<p>Note that orangutans are smaller than us.</p>
<p>That’s true, 100 is just the mid point. I think enfield and I meant that the new human race would have the average equivalent IQ of 145 on our current scale.</p>
<p>I think human’s place a large emphasis on things other than intelligence too, though. You may not experience it at the moment, but in many social groups the attractive (and often fit/strong) people rule, which is similar to how the alpha male leads the pack in a bunch of animals. On places like CC, we have no way to judge each other besides intelligence, so intelligence rules here. I have no idea how animals value intelligence though, but I bet us humans put it on a relatively high pedestal.</p>
<p>I don’t think smarter people would just mean smarter criminals. Most criminals have an IQ in the 90-100 range, so if everyone was somehow smarter crime would likely decrease.</p>
<p>I personally think attractiveness plays a larger role in high school than the outside world. LOL. Jk, it certainly affects how we treat each other, unconsciously.
Fitness certainly plays a role, but I think intelligence is even more important when it comes to humans. We are smarter probably because the common ancestors of us and other primates have varied intelligence, and somehow those who were our ancestors prefer intelligence. Or perhaps it has to do with our diet, migration routes, etc I am not sure about this, I just hypothesized this.
When I think about chimpanzees, our closest relatives, I am puzzled. They are very smart and are very close to us, yet they are so different and they live in jungles. It’s weird.</p>
<p>Read this article.</p>
<p>[What</a> If Humans Were Twice as Intelligent? | What If We Were All as Smart as Isaac Newton? | Human Intelligence | LiveScience](<a href=“http://www.livescience.com/17918-humans-intelligent.html]What”>What If Humans Were Twice as Intelligent? | Live Science)</p>
<p>It assumes an average IQ of 200 instead of 145. </p>
<p>This part stuck out to me. Somehow it reminded me of CC: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Certain types of crime would certainly reduce, but there are still going to be bad smarties. And I cannot guarantee who will be causing greater damages. Unabomber was very smart, and I believe, if I have remembered correctly (correct me if I am wrong), that he was not discovered until his own brother turned him in. Smarties plan very well and can cause big scale damages.</p>
<p>I read that article before. Very interesting, and I agree that we are not going to become harmonious creatures just because we become smarter. Though I personally think technology would get a boost from it.</p>
<p>cchanged obviously all crime wouldn’t go away. Finding an exception to the rule doesn’t disprove my point at all. The type of crime that makes up the majority of crime today (violence, burglary, harassment, etc.) would likely decrease.</p>
<p>I think attractiveness and fitness play just as large a role in adult society as in high school. Just because we graduate doesn’t mean we stop liking pretty people.</p>
<p>oh yeah, everyone should be attractive to a good proportion of the people they associate with too. (i.e your own attractiveness should NOT be a significant barrier in your relationships). that would be good. obviously i don’t mean everyone should look the same … that wouldn’t meet those criteria.</p>
<p>Honestly, I think that Rusty is being the most condescending of all. His comment that one won’t have success in med-school if one doesn’t break a 1670 is completely idiocy. Thousands of people have completed medical school with less than that, and many quite successfully. I made around a 19something on the SAT, probably could be as high as a 21XX if I wanted, but I do acknowledge this fact: The SAT is an exam that measures one’s ability to take a test and other abstract ability that may be of little or no value.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^Yes, we all know that (except for Rusty)</p>
<p>ah the crime discussion is soo complex in my mind. </p>
<p>while we are talking about hypothetical societies, though, we don’t have to stop at the average person having the equivalent of a 145IQ in this society. that would be silly.</p>
<p>we can think about a society where the average empathy is much higher than it is in this one, where people get more love and respect, where phycopaths are present in much, much smaller numbers, and so on.</p>
<p>I feel like if we could make people smarter we could probably also make them nicer too, so it seems a little odd to critique the possibilities of a more intelligent human society on the basis that the more intelligent humans would be as evil as we are (i don’t see any evidence that indicates that would have to be the case).</p>
<p>==</p>
<p>yeah, the desirability of a hypothetical society to humans does not just depend on how smart the humans are, it depends on other things too (like we don’t like crime as cchanged pointed out).</p>
<p>alwaysleah: plz note that I said, " Certain types of crime would certainly reduce, but there are still going to be bad smarties." Did I say ALL crime will increase or stay the same? My example of unabomber is to try to prove my point of a likelihood of an increase in white collar crimes(scams) and harder-to-catch criminals. I think we were arguing about different things.
As for attractiveness, I said, “jk, it certainly affects how we treat each other, unconsciously.” I am aware of the fact that sometimes we treat prettier people more nicely (unless you are jealous). I like admiring them too.
If I gave you the wrong impression or if I wasn’t clear enough, then I am sorry.</p>
<p>it seems almost an obvious point that if the average human IQ increased the crimes that are most often committed by more intelligent people (i guess fraud and so on) would go up while the the crimes that are most often committed by less intelligence people would go down.</p>
<p>of course that doesn’t take into the account that THE ENVIRONMENT WOULD CHANGE.</p>
<p>e.g maybe scams would be harder to pull off because people are more intelligent, maybe the people with lower IQ’s in the newer smarter society would commit petty crimes even if they wouldn’t have the previous dumber society (where they were more respected?) and so on.</p>
<p>“Will brag about how he/she is taking 5 AP’s this year (Latin, English, Statistics, U.S. History, Psychology: aka the easy, generic ones)”</p>
<p>Obviously, its pretty implicit by the description that grinders are the kind of students to hate. However, I think more people on this board fit that category than are willing to admit.</p>
<p>I don’t think white collar crime would increase, though. I think it would stay the same while other types of crime decreased. We’re only talking about intelligence changing here, not people’s character.</p>
<p>Lol I’ll admit to being a grinder. I mean I don’t really brag that much, I have a 2190 SAT/4.0 uw, and I take lots of AP classes, but I certainly work hard. It doesn’t just come magically easily to me. I don’t see why that’s a problem.</p>
<p>That’s the problem. People’s character is not changing, so there are still going to be bad people, except that I would expect them to plot their crimes differently.</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>well the definition of grinder the OP is using seems exclusive to people with lower SAT scores…</p>
<p>i mean, i guess at tougher schools you have to be smarter to be a successful grinder, so what a grinder is is context dependent…</p>
<p>anyway i guess i’m a failed grinder. I tried to grind and succeed but i didn’t (i got one of the lowest gpas in my class :p).</p>
<p>But there is simply a higher rate of crime among individuals of a 90-100 IQ. I don’t know the exact numbers, but say 15% of people with a 90-100 IQ are incarcerated and 5% of people with a 101+ IQ are incarcerated. Instead of having a crime rate between 5 and 15%, it would end up hovering around 5%.</p>
<p>Grinders are admirable. Grind+talent is the most successful combo. Talent has to be developed, like a diamond has to be cut in order to shine.</p>