James_Miller comments on Innate Mathematical Ability - LessWrong

40 Post author: JonahSinick 18 February 2015 11:11AM

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

Comments (140)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: James_Miller 18 February 2015 03:57:31PM 5 points [-]

Furthermore, if not for people with unusually high intelligence, there would have been no ... industrial revolution

Is this true? Certainly you needed lots of people with IQ>100, but would the industrial revolution have happened if, say, 130 was the highest possible human IQ?

Comment author: JonahSinick 18 February 2015 07:45:24PM 5 points [-]

I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't have, though I don't know enough about the contextual particulars of the industrial revolution to be extremely confident.

I think that studying the biographies of the inventors (to the extent that information is available) would show them all to be of IQ > 130. One could argue that counterfactually their less smart peers would have gotten there later on. There are reasons to think that if this is the case, the lag would have been very long, which I'll flesh out later on in my sequence of posts.

Comment author: DanArmak 18 February 2015 08:09:00PM 0 points [-]

And if you believe in the Flynn effect, and assuming it operated for at least a while before people started measuring IQ, the IQ 130 people of the Industrial Revolution would have a much lower measured IQ today.

Comment author: Houshalter 02 March 2015 10:47:39PM 4 points [-]

Does the Flynn effect affect the number of geniuses, or just the average IQ?