MovieChat Forums > GATTACA (1997) Discussion > Eugenics and raising the IQ threshold

Eugenics and raising the IQ threshold

posted 8 years ago by Fandango137
26 replies | jump to latest

If eugenics will enable humans to raise the average IQ threshold, will this create even smarter geniuses than the ones that have been recorded in history?

If the average IQ of a person becomes 150 instead of 110, what sort of progress will the world see?

Does intelligence limit the amount of change our world can see? What if A.I. is impossible until we raise the IQ threshold? The people who have proposed the idea were surely of above average intelligence. It would make sense that only people of above average intelligence could make any truly meaningful contributions to its advancement. If through eugenics every single person born has the capacity to envision a game-changing technological breakthrough, then progress would become exponential relative to the change in intelligence, no?

Of course over time the changes created by what was before considered to be above average intelligence would become the norm, but it's certainly interesting. That is, of course, unless the human brain has a set-point and that raising the IQ threshold requires more than merely synthesizing the DNA of geniuses.

While I understand that IQ is not the determining factor for a species' success, all other things being equal, would it not make sense that a large group of extremely smart people would have a greater impact on society than a similar group with lesser intelligence?

It would be interesting to see what the world of Gattaca looked like just before the eugenics program had a few generations to take effect and the changes that accompanied having smarter people being born into the world.

I understand that I may have presented the idea in a rather primitive form. Nonetheless, I feel I got the overall meaning across and believe this can open up some rather interesting discussion.

[–] homergreg 8 years ago

I guess the neat trick would be raising IQ and having the "all other things being equal" part work out.

[–] ficoce 8 years ago

You're assuming change with a higher average IQ. Define change.

[–] Fandango137 8 years ago

I'm sorry, I was using change as another word for progress. I should have been more clear. Change in technology, medicine, politics, social issues, etc.

It seems one of the issues people have with assuming higher intelligence means better is the fact that there are other variables to a person's overall character. It would probably follow that if eugenics were utilized to raise IQ over multiple generations, undesirable traits such as disease, mental illness, etc. would also be filtered out. So in essence the thought experiment is assuming we have whatever you consider an ideal person to be, only with a significantly higher IQ.

As for personality traits, that's a different matter. I'm not sure we can even engineer desirable personalities. I suppose this can go in many directions.

[–] ficoce 8 years ago

It's an interesting question. Say we did that, moved the mean IQ up about 40 points and just loped off the left side of the bell curve. The whole landscape as we know it might change. Ambition would mean a totally different thing. Would people still work night shift or go to war? Would politics be necessary? Would laws and government form be made even more difficult to understand, or would they be simplified? How could workers be motivated? People might just go home to their families rather than make others rich through mindless production. There wouldn't be a need for as much social service, but it would be offset by smarter criminals.

We would be changing chaos, because that's what life is. There are too many variables, that are independent and connected at the same time, to try and figure that question out. The world takes all kinds.

[–] Fandango137 8 years ago

It could be that making anomalies the norm would have deleterious effects and be counter to the goal. I think ultimately I was assuming that perhaps the reason we tend to fixate on a certain period in time is because we don't have enough of these anomalies working. Look at Moore's Law. It wasn't until recently that the entire premise was ditched and only now are we looking at other methods to advance technology. Imagine now that your average CEO of an engineering company has an IQ of 140. His subordinates, or the people doing the engineering, might be lingering in the 120-130 range. Take our imaginary world now, and juxtapose these new numbers with the same workers. Now our CEO might have an IQ of 160 and the workers will have an IQ of 140-145. These new engineers could come up with new and innovative technologies. Something the person with a 120-130 IQ could only come up with once every ten or twenty years.

My assumption isn't that we're not making progress, it's that the speed of this progress is limited by intelligence. What is IQ, after all, but the ability to learn information?

I think what would be really interesting to see is just how much of a difference a standard deviation on the bell curve makes in terms of achievement and progress. If we can see that, then maybe we can extrapolate how that would manifest itself in this imaginary world.

[–] johnsonium 8 years ago

Some jobs are not suited for the highly intelligent. I know of one case where a police department rejected candidates with too high of IQ. Consultants had told them that if a cop was too smart they could get bored with their job and be more likely to quit.

[–] Fandango137 8 years ago

That's interesting, because I'm not sure that all police officers are required to get an IQ test before being employed. It may vary from area to area. That said, it's possible that certain areas would be hesitant to employ extremely intelligent individuals for fear they may turn corrupt. I think a psychological analysis is also conducted on people to see what their personality type is. Some personalities coupled with high IQs are more likely to manifest a certain type of behavior, and it makes sense that these people are restricted from entering certain work forces.

Furthermore, I assume most areas have a fairly low ceiling as far as upward mobility goes. Becoming a police chief or director is nigh impossible unless you have connections, so the people in charge may want people who are a bit easier to control. They could be a threat to their position in a few years time. It may sound silly, but anything that can disrupt the status quo is an issue.

It's also possible that people with high IQ are unable to work with others. They may think that someone like that could be a liability if they're uncooperative with their partners.

Anyway, you see the point, lots of possible explanations for why the person wasn't hired, many of which have little to do with job competency.

In the context of eugenics, however, the goal would be to have A.I. that can enforce the law, possibly preventing corruption as well.

[–] johnsonium 8 years ago

There always has to be somebody to dig ditches, metaphorically.

[–] dingleberry_57 7 years ago

I'm a Police Officer, with an IQ of approximately 145, averaged out over a few psychometric tests.

I'm honestly surprised that anybody would be refused entry as an officer based on superior intellect.

I work within a technical branch, with co-workers that are off the charts when it comes to intelligence, the kind of people that could literally have been anything, but law enforcement appealed to them.

I have not met many clever criminals, usually they do what they do because they lack intelligence, education or opportunity. There are always exceptions to the rule, especially in sexual based offences, but for the most part, criminals are morons.

Eugenics would likely create a world similar to what is seen in Gattaca, with different classes based on their genetic makeup.

There is one thing that bothers me about the film, the breach of civil liberties that the investigators continually get away with. DNA on file is only accepted in our society for people with criminal convictions, and even then, there are serious restrictions on who can do what with such information, the manner in which it is gathered and the utilisation of it for evidential purposes.

Adjust your face; take your time, because it's about to be rocked off - permanently

[–] Fandango137 7 years ago

That certainly puts a different perspective on things. Thank you for the insightful post.

[–] blueathena623 8 years ago

I don't think life would change as much as you think it would. I have an IQ of 150, and while I'm certainly smarter than the average bear, I'm not curing cancer or working at NASA. I'm a special education teacher. I'm a darn good one, but I'm still not changing the world. Unless you are suggesting that AI will replace every menial job, does a janitor need a 150 IQ? And how will those who suffer from brain damage be treated? Would a person with a 55 IQ be persecuted for being about 100 points below average?

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Fandango137 8 years ago

I don't think life would change as much as you think it would. I have an IQ of 150, and while I'm certainly smarter than the average bear, I'm not curing cancer or working at NASA. I'm a special education teacher. I'm a darn good one, but I'm still not changing the world.

Even so, there are other things we can consider. For starters, are people with higher IQs more likely to remain employed? Imagine if rates of unemployment were consistently less than 1%. This could mean less tax money going towards supporting those who don't work, meaning those resources can be re-directed towards funding projects for the future. If through eugenics we're also eliminating undesirable health traits, then perhaps less of a burden on healthcare systems and those who are forced to pay for them. Again, more money able to go towards funding bigger projects.

So even if a singularity or any life-changing event did not become a reality after this (at least as soon as I'm suggesting it possibly might), would the benefits still outweigh cons?

Ultimately it seems the issue is we just don't know what gene isolation does. It's possible that raising IQ could mean increasing the chance for schizophrenia or some other disease. So yeah, it's all theoretical at this point, and maybe that's a good thing.

Unless you are suggesting that AI will replace every menial job, does a janitor need a 150 IQ?

I guess the hope is that a form of A.I. would be developed at that point able to perform menial jobs (e.g., janitorial positions, customer service, cashiers, etc).

Would a person with a 55 IQ be persecuted for being about 100 points below average?

The hope is that eugenics would eliminate any such cases from occurring. However, it's more than likely by that point the exact function of the child would be mapped out after a few months of conception. I think it's safe to assume that in that world, these "invalid" individuals would be terminated.

This is interesting when we compare it to the film, because we see that invalids still exist in the world of Gattaca, meaning it's not illegal to have children naturally.

[–] johnsonium 8 years ago

Average IQ has been going up, believe it or not, steadily over the last century. There's no need to wonder.

[–] Fandango137 8 years ago

I can believe it.

[–] crypticanomaly73 8 years ago

Even so, there are other things we can consider. For starters, are people with higher IQs more likely to remain employed? Imagine if rates of unemployment were consistently less than 1%. This could mean less tax money going towards supporting those who don't work, meaning those resources can be re-directed towards funding projects for the future. If through eugenics we're also eliminating undesirable health traits, then perhaps less of a burden on healthcare systems and those who are forced to pay for them. Again, more money able to go towards funding bigger projects.

Not necessarily, intelligent people get bored quicker, they also question the purpose of things and of authority. They also work out how to rort things like unemployment benefits! I don't think higher IQ people will solve the unemployment issues, in fact it might make it worse.

Also factor in that higher IQ people might work out how to replace more humans in jobs thus increasing unemployment as well.

We could reduce health problems, but you will find you will get accused of being Hitler for bringing that one up.

I guess the hope is that a form of A.I. would be developed at that point able to perform menial jobs (e.g., janitorial positions, customer service, cashiers, etc).

You will always have lower end jobs, for one the people who will need to fix the AI Bots when they break down.

The hope is that eugenics would eliminate any such cases from occurring. However, it's more than likely by that point the exact function of the child would be mapped out after a few months of conception. I think it's safe to assume that in that world, these "invalid" individuals would be terminated.

This is interesting when we compare it to the film, because we see that invalids still exist in the world of Gattaca, meaning it's not illegal to have children naturally.

That's because the film had to have some element of warm and fuzzy in the real world I could easily see them passing laws to prevent this or harvesting all females at a young age and storing their eggs for future use. This would also prevent natural pregnancies.

Sometimes a movie or tv show plot is so stupid that only the stupid can understand it.

[–] nightmare_lady 8 years ago

Jebus. That story belongs to Huxley or some other hardcore dystopian author, not this film. :S

The thing about IQ is that it was designed to measure deficiency, ergo it isn't a very good measure of "intelligence" as we use it, as vague a term as that is. For example, there was a study about high IQ individuals back in the 30s called the Terman Genetic Studies of Genius. Sure, some reached high prominence in their fields, but not one received Nobel or Pulitzer or Fields Medal (you know, the biggie awards in academic fields). On the other hand, Richard Feynman - arguably one of the best physicists in history - had an IQ of 125. Sure, Terman's methodologies were criticised later, but it's one study that has extensive data on the "geniuses" defined by IQ.

IQ is a very narrow view of intelligence, but intelligence isn't limited to mental maturity. There are people whom we'd term as genius, but are more like savants in the very basic terms.

So... no. Raising the average IQ of human beings as a whole won't solve much. Cure cancer? Doubt it (cancer is a collective term for a variety of problems, kind of like "infection", so there isn't one-hit cure). Cure unemployment? Probably not.

[–] crypticanomaly73 8 years ago

Just in regards to awards and medals, how much of that is based on IQ or achievement and how much is based on politics?

Obama was given the Nobel peace prize for example but what actually did he do? I know that isn't an IQ thing but still a well known example of pandering.

Sometimes a movie or tv show plot is so stupid that only the stupid can understand it.

[–] Fandango137 8 years ago

Very interesting points.

[–] DrWhen 8 years ago

Those are very old arguments popular 100+ years ago. What you end up with implementation is more Hitlers and brutal enforcement. No one is going to willingly allow a government to tell them they can't reproduce.

[–] Fandango137 8 years ago

It was more of a thought experiment.

[–] Marcwolf-2 8 years ago

There is IQ.. and there is Wisdom.

The two are not always used together.

For example it is intelligent to randomly select 50 males and 50 females and start a colony.

It is wisdom that say that not everyone of the males or females will be hetrosexual, will like each other, or want to have children.

Walk Quietly through this Earth
Leave nothing but Smiles and Pawprints

[–] KingCobra686 7 years ago

Well there are a lot of factors, so its difficult to say.

I would think that a lot of stupid opinions would disappear. Things like Global Warming and Evolution would be more likely to be accepted and wouldnt be such a debated topic. That largely depends on stubbornness and people's attitudes though, not just IQ.

Progress is not just a matter of IQ and intelligence. Resources and attitude are almost as important. Compare it to a high school. There are plenty of super smart kids that fail because they can't be bothered to put in any effort. You also have the smart kids that fail because they are going to a crappy school with bad teachers and are dealing with abuse and stressful situations at home. If the world has a higher IQ but spends its time on pointless drama and fighting, it wont lead to more progress. If the world has a higher IQ but is running out of resources and can't fund progress, it won't achieve progress.

Interesting question.

[–] feodoric 7 years ago

If eugenics will enable humans to raise the average IQ threshold, will this create even smarter geniuses than the ones that have been recorded in history?

If the average IQ of a person becomes 150 instead of 110, what sort of progress will the world see?

I've read the whole thread and nowhere did I find someone mentioning crucial facts about this whole question of "IQ raising over time" that make it completely irrelevant as stated. This has to do with the very definition of IQ. To measure it, standardized tests are used that allow to compare your performance to that of a large group whose performance distribution is well-known and which has a median value (i.e. which is located at the very middle of the distribution of the test results) of exactly 100. The test is then "standardized" according to a statistical process in order to generate a normal distribution of the score results.

What does the IQ mean? The implication, first and foremost, is that the "100" value of the IQ will not increase per se in a population because the evaluation modalities are such that corrections of the test are introduced to counter up the general trend towards an increase in the raw score for an IQ test over time since the early 20th century (aka the Flynn effect). So, there will never be such a thing as an increase in the average IQ of a population up to 150. It is ruled out by the very definition of IQ itself. At best, what may happen is a change in the actual distribution of raw intelligence test scores in a given IQ evaluation over time, e.g. there might be more people with apparent IQs of 115 and less people with an apparent IQ of 85. In other words, the raw scores of an intelligence test may become more skewed towards higher values over time, even beyond the Flynn effect. However, per definition, there will always be two thirds of a population in the 85 to 115 IQ interval, and there will always be only 5% of the population with IQs greater than 135. Again, as per definition of IQ!

To be fair, 🤓 one could look at it this way: a eugenic selection process could be envisioned that would lead to the favored propagation of individuals with IQs (as determined initially among a given unbiased sample) of let's say, 150, inasmuch as the genetic contribution to IQ is predominant. Meaning that if a new IQ test was done among a population that would now include a large proportion of these selected geniuses, results would indicate that this group now included an unusually large number of people with a remarkably superior performance with the test, and that the sample in question was not representative of the general population and was markedly skewed toward larger scores than what was previously observed. In the long term, however, if the eugenic selection process kept favoring the birth of super-gifted individuals, the measured IQ would eventually go down, again simply because people who administer these tests would have adjusted the tests so as to bring down the IQ distribution to a normal pattern with values centering around 100, as per the very operational definition of IQ.

What the eugenic selection process would end up doing in the long term, nonetheless, would be to replace a population such as ours by one that would perform with very high IQ values, if evaluated with only a few individuals at a time and if brought back to the past (i.e. before the selection took place).

I hope this will have thrown some light on the OP's question, which I find interesting and intriguing, despite the misinterpretation of IQ that clouded it.

I will soon watch GATTACA, something that I have delayed for much too long !

- But you can't have her again as costume designer, Mr. Hitchcock!
- Really, Peggy? Give me Head!

[–] KingCobra686 7 years ago

What the eugenic selection process would end up doing in the long term, nonetheless, would be to replace a population such as ours by one that would perform with very high IQ values, if evaluated with only a few individuals at a time and if brought back to the past (i.e. before the selection took place).

This is what OP intended with their question. They referenced IQ specifically, but the question is about intelligence in general, however you decide to measure it.