|
|
Letter to Guy Fogleman on the Prometheus Society's "Fire List"
Hi, Guy.
Thanks for checking out
the web page and thanks for your thoughtful and wise response. As
you say,
"Problems in the real
world require specific knowledge, common sense, and, in most
cases, an understanding of human nature. IQ tests do not measure
these traits."
I certainly agree. If I
want to find out why our boxwood is dying, or if I'm in a
position to commission the building of a bridge, I'll turn to
people and organizations that specialize in these topics. For
these problems, the solutions are cut-and-dried. And there are
other problems for which the solutions aren't as well-defined but
are still within the ready reach of the above-average journeyman.
My hope is that there is a class of problems that are
sufficiently subtle that someone with a ratio-IQ of 190
(deviation IQ of 168)or a ratio-IQ of 220 (deviation IQ of 183)
may be able to solve them readily, whereas someone with a ratio
IQ of 130 (deviation-IQ of 128) might find them very difficult.
At the same time, I agree
that even these kinds of subtle research problems require
specific knowledge, common sense, and, in most cases, an
understanding of human nature. I think they require specific
knowledge in great depth, together with close working
relationships with the other practitioners in the field. It would
be interesting to see if our phenomenally intelligent could help
our research biologists unearth biological mechanisms
substantially better than the biologists who are data-mining for
them today, working cooperatively with them rather than
competitively. (And I guess that's where a Ph. D.-level knowledge
of human relations could come in handy, wouldn't it?)
When I was a teenager, Dad opined a couple of
times that the most important attribute for coping with the world
wasn't intelligence but was the ability to get along with people.
I privately disagreed with him, not because I thought
interpersonal skills were unimportant, but because I thought they
could be learned, whereas intelligence is largely innate. I still
entertain that notion, but it does assume that knowledge, common
sense, and interpersonal skills can be--and will be--learned.
One way that I've reasoned
about this question of whether IQ is important is that this
ultimately gets at the root of what it means to be normal. Do we
think that someone with a ratio-IQ of 40 can, with training, do
as well as someone with a ratio-IQ of 100? Or that someone with a
ratio IQ of 50 and training can do as well as someone with a
ratio IQ of 110? How would you feel about someone with an IQ of
60 operating upon you? And if you feel that the answer to these
questions is "yes", how well do you think these
seriously retarded will do at solving problems that don't have
handbook solutions? I'm thinking that these are comparable
comparisons. Do we think that rising intelligence had anything to
do with the invention of tools? the domestication of animals? the
rise of civilization? the expression of the scientific method?
And if the answer is yes, would a further rise in intelligence
advance our civilization? Does IQ confer any advantages in the
creation and furtherance of a high civilization? At what point do
we draw these lines, and why? Given a population with an average
IQ of 30, do we think that a population with an IQ of 130 could
outperform it? I have thought as a child that we'll eventually
have the power to genetically boost our intelligence. Will that
be of any benefit?
I'm appalled at our value
systems. If we have a child whom we think might have potential as
an athlete, we'll go all-out to get them specialized coaching.
The same thing holds true for a child showing potential as a
musician, an actress, or a dancer. And we'll pay our entertainers
six or seven figures and splash them across the media. But who
are the superstars of the Human Genome Project? Some of us have
heard of Ed Witter but who are our other superstring theorists?
Who are our leading biologists? These are the people who are
going to make a difference in our lives. Also, I'm not
questioning what is. I'm questioning what might be. Can we do
better by coaching and supporting our best minds? Or not?
One counterargument is that
we seem to be doing awfully well technically, thank you, without
benefit of any enhancements to our work force. I know of only a
couple of straws in the wind that might suggest what might be
achievable. One is that Bill Gates allegedly made a practice of
recruiting the smartest programmers he could find, and became the
world's richest man. The other is the fantasy that Craig Venters
might be an example of what brainpower can do in an area like the
Human Genome Project.
The idea that IQ is of no importance once it
exceeds an IQ of 120 is certainly the received wisdom among
psychometrists these days. IQ's have never been popular, except
among those who have high IQ's, and the pendulum has been
swinging away from the idea that innate ability is required for
great achievement toward the Horatio Alger position that it's the
result of pluck, luck, and fortitude. Give anyone 10,000 hours of
deliberate practice and they can become one of the best in the
world. (I have a lot more to say about this, but it will take
time to write it up.)
Hans Eysenck, in his book
"Genius" writes, on page 59, "I think that she
(Cox) has demonstrated beyond any doubt that geniuses in many
different lines of endeavor have uniformly IQs well above
average; indeed, as all the different occupations which led to
their achievements obviously used considerable mental powers any
other results would have been unbelievable. But there must be
considerable doubt about the actual IQ values assigned to
individuals; or to groups; these might be higher or lower than
given by Cox, depending upon how one evaluates the criticisms and
considerations I have outlined. On the whole, they ought to be
thought to balance out, and to give us a final estimate of the
typical genius as having an IQ some three to four standard
deviations above the mean."
I'm thinking that a proper
approach to this might be an experiment (or experiments). My hope
is that there is a great reservoir of latent potential that, as a
society, we have yet to tap. But that's a hope and not a proven
fact. Wouldn't it be wonderful if this were true? It would
benefit all of us. We'll keep our fingers crossed. But we'll just
have to try it and see.
I've jabbered away here
without giving you a word in edgewise. What do you think of all
these arguments? Of course, in the end, it won't matter a fig
what I say. Reality is whatever it is. But anyway, these have
been my rationalizations.
Thanks again for your comments,
Best wishes,
Bob