> Maybe the 998 were above average too. Regression to the mean would be the way to bet if you didn't have any other data - but how heritable is intelligence?
Yes, all valid points, but to some extent set aside by the issue that, on an overcrowded planet, ten additional intelligent people isn't necessarily better than one additional intelligent person.
> Wouldn't that only be the case if you take the population as a whole as their lineage?
No, any grouping larger than two begins to show the effect of regression to the mean. My choice of 1000 was rather arbitrary, just to show the idea, and knowing the "right" number would require us to understand more about IQ heritability factors than we actually know.
I don't think assessing the entire population of a species is required for this idea to work as it does in nature. Indeed, on the contrary -- in this example, all one need do is group people by the genetic traits that lead to a particular IQ, and the heritability patterns of those genes.
> I'd expect smart people to provide significant better for their children down the line than will stupid people.
I might be tempted to agree on emotional grounds, but there's some circumstantial evidence that this isn't so, if we accept mental illness statistics and suicide rates at face value. Also, arguing that smart people should be allowed to have more children (an argument you aren't making) has some obvious logical difficulties, not least of which is that everyone thinks their children are above average.
> If you're looking at the future of humanity a small, dominant group that better fulfils your preferences is going to be a lot more worthwhile for some people.
Not very clear what you're saying here, but a wide genotype has been shown to produce better (healthier, fitter) results than a narrow one.
Comments
> Maybe the 998 were above average too. Regression to the mean would be the way to bet if you didn't have any other data - but how heritable is intelligence?
Yes, all valid points, but to some extent set aside by the issue that, on an overcrowded planet, ten additional intelligent people isn't necessarily better than one additional intelligent person.
> Wouldn't that only be the case if you take the population as a whole as their lineage?
No, any grouping larger than two begins to show the effect of regression to the mean. My choice of 1000 was rather arbitrary, just to show the idea, and knowing the "right" number would require us to understand more about IQ heritability factors than we actually know.
I don't think assessing the entire population of a species is required for this idea to work as it does in nature. Indeed, on the contrary -- in this example, all one need do is group people by the genetic traits that lead to a particular IQ, and the heritability patterns of those genes.
> I'd expect smart people to provide significant better for their children down the line than will stupid people.
I might be tempted to agree on emotional grounds, but there's some circumstantial evidence that this isn't so, if we accept mental illness statistics and suicide rates at face value. Also, arguing that smart people should be allowed to have more children (an argument you aren't making) has some obvious logical difficulties, not least of which is that everyone thinks their children are above average.
> If you're looking at the future of humanity a small, dominant group that better fulfils your preferences is going to be a lot more worthwhile for some people.
Not very clear what you're saying here, but a wide genotype has been shown to produce better (healthier, fitter) results than a narrow one.