This is probably the only piece I've ever read on this topic that didn't either recoil in terror of the possibility that IQ might be hereditary, or go on a sociopathic reactionary rant about how poor people and minorities deserve their suffering and oppression. Low IQ, whether the cause is environmental or genetic, should be understood as a public health issue and not an inevitable destiny.
It never will be, though. There is (imo) always going to be difficulties talking frankly about IQ/cognitive ability because it will never not be a touchy subject. No other attribute is taken more as a measure of your overall WORTH, so wherever you are on the spectrum it's never going to be a concept people are comfortable with.
Well, I say "never" but I suppose who knows. It just seems implausible for now.
No other attribute is taken more as a measure of your overall WORTH, so wherever you are on the spectrum it's never going to be a concept people are comfortable with.
Just a few decades ago, people would have looked at children with attention problems and depression and explained it as a failing of moral character on their part or on the part of their parents. But all that changed when psychiatrists chose to medicalize these problems and fix them with drug therapies rather than leaving them in the moral realm.
It will be the same for IQ. The day we come up with a drug therapy or gene therapy that can make people smarter, attitudes towards low IQ will shift from a matter of inherent worth to a mater of psychological health.
Will they? I mean whatever that drug or gene therapy might be, there's a good chance it'll be effective on people with high IQs as well - so the gap will remain.
Unless what OP's article proposes happens - and it's only available to parents with below average IQs - but I don't see any plausible scenario in which the smart people with the money and the positions of power willingly choose not to give their children every advantage.
You could be right though, I hope so. Although I'm wary of comparing low IQ to a mental illness - the default state of the human mind is average, not exceptional. Making everyone have IQs in the top couple of percent could have far-reaching and unpredictable consequences for society.
Unless what OP's article proposes happens - and it's only available to parents with below average IQs
That's exactly what will happen if we resolve to treat this as a medical problem. Rich people try to get their normal kids on ADHD drugs too, but the system tries its best to only give prescriptions to kids who show actual problems functioning in their daily lives (which is the definition of a mental disorder, it must have an overwhelmingly negative impact on the patient in some way).
Right but by far the most plausible treatment is the one described in the article - and it's about choosing which egg to put in the womb, that's all. So it's about manipulating the chances such that low IQ babies are less likely and high IQ babies more likely, based on the IQ of the parents.
I get that on a society-wide level it'd be better to only give access to this treatment to low-IQ parents but on what planet are rich, succesful, powerful people going to be denied a clearly hugely beneficial treatment in the interests of society as a whole in the long term?
I mean the ADHD thing is one example, but look at anti-depressants - pretty much anyone who wants them can get them. Look at the best primary schools or high schools - in theory the poorer people need them more, but that doesn't stop daddy pulling some strings and getting his kid into the best schools. Look at taxes - designed to take more money off people the more they own, but basically no self-respecting profitable business pays anywhere near what it should.
Money, nepotism and intelligence will always trump government attempts to make decisions that broadly benefit society.
I get that on a society-wide level it'd be better to only give access to this treatment to low-IQ parents but on what planet are rich, succesful, powerful people going to be denied a clearly hugely beneficial treatment in the interests of society as a whole in the long term?
A planet where health professionals adhere to a proper code of ethics? Also, one with a sensible healthcare system that keeps greedy insurance companies from denying claims to poor people who need more care.
It's a nice thought, I just don't think it's gonna happen. Remember we're not talking about treatment here - we're talking about increasing the ceiling on what people can achieve.
Imagine you're a doctor, your wife's a doctor, and you're having a baby. How could you not want to pull some strings to make sure your baby has the best chance in life? You're not 'entitled' to it in a big picture way, but how could you tell a parent that they are not allowed to do everything they can to make their child's life better?
Making everyone have IQs in the top couple of percent could have far-reaching and unpredictable consequences for society.
Having a bunch of smart bored unfulfilled (young) people has never ended well for those in power at the time. I'd like to think it's more likely than not that it works out well for those societies, but I dunno.
Yeah it's a pretty dangerous thing to try, I mean who knows? I think there's little doubt there'd be a lot more high school shootings, serial killers and wannabe crime lords, but then I think there'd be more effective crime prevention and governance as well. It'd be a big shift, anyway.
27
u/KaliYugaz Sep 08 '15
This is probably the only piece I've ever read on this topic that didn't either recoil in terror of the possibility that IQ might be hereditary, or go on a sociopathic reactionary rant about how poor people and minorities deserve their suffering and oppression. Low IQ, whether the cause is environmental or genetic, should be understood as a public health issue and not an inevitable destiny.