07 December 2015 09:15:32PM 1 point [-]

I still don't understand you.

Is there any measurable value that you are optimizing for? What is it?