/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10967508]

So /SCI/ bros, if we sterilized everyone with less than 100 IQ, and then gradually increased the filter by 10 IQ per generation, would we get a generation with 4 digit IQs in a few thousand years?

[Anonymous No.10967516]

Four digit IQs no, but they'd likely be a fair bit smarter.

[Anonymous No.10967524]

No. There's a limit to what random evolution can do. What it would take nature to do randomly in a billion years we could do in a thousand, with TECHNOLOGY.

[Anonymous No.10967527]

>>10967516
How many millenias till 4 digits? And does this really work? What can we achieve with this?

[Anonymous No.10967530]

>>10967508
I'd miss 4cahn(nel), though.

[Anonymous No.10967535]

>>10967516
>>10967527
>>10967508
Do you retards even know how IQ works? Do you know what an SD is?

[Anonymous No.10967540]

>>10967524
So, do you think through eugenics, selective breeding and genetic engineering we can basically create god level geniuses? If so how long can it theoretically take?

[Anonymous No.10967541]

>>10967535
I deliberately wrote "smarter" instead of "higher IQ" to avoid the attention of pedants of you, so kindly cease to address me.

[Anonymous No.10967554]

>>10967508
Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tryon%27s_Rat_Experiment

[Anonymous No.10967558]

>>10967540
>eugenics
pseudoscience
>selective breeding
impractical
>genetic engineering
works instantly doesn't work until it works

the best way to increase intelligence would be to hook people up to computers though, no matter how much you engineer a human brain or try to make people smarter nobody can calculate 8347895^38234 mentally

[Anonymous No.10967571]

>>10967508
Why not just sterilize everyone?

[Anonymous No.10967581]

>>10967571
Average IQ would then drop to zero. Or alternatively, it would shot up to infinity. hm, maybe you are onto something..

[Anonymous No.10967628]

>>10967581
Soon.

[Anonymous No.10967739]

>>10967508
No, you fucking idiot, because IQ score is based off standard deviations.
The way you'd get a four-digit IQ score is kill off all the smart people, except for one.

[Anonymous No.10967795]

>>10967558
Nigger, eugenics IS selective breeding and it has been the only available method to improve humans until very recently.

[Anonymous No.10967832]

>>10967508
No. The higher your IQ, the rarer it is. Filtering 10 extra IQ point per generation will quickly lead to the extinction of the human race after -7 generations. Furthermore, high IQ parents does not necessarily means high IQ children.

[Anonymous No.10967996]

>>10967832

High IQ parent makes high IQ children more likely, retard

[Anonymous No.10968012]

>>10967508
no.. and yes. it would likely result in a narrower skewed curve since we're eliminating people that fall below a line. eventually people would be more intelligent but by how we define IQ it would never be that high, relative to current standards though, yes
>>10967832
much higher chance of high IQ children from high IQ parents, there is intelligence related genes.

[Anonymous No.10968120]

>>10967508
>If we sterilized everyone with less than 100 IQ
Hiro won't allow this as /pol/ brings in the most cash cows and ad-clickers to the site.

[Anonymous No.10969186]

>>10967554
According to your link:
>In 1963, however, Harvard psychologist, Robert Rosenthal realized that there was a major experimental error in Tryon's experimental design. It was not a "blind study". That is, the experimenters working with the rats knew which group was bred to be "maze bright" and which group was bred to be "maze dull". Rosenthal conducted an experiment using "expectation" as the independent variable, instead of breeding.[citation needed]

>He had students run rats through a maze that they thought were bred to be "maze bright" and "maze dull" just as Tryon had. However, these rats were randomly assigned to these groups with no breeding. The results show data very similar to Tryon's. The "maze bright rats" ran the maze significantly better than the "maze dull rats" and the graph produced had the same bi-modal distribution.[citation needed]

>It was hypothesized that the students had treated the "bright" rats, whom they thought were genetically superior, much more as pets; giving them more attention, encouragement, affection, and the benefit of the doubt. This study began a series of experiments referred to as "the self-fulfilling prophecy". That is, what you expect to see and predict will happen, often will occur.

[Anonymous No.10969432]

>>10967508
>another IQ thread

[Anonymous No.10969449]

>>10969432
Where is the pepe?

[Anonymous No.10969532]

>>10969186
HAHA EUGENICS BTFO.
I’m all seriousness it could work but would take thousands of years. We don’t have time

[Anonymous No.10969561]

>>10969449
sorry I forgot. I apulogize

[Anonymous No.10969587]

>>10967996
Before calling someone a retard, learn to read
>high IQ parents does not necessarily means high IQ children.
>not necessarily
Never claimed there isn't a higher chance. The point I was trying to make, which is that selecting for high IQ only would lead to extinction of the human race, goes way over your head.

[Anonymous No.10969603]

why do people fetishize IQ so much? it's just skill at solving puzzles

the biggest loser in the world could have an IQ of 150

[Anonymous No.10969610]

>>10969603
0 effort

[Anonymous No.10969612]

>>10969610
it's true and that bothers you

[Anonymous No.10969639]

>>10969587
>The point I was trying to make, which is that selecting for high IQ only would lead to extinction of the human race, goes way over your head

It is a retarded point considering that it depends on things such as fertility rate. As long as it stays above 2.1 over the long term, there will be no extinction.

[Anonymous No.10969640]

>>10967508
No, IQ is a relative measure

[Anonymous No.10969647]

>>10969603
Because intelligence is very important for modern economy and scientific progress. IQ is the best correlate of various measures of success.

[Anonymous No.10969650]

>>10969640
OP said compare todays people with those after thousands of years of breeding for higher IQ. There is your relative comparison, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10969651]

>>10969647
IQ is a poor measure of intelligence outside of the purposes of STEM fields

[Anonymous No.10969666]

>>10969651
It's not even a good measure inside of STEM. High IQ has not been shown to have any correlation to academic success. Low IQ shows that someone probably dumb but high IQ doesn't show much except they aren't dumb.

[Anonymous No.10969677]

>>10969666
IQ tests measure how good you are at solving IQ tests, nothing more and nothing less

[Anonymous No.10969682]

Society should be reformed in the image of mensa.

[Anonymous No.10969684]

>>10969677
Not really. If you get a score of 80 that shows that you have a poor education.

[Anonymous No.10969690]

>>10969666
>High IQ has not been shown to have any correlation to academic success
Source?

[Anonymous No.10969692]

>>10969651
>IQ is a poor measure of intelligence outside of the purposes of STEM fields
Why do you lie? What motivates you?

[Anonymous No.10969695]

>>10969651
>IQ is a poor measure of intelligence outside of the purposes of STEM fields

Good thing that STEM is what matters.

[Anonymous No.10969697]

>>10969684
sure, being bad at IQ puzzles can show you a bunch of other stuff, but the certainty is lower

>>10969692
having a measured IQ of 130 and being a complete failure at the same time

>>10969695
the most successful people in the world are not scientists and engineers

[Anonymous No.10969700]

>>10969666
>High IQ has not been shown to have any correlation to academic success.
Liar.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289615001269

[Anonymous No.10969704]

>>10969697
>having a measured IQ of 130 and being a complete failure at the same time
Assuming that's true, that's no reason to lie. That's a reason to learn what the words "statistically" and "outliers" mean.

[Anonymous No.10969712]

>>10969704
i don't lie, i only speak the truth as i see it

IQ is a means to test a small subset of mental ability, a subset which is actually fairly niche when you take the entirety of human activity into account

[Anonymous No.10969727]

>>10969712
>IQ is a means to test a small subset of mental ability, a subset which is actually fairly niche

It correlates with other abilities.

>>10969697
>the most successful people in the world are not scientists and engineers

The most successful people in the world have high IQ.

[Anonymous No.10969732]

>>10969727
>making a claim based exclusively on correlation
>just minutes after whining about statistical outliers
lol

[Anonymous No.10969756]

>>10969732
Wasnt me, but correlations are not based on outliers. Making an argument based on correlation is as good as it gets in the absence of rigorous proof (i.e., as good as it gets in social sciences).

[Anonymous No.10969777]

>>10969756
>social
>sciences
>social sciences
*social pseudosciences

[Anonymous No.10969787]

>>10969777
It is not all pseudoscience, dismissing social sciences like that is too much, dear STEM-lord. IQ is the closest psychology came to a rigorous science. It is probably the most reproducible and most accurately correlable metric in all of psychology and related fields. That has to count for something.

[Anonymous No.10969798]

>>10969787
not him but
>That has to count for something.
notwithstanding everything else, this sentence is false, there are no participation trophies

[Anonymous No.10969802]

>>10967535
Wrong. IQ is based on a universal constant defining the minimum amount of information transfer that constitutes a conscious system. We've been slowly climbing to our modern IQ levels since we were single celled organisms (which, by definition, were 1 IQ brainlets). It is only by coincidence that the "average" happens to be 100 today.

[Anonymous No.10969874]

>>10969651
That's because literally anybody can do anything outside of STEM

[Anonymous No.10969879]

>>10969666
>>10969677
cope