When people are suffering physically from the effects of lack of iodine, isn't it rather Western to consider raised intelligence the most talkworthy improvement!? Iodized water should be used to make people's lives better and reduce their pain - not to increase their intelligence by some token amount. Increasing intelligence is a weird motivation to help people in dire straits - how about helping people because it's the decent, human thing to do?
An educated guess is that iodine deficiency results in a
needless loss of more than 1 billion I.Q. points around
the world.
The prevalence of TV and gossip magazines in our culture are responsible for a lot more than that. I don't see a big crusade to fix that.
The point this article makes is as meaningless as Shirky's assertions that our "cognitive surplus" equates to a million Wikipedias we haven't written or whatever. If billions of people in the developing world gain some intelligence, great, but I doubt it'll be as much use as making their lives better and more pain free so they can use the plentiful intelligence they already have (I don't subscribe to the argument that the poor are any less intelligent - they just have fewer opportunities).
isn't it rather Western to consider raised intelligence the most talkworthy improvement!?
I assume you're using "Western" to mean something very racist and vile, like "analyzing the data rationally and coming to the most sensible conclusion." You are unfairly assuming that only Europeans can look at the correlation between IQ and income, or IQ and crime, or whatever. Obviously, the Japanese (IQ 105, crime 5% to 10% of that in the US) or South Koreans (IQ 106, crime rate about 15% of what it is in the US) can look at these data, too, and hope that the rest of the world catches up.
The prevalence of TV and gossip magazines in our culture are responsible for a lot more than that. I don't see a big crusade to fix that.
Probably because you haven't read about how hard it is to change IQ. Nutrition is one of the only things that can measurably affect IQ in the long run. The other one -- the big one, accounting for 40-80% of all IQ variation -- is genetics.
On the other hand, stupid but happy people are probably easier to control.
I assume you're using "Western" to mean something very racist and vile, like "analyzing the data rationally and coming to the most sensible conclusion." You are unfairly assuming that only Europeans can look at the correlation between IQ and income, or IQ and crime, or whatever.
You assume wrong. I did not make the assertions or assumptions you assume.
How is "Western" racist? People of all races (except for, perhaps, those of certain indigenous peoples) make up the West and hold Western opinions. And since when were all Western people "European"?
It's disturbing that HN has gotten to the point where people are unfairly assumed to be making "racist and vile" statements with nothing to back it up. Shame on you.
I'm sorry my sarcasm was not more apparent. My point was that raising IQ would do a lot of good for those people -- more than reducing their pain, in the long term. High IQ groups tend to create stable states and nice places to live, and they're also responsible for a lot of technological advancement.
My sub-point was that often the same people uncomfortable with this kind of talk are down on Western culture in particular.
My point was that raising IQ would do a lot of good for those people -- more than reducing their pain, in the long term.
Would you argue, then, that instead of sending food and medical aid to poor countries, we should send teachers?
I'm not buying your argument. Raised IQ does correlate with improved quality of life but the poorest people in the world have more serious problems we could be helping with first such as actually staying alive.
And accusing someone of holding racist and vile views is sarcasm - the lowest form of wit? I wish I could call that a good defense.
Would you argue, then, that instead of sending food and medical aid to poor countries, we should send teachers?
Teachers do not raise IQ. Proper nutrition does.
And accusing someone of holding racist and vile views is sarcasm - the lowest form of wit?
Okay, read through the comment I made. I am sorry this is unclear, but I am being very sarcastic. I know you are saying that it is Western to want to raise IQ rather than reduce pain; I am saying that this is, in fact the right thing to do and thus that you are using "Western" to mean "logical and sensible" -- and then I say what I'm guessing you would say to someone who said "His views are very Western -- that is, logical, and sensible, and not driven by emotion or ignorance." That is the joke: that you accidentally said something nice about Western culture, and that had someone else said that to you and meant it, you would likely have been annoyed.
and thus that you are using "Western" to mean "logical and sensible"
No, no, no... I'm not saying that! :) That's how you're interpreting it. You are putting words into my mouth which is why the sarcasm made no sense. I do not agree that raising IQ rather than reducing pain is "logical and sensible" at all - and just because you think it is does not make it universally so.
Taking someone else's words and then telling them what they really meant can never be a valid form of discourse. Indeed, that very behavior is "Western" in style because you are assuming that what you think is good is good for everyone else too.
No, no, no... I'm not saying that! :) That's how you're interpreting it.
You're almost there. I understand that you, yourself, do not think that raising IQ is rational and sensible -- that if we just give Nigeria a few billion dollars more in aid, it's going to look like Westport, Connecticut. The joke is that when you condemned something as Western, the thing you condemned was actually a pretty good idea, so calling it Western really sounded like Western was a nice thing. Maybe a different example will make it clear. If two American political partisans are arguing, and you hear:
"Raising taxes on the rich is so typical of liberals,"
and then "But when Clinton did it, our economy performed incredibly well. So you must mean that liberals are typically pretty damn awesome!"
You can follow the joke, right? That is the joke I'm making.
Indeed, that very behavior is "Western" in style because you are assuming that what you think is good is good for everyone else too.
I notice it's been pretty good for the rest of the world, actually. Lots of countries have adopted market systems and the rule of law to some extent, and they've really benefitted from it (not to mention Western technological advances -- the West, of course, has done plenty of the same in the other direction). And when we adopt communitarian values, or try to support collectivist compromise over individualism, it tends to lead to stagnation at best and disaster on average.
yeah, tax levels are the only thing affecting the economy. wacky interest rates that were eventually disastrous didn't have ANYTHING to do with the first tech bubble, right?
"Raised IQ does correlate with improved quality of life but the poorest people in the world have more serious problems we could be helping with first such as actually staying alive."
Did you read your own sentence? You say that raising IQ will improve quality of life, but you don't want to do that right now because it's more important to first raise quality of life.
Hu?
Yes I changed what you wrote. But that's what what you wrote means. You can not keep people alive without simultaneously increasing their quality of life.
That should be obvious: people who can't stay alive are extinct in a generation. People who die after having kids would benefit from increase in quality of life, which pretty much means living longer.
Individual IQ is heavily affected by genetics, and this fact has been well established. So far, the evidence that population IQ -- which is what is at issue here -- is influenced by genetics is far more sketchy. The distinction is rather important, because of the sensitivity of the issue of racial IQ differences.
Lets not get into this age-old debate. IQ is not based solely on genetics. Mainly, IQ is a product of birth conditions and parents diet, as well as environmental factors.
The genetic link has been used by closet and public racists to push their agenda. They also included factors such as sex. Not saying you are one of those people, but it is a slippery slope, we may want to avoid...
> When people are suffering physically from the effects of lack of iodine, isn't it rather Western to consider raised intelligence the most talkworthy improvement!? Iodized water should be used to make people's lives better and reduce their pain - not to increase their intelligence by some token amount
If half a country's population have reduced intelligence of about 10 IQ points because of this, then obviously that country's economy will suffer. If India had had no iodine deficiency since independence in 1948 it might be as rich as South Korea today -- it would certainly be richer than it is.
Partly this is due to social differences, i.e. growing up in an environment where there are less problems like IQ tests.
But partly also it is genuinely due to lower intelligence. If in those countries you ended chronic undernutrition, ended lack of micronutrients, ended cousin marriages, improved sewers, hygeine and basic healthcare, these people would grow up with IQs similar to those in the western world. This would lead to their economies becoming richer.
So it isn't just a "token amount" it's a big fucking deal.
Fetuses, babies, and children need certain nutrients to grow healthy. Vitamin A, Zinc, Iron, Folic Acid, etc.. Iodine has to do with good brain development, vit A with eyes (among other things), etc.
What's the problem? It's elitist and western to think that people should have a chance to grow up healthy? And to think that this will lead to better outcomes on average?
> The goal is to prevent mental retardation, not create Einsteins.
I think it will do both, because iodine deficiency probably works across the board: Someone who would otherwise be a genius may be reduced, by iodine deficiency, to being merely quite bright. Someone who would be quite bright is reduced to merely average. And someone who would be a bit thick is reduced to being retarded.
So by preventing mental retardation, they're also creating Einsteins. A win-win situation.
It may be that social institutions are shaped by the intelligence of the people who form them and control them.
All else being equal, having a higher IQ population is probably a good thing. It probably leads to more long-term planning, capital investment, and other good things.
Helping people in most ways are not mutually exclusive.
I'm sure there is at least one imam who read that article and thought, "If the Muslims of the Third World didn't have such nutritional deficiencies, then they could learn more of the Quran."
It is the only time that violating the prime directive is good because raising intelligence is a universal good. there is no way for raising intelligence to backfire that I can think of....I guess the atomic bomb would be one argument, but we already have those.
Because having higher I.Q.'s via Iodine couldn't possibly allow them to get more doctors per capita and reduce pain and suffering that way. Let me guess, you didn't get much Iodine as a kid.
The point this article makes is as meaningless as Shirky's assertions that our "cognitive surplus" equates to a million Wikipedias we haven't written or whatever. If billions of people in the developing world gain some intelligence, great, but I doubt it'll be as much use as making their lives better and more pain free so they can use the plentiful intelligence they already have (I don't subscribe to the argument that the poor are any less intelligent - they just have fewer opportunities).