Two nothings is still nothing.

Sales of Three Stooges DVDs would skyrocket!

/tl;dr
//busy batin'

If you doubled human intelligence, the average IQ would go from 100 to 110.

No, IQ isn't linear.

I was in MENSA for a few years, IQ measured at 149, I'm not very bright. I'm a third-rate junior computer programmer.

If everyone were twice as smart, we'd have one very depressed civilization.

/(Supposedly) smart and (certainly) sad

Lord Summerisle: I was in MENSA for a few years, IQ measured at 149, I'm not very bright. I'm a third-rate junior computer programmer.

This is one of those things you don't bring up on Fark. It tends to paint on in the light of an insecure douchebag. Kind of like going to the gym in 26 minutes.

Lord Summerisle: I was in MENSA for a few years, IQ measured at 149, I'm not very bright. I'm a third-rate junior computer programmer.

Lunch with the Secretary of Defense?

WHA???

Ok, as TFA said, "double smart" and an IQ of 200 isn't nearly the same thing... but pretend, like TFA did...

What we were half as smart. What if we all had an IQ of 50 or whatever it would be (again, like TFA said, pretend)... And then imagine that those people half-wit people decided to get together and, assuming they could spell words, tried to write a "what if" article about people suddenly becoming as smart as we are today. Do you think they'd even be remotely close? Telling a retard what it's like to be smart is like telling a blind person what purple is like. And in this little thought experiment, we're the retards.

FloydA: They'd be half-wits.

dim-wits? nit-wits?


\methodists?

There would be no religion?

The is a positive correlation with intelligence and unhappiness, So everyone would be depressed, mean and would lash out at each other. Like a fark thread if you add around 90 IQ to it.

cirby: If you doubled human intelligence, the average IQ would go from 100 to 110.

No, IQ isn't linear.

Wouldn't the average just stay at 100?

I would bet that the suicide rate would double as well. The population would drop, the use of mind altering drugs (LSD, shrooms, etc) would increase, and our technology would again plateau in a somewhat higher level.

I would also surmise that employment would be rare because aside from essential needs, our technology would handle day-to-day needs. Religion would be rare but warfare would continue.

People would still be lazy and dicks to each other. Overall I think it would be like living in silicon valley with the Mexican gardeners and servers being robots.

/jk, We would nuke ourselves to oblivion.

The average person in the politics thread has an IQ so low, that if measured and written down, the person transcribing it would feel a mistake was made and put an one in front of it to get the IQ to a little above average.

Smarter humans would also be healthier and longer-living, the scientists said, because they'd have a better grasp of what behavior leads to these attributes.


I doubt it. Billions of us know perfectly well that smoking, not exercising, and eating and drinking to excess are unhealthy, yet we still do it. It's not because we don't understand that smoking and such are unhealthy - everyone gets it - it's just that we choose to keep on doing them anyway. We like doing those things, we enjoy doing those things, and we keep on doing them even though we grasp quite well that they're not good for us.

It's not intelligence, it's the self-indulgent human nature.

Harry_Seldon: Lord Summerisle: I was in MENSA for a few years, IQ measured at 149, I'm not very bright. I'm a third-rate junior computer programmer.

This is one of those things you don't bring up on Fark. It tends to paint on in the light of an insecure douchebag. Kind of like going to the gym in 26 minutes.

Sorry, late to the thread. Just got back from the gym, which is also conveniently close to the building where we hold our montly MENSA meetings.

It sort of depends.

What are we going to use this new found intelligence for? Solving world problems or creating new entertainment mediums?

cirby: If you doubled human intelligence, the average IQ would go from 100 to 94110.

No, IQ isn't linear.

GilRuiz1
It's not intelligence, it's the self-indulgent human nature.

This. While such behavior could be categorized as a kind of intelligence, they go on to say that social problems (which have a similar cause) wouldn't be affected (and thus wouldn't count as intelligence)..

GilRuiz1: I doubt it. Billions of us know perfectly well that smoking, not exercising, and eating and drinking to excess are unhealthy, yet we still do it.

No, we "know" that smoking etc. are not healthy. But people who lack a sense of risk, foresight or how statistics apply to them are dumbasses in their own right.

It just goes to show that there's more than one kind of intelligence, and people who are good at one aren't necessarily good at another. Problem-solving and memory are two forms, but the kind of intelligence that gets you to avoid self-destructive habits is different and isn't instinctive.

What would happen to Fark comments if I added +1 Smart to all of them?

I don't know about all that so here's a picture of Cliff Robertson's Spitfire.

Intelligence in an organism has been correlated to a longer childhood period. Wonder if adjustment to our intelligence would mean asynchronous development as a standard. This would then wander into gray areas where people do not become physically, emotionally, and cognitively mature simultaneously. Plus, responsibility and autonomy encapsulate the final period before adulthood, which would delay independence by several years, possibly a decade. Education would last longer and careers would begin later, including paying taxes and paying into retirement, while not extending lifespan.

Implications are strange, but we have to talk about the results of raw intelligence, and those are hard to quantify versus dedication, motivation, environment, overcoming of adversity or challenges, etc.. For increased population intelligence to happen some short-term evolutionary advantage has to be conferred or we have to have a massive program to repeatedly institute this. I see neither happening.

Pincy: Harry_Seldon: Lord Summerisle: I was in MENSA for a few years, IQ measured at 149, I'm not very bright. I'm a third-rate junior computer programmer.

This is one of those things you don't bring up on Fark. It tends to paint on in the light of an insecure douchebag. Kind of like going to the gym in 26 minutes.

Sorry, late to the thread. Just got back from the gym, which is also conveniently close to the building where we hold our montly MENSA meetings.

If you were really so smart and fit, you would hold your MENSA meetings in the gym while working out.

FloydA;
No, it most certainly would not.

Keep telling yourself that.

For you folks who love the "average IQ is always 100" line, remember that the "100 IQ is always average" point is only for a given test generation. When you compare generations, someone taking an IQ test from 20 or 30 years before should (according to the people who write the tests) score higher than on their cohort's test.

I know it disagrees with the "people are getting dumber" line that a lot of people cling to...

Double my IQ? Sure, I could use another thousand or so.

EatHam: what if my aunt had balls?

They'd be on your uncles chin.

Humans are as smart as they need to be.

So far.

I doubt IQ means that much when viewed in the context of societal contribution. I've always wondered what Einstein's IQ was. I mean, I know he was a genius, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't test at genius levels by the standardized IQ test of the day. And the person with the highest IQ in the USA now does what? Writes a column for Parade magazine?

eh.

According to Hunt, there's evidence to suggest that many humans, if significantly smarter, would lose their belief in God

Well drop an anchor on me and call me Jessica.

No one would vote Republican?

cirby: For you folks who love the "average IQ is always 100" line, remember that the "100 IQ is always average" point is only for a given test generation. When you compare generations, someone taking an IQ test from 20 or 30 years before should (according to the people who write the tests) score higher than on their cohort's test.

This is not true, at least not the way you are explaining. This does occur where there is an apparent increase in IQ score, the Flynn Effect, which would lead one to assume using previous iterations of an IQ test will result in a higher score since the norm group would have lower comparative IQ scores. However, this should not happen and speaks to the validity of IQ tests; certain forms of intelligence are absolutely favored in standardized IQ tests.

However, FloydA was remarking on your belief that "If you doubled human intelligence, the average IQ would go from 100 to 110." There should be extremely little difference in intelligence between persons scoring 100 and persons scoring 110. For a standard distribution, as the numbers become higher, the difference in intelligence should become greater. You're still within one standard deviation of the average.

I suppose I should ask you to explain this comment as I simply do not see how you arrive to average IQ, before adjustment, being 110.