While the mean intelligence is possibly getting lower, the variance is probably getting higher.
Humans tend to breed within their class, and class tends to be set by success (intelligence) now.
Charles Murray in his book "Coming Apart" lays out the evidence. Dating Apps have data that make that trend even more obvious. Women seek successful men as partners, and intelligence is highly inheritable.
And one minor gripe, if this goes to publication, is the use of IQ everywhere. IQ gets normalized (in the mean and variance) so it is useless as a metric over time. I know you say things like "equivalent IQ", but basing everything around a variable metric is poor science and makes this article tricky to read for anybody who knows that the mean IQ is always 100, forever, no matter how stupid people get.
Given that education nowadays seems to be far more about indoctrination than genuine learning, that examination standards are being relentlessly scaled down in the glorious cause of inclusion, and that diversity and equity supposedly trumps meritocracy and ability, then the question asked in the headline can only become self-fulfilling and the inevitable outcome of such hare brained concepts
> If at some point even 20% of the population uses embryo selection, it would be more than enough to reverse the current trends that we are seeing.
Using sperm and/or egg donation, from intelligent people, would have a bigger effect than embryo selection (and in the case of sperm donation also has the advantage that it doesn't require any special technology). Some people wouldn't go for this, because they want their kids to be genetically theirs, but on the other hand donating gametes from people with the traits you want is the most effective way of getting those traits into your kids, and I have never in my life heard a parent brag about how stupid or ugly their kids are.
I think the assumption that intelligence enhancement will be limited to embryo selection is extremely pessimistic on your part. Even if you don't expect the singularity, there are a lot of paths to increasing IQ.
That's the default "tech bro" opinion on the whole "muh dysgenics!!!" kvetching from the right -- no one expects fertility patterns to actually matter given the technological advances that are coming down the pipeline.
You didn't say anything about immigration. Millions of Central Americans and Africans are coming across the US Mexico border. And millions of Africans and Middle Easterners and pouring into Europe. They are lowering the average IQ of the host countries much faster.
> Some commentators like Anatoly Karlin argue that concerns about national IQ will not be as relevant once strong artificial intelligence has been developed, as lots of white collar work will then be automatable.
It's a cute idea that "strong AI" (which I take you mean AGI here) will need humans around for long, but no, AGI soon leads to ASI, and the end of human history by definition.
The idea that AI advances to the cusp of the above and then just stays there for the decades described here is amusing, but improbable.
and as a National Merit Scholar; practicing chemical engineer; editor-in-chief of Law Review; patent, trademark and copyright lawyer; student of perhaps 500 different technologies, in biology, chemistry, electronics, business methods, economics systems, etc.; intellectual property litigation lawyer (for 52+ years, and am today filing a brief in federal court regarding the opposing parties' patent-invalidating "prior public use" and/or "on-sale", under 35 USC Section 102); memorizer of the Gospel of John (at age 13); actor; student of music theory; symphonic aficionado (since age 13); sonnet poet; wrestler; defensive street fighter (as may be necessary or beneficial); lover of many women (definitely beneficial -- to them); feminist; marathoner; barefoot runner; 350+ bench presser (OK-- it was 40 years ago); construction laborer; steel mill worker; agricultural worker (e.g., bailing hay by hand); life guard; .400 hitter in baseball; present-day "old guy gym rat"; vocal soloist (still); medaled piano player (e..g., Liszt etudes, Rachmaninoff preludes, Bach inventions, etc.); band member (bassist, guitar and Double Bass), orchestra member (trumpeter, flugelhorn, baritone and Sousaphone), anti-tobacco; teetotaler; political theorist (anti-Marxist, libertarian/traditionalist) --
my IQ of 150 modestly speaks for itself, but it is hoped not very loud.
The children, who are adults, are scientists, lawyers, and business owners. Their respective IQs would be estimated at 135+ -- and with a somewhat higher g-factor. So, perhaps there has been some measure of "regression toward the mean" -- but not much.
The only rational conclusion is that intellectual ability is, in material part, inherited -- yes. But, the degree thereof is somewhat random -- and, may be either up or down.
We can't ask Marx, Lenin and/or Stalin about their advocacy in behalf of "the Proletariat" -- i.e., themselves and their friends -- because they are no longer around. But, we can read the propagandistic writings attributed to them -- that they probably had ghost-written. But, perhaps the most salient point is that those who are in power are the entities that mandate the definition of the term "Proletariat". It is bit like what Himmler used to say:" Zee Law ist vat ve zay it ist."
Europe? You mean the place from which our ancestors sweated blood in order to escape? The place where the privileged remained -- and, from which the dispossessed and the penniless emigrated -- to America to create an entirely new kind of country? In America, one function of the parochial schools is to provide a religious education for children of working families. Unlike the costly Leftist public schools -- that are dominated by feel-good-ism, transsexualism, sexual perversion, woke-ism, subjective pronoun-ism, racial obsession, anti-Semitism, anti-Constitutionalism, statism and government domination, and other collectivist mal-theories -- misconduct in parochial schools is not permitted, and accordingly a stable environment where student can learn something is provided. Oppositely from the European system that is posited, supra, if students in the American parochial system misbehave chronically, they will be banished to the public system -- which is obliged via the "political correctness" of the lowest common denominator to accept them..
I disagree with the part on mutational load, the Flynn effect, the increase in IQ that we've observed, is equally damning for selection pressures and mutational pressure. it would be nice if we had a good explanation for the flan effect and it's inappropriate to say it's only a problem for the mutational low theory.
The literature on paternal age and IQ is not really confusing. The correlation is about 0.09 earlier studies did not control for father's IQ, but it turns out that father's IQ does correlate with paternal age and so therefore father's IQ must be controlled for , the most recent study controlled for this, and indeed found the correlation between paternal age and IQ of 0.09 which is very close to the 0.11 correlation between paternal age and leftism. it is inaccurate to say that birth order nuked this correlation, rather that study did not have the power to control for birth order, and the standard errors got too large, and the point estimate became worthless. However, that study did show that maternal age did not have any non-mutational low effect (there is a small mutational load effect about a quarter of the size of the one with paternal age when it comes to maternal age and a trait). I have shown that the association between birth order, and the paternal age effect in leftism is zero meaning birth order has no effect on the paternal age effect, and leftism, and something similar has been shown for mental illnesses like ADHD and schizophrenia, which also have paternal age effects so therefore, I doubt that birth order actually matters for IQ and it's paternal age effect, in general birth order is a nothing burger when it comes to paternal age effect so I think that you were statement about the birth order not being controlled for is not accurate it does not matter much when it comes to estimating the mutational pressure for IQ. I think that the estimate that we have is pretty good.
hopefully embryo selection will correct the mutational load and the gene flow and the selection pressure which all seem to be negative and the evolutionary pressure is the sum of these so these things are not mutually exclusive theories but rather they complement each other the evolutionary pressure on IQ is a sum of gene flow selection pressure, mutational pressure, indicating that the overall evolutionary trend is almost certainly more negative than just the election pressure alone given that all the components are negative.
however, I also want to point out that it's kind of a cope to hope that a technology that still does not exist will save us. We have been ravaged by this Genix for 200 years for at least 100 years if not more, we have had the knowledge needed to increase the selection pressures to be significantly eugenic. It is a fact that by now we could have a mean IQ of over 145 on today's scale if eugenics had been started when they could've been. There is really no excuse for not doing this.
I think you're going to find that IQ decline will likely be worse than this prediction due to increased reliance on technology. A drop of .35 is likely a woeful underestimate of decline. Particularly for post millennium births who have never seen much beyond a city street or manicured lawn.
Part of my reasoning is also the simple lack of exercise which is required for a healthy mind. Similarly, as one other poster notes, the stratification will widen. Since increased awareness of self destruction doesn't seem to motivate humanity enough to stop their decline, this is much less likely to be a rebound issue, but a continual addiction spiral.
The counter tech revolution still being some decades away, unfortunately. Expect increased unhappiness and human immiseration, even past the point of slamming on the technological brakes.
While the mean intelligence is possibly getting lower, the variance is probably getting higher.
Humans tend to breed within their class, and class tends to be set by success (intelligence) now.
Charles Murray in his book "Coming Apart" lays out the evidence. Dating Apps have data that make that trend even more obvious. Women seek successful men as partners, and intelligence is highly inheritable.
And one minor gripe, if this goes to publication, is the use of IQ everywhere. IQ gets normalized (in the mean and variance) so it is useless as a metric over time. I know you say things like "equivalent IQ", but basing everything around a variable metric is poor science and makes this article tricky to read for anybody who knows that the mean IQ is always 100, forever, no matter how stupid people get.
Given that education nowadays seems to be far more about indoctrination than genuine learning, that examination standards are being relentlessly scaled down in the glorious cause of inclusion, and that diversity and equity supposedly trumps meritocracy and ability, then the question asked in the headline can only become self-fulfilling and the inevitable outcome of such hare brained concepts
Is it possible to split this analysis by race in the US? It would be fascinating to see the implications for the future.
Based upon personal observation, I don't agree. The average IQ in America is about 80.
BMWLAW
> If at some point even 20% of the population uses embryo selection, it would be more than enough to reverse the current trends that we are seeing.
Using sperm and/or egg donation, from intelligent people, would have a bigger effect than embryo selection (and in the case of sperm donation also has the advantage that it doesn't require any special technology). Some people wouldn't go for this, because they want their kids to be genetically theirs, but on the other hand donating gametes from people with the traits you want is the most effective way of getting those traits into your kids, and I have never in my life heard a parent brag about how stupid or ugly their kids are.
I think the assumption that intelligence enhancement will be limited to embryo selection is extremely pessimistic on your part. Even if you don't expect the singularity, there are a lot of paths to increasing IQ.
That's the default "tech bro" opinion on the whole "muh dysgenics!!!" kvetching from the right -- no one expects fertility patterns to actually matter given the technological advances that are coming down the pipeline.
You didn't say anything about immigration. Millions of Central Americans and Africans are coming across the US Mexico border. And millions of Africans and Middle Easterners and pouring into Europe. They are lowering the average IQ of the host countries much faster.
Great article. Only point:
> Some commentators like Anatoly Karlin argue that concerns about national IQ will not be as relevant once strong artificial intelligence has been developed, as lots of white collar work will then be automatable.
It's a cute idea that "strong AI" (which I take you mean AGI here) will need humans around for long, but no, AGI soon leads to ASI, and the end of human history by definition.
The idea that AI advances to the cusp of the above and then just stays there for the decades described here is amusing, but improbable.
FYI... At age 80+ --
and as a National Merit Scholar; practicing chemical engineer; editor-in-chief of Law Review; patent, trademark and copyright lawyer; student of perhaps 500 different technologies, in biology, chemistry, electronics, business methods, economics systems, etc.; intellectual property litigation lawyer (for 52+ years, and am today filing a brief in federal court regarding the opposing parties' patent-invalidating "prior public use" and/or "on-sale", under 35 USC Section 102); memorizer of the Gospel of John (at age 13); actor; student of music theory; symphonic aficionado (since age 13); sonnet poet; wrestler; defensive street fighter (as may be necessary or beneficial); lover of many women (definitely beneficial -- to them); feminist; marathoner; barefoot runner; 350+ bench presser (OK-- it was 40 years ago); construction laborer; steel mill worker; agricultural worker (e.g., bailing hay by hand); life guard; .400 hitter in baseball; present-day "old guy gym rat"; vocal soloist (still); medaled piano player (e..g., Liszt etudes, Rachmaninoff preludes, Bach inventions, etc.); band member (bassist, guitar and Double Bass), orchestra member (trumpeter, flugelhorn, baritone and Sousaphone), anti-tobacco; teetotaler; political theorist (anti-Marxist, libertarian/traditionalist) --
my IQ of 150 modestly speaks for itself, but it is hoped not very loud.
The children, who are adults, are scientists, lawyers, and business owners. Their respective IQs would be estimated at 135+ -- and with a somewhat higher g-factor. So, perhaps there has been some measure of "regression toward the mean" -- but not much.
The only rational conclusion is that intellectual ability is, in material part, inherited -- yes. But, the degree thereof is somewhat random -- and, may be either up or down.
Wonder what the trends would be if abortion was not used as a control on dysgenic fertility. Worth pondering!
Could you also factor in immigration in this analysis. To estimate the true decline in IQ
We can't ask Marx, Lenin and/or Stalin about their advocacy in behalf of "the Proletariat" -- i.e., themselves and their friends -- because they are no longer around. But, we can read the propagandistic writings attributed to them -- that they probably had ghost-written. But, perhaps the most salient point is that those who are in power are the entities that mandate the definition of the term "Proletariat". It is bit like what Himmler used to say:" Zee Law ist vat ve zay it ist."
Europe? You mean the place from which our ancestors sweated blood in order to escape? The place where the privileged remained -- and, from which the dispossessed and the penniless emigrated -- to America to create an entirely new kind of country? In America, one function of the parochial schools is to provide a religious education for children of working families. Unlike the costly Leftist public schools -- that are dominated by feel-good-ism, transsexualism, sexual perversion, woke-ism, subjective pronoun-ism, racial obsession, anti-Semitism, anti-Constitutionalism, statism and government domination, and other collectivist mal-theories -- misconduct in parochial schools is not permitted, and accordingly a stable environment where student can learn something is provided. Oppositely from the European system that is posited, supra, if students in the American parochial system misbehave chronically, they will be banished to the public system -- which is obliged via the "political correctness" of the lowest common denominator to accept them..
I disagree with the part on mutational load, the Flynn effect, the increase in IQ that we've observed, is equally damning for selection pressures and mutational pressure. it would be nice if we had a good explanation for the flan effect and it's inappropriate to say it's only a problem for the mutational low theory.
The literature on paternal age and IQ is not really confusing. The correlation is about 0.09 earlier studies did not control for father's IQ, but it turns out that father's IQ does correlate with paternal age and so therefore father's IQ must be controlled for , the most recent study controlled for this, and indeed found the correlation between paternal age and IQ of 0.09 which is very close to the 0.11 correlation between paternal age and leftism. it is inaccurate to say that birth order nuked this correlation, rather that study did not have the power to control for birth order, and the standard errors got too large, and the point estimate became worthless. However, that study did show that maternal age did not have any non-mutational low effect (there is a small mutational load effect about a quarter of the size of the one with paternal age when it comes to maternal age and a trait). I have shown that the association between birth order, and the paternal age effect in leftism is zero meaning birth order has no effect on the paternal age effect, and leftism, and something similar has been shown for mental illnesses like ADHD and schizophrenia, which also have paternal age effects so therefore, I doubt that birth order actually matters for IQ and it's paternal age effect, in general birth order is a nothing burger when it comes to paternal age effect so I think that you were statement about the birth order not being controlled for is not accurate it does not matter much when it comes to estimating the mutational pressure for IQ. I think that the estimate that we have is pretty good.
hopefully embryo selection will correct the mutational load and the gene flow and the selection pressure which all seem to be negative and the evolutionary pressure is the sum of these so these things are not mutually exclusive theories but rather they complement each other the evolutionary pressure on IQ is a sum of gene flow selection pressure, mutational pressure, indicating that the overall evolutionary trend is almost certainly more negative than just the election pressure alone given that all the components are negative.
however, I also want to point out that it's kind of a cope to hope that a technology that still does not exist will save us. We have been ravaged by this Genix for 200 years for at least 100 years if not more, we have had the knowledge needed to increase the selection pressures to be significantly eugenic. It is a fact that by now we could have a mean IQ of over 145 on today's scale if eugenics had been started when they could've been. There is really no excuse for not doing this.
I think you're going to find that IQ decline will likely be worse than this prediction due to increased reliance on technology. A drop of .35 is likely a woeful underestimate of decline. Particularly for post millennium births who have never seen much beyond a city street or manicured lawn.
Part of my reasoning is also the simple lack of exercise which is required for a healthy mind. Similarly, as one other poster notes, the stratification will widen. Since increased awareness of self destruction doesn't seem to motivate humanity enough to stop their decline, this is much less likely to be a rebound issue, but a continual addiction spiral.
The counter tech revolution still being some decades away, unfortunately. Expect increased unhappiness and human immiseration, even past the point of slamming on the technological brakes.
So much Words wasted to promote Eugenics instead of figuring Ways to find better Ways to teach Children.
Eugenics is the „Machbarkeitstraum der Herrenreiter’ and it will drive many to Attila‘s Castle.