Societal tipping point and quantity of geniuses

[hurl3y4456]

I had the following thought recently pop up in my mind in regards to survival..."Doesn't it make sense that the proportion of geniuses must be suppressed to permit survival once society reaches the tipping point (rapid advancement)?....It should follow that the rate of change of growth would exceed our requirement for adaptation if the proportion were to stay fixed....This is due to the interplay between increased population and resources....Now, if our energy is diverted such that each event in our life is compressed (distractions, social media, responsibilities, exc), then our versatility is expanded, yet our freedom for creative thought/unit time is condensed. Societal trajectory seems to follow an S shaped curve wherein it tapers at the end.

 

[rav3n]

I genuinely can't follow your thoughts, relative to your conclusion. You've hopped around a lot without consideration of how IQ is measured, relative to the general population. There will always only be 1% of the population that's much higher than the rest since IQ calculation isn't constant over the decades. Someone scoring a genius IQ level 100 years ago, won't be considered a genius today since the average intelligence level has risen.

 

[hurl3y4456]

I genuinely can't follow your thoughts, relative to your conclusion. You've hopped around a lot without consideration of how IQ is measured, relative to the general population. There will always only be 1% of the population that's much higher than the rest since IQ calculation isn't constant over the decades. Someone scoring a genius IQ level 100 years ago, won't be considered a genius today since the average intelligence level has risen.

I guess you could say that if the avg intellect is increasing (non-verbally/fluidly), then it will follow that the bar that defines genius will increase....The IQ level is increasing because we must use greater spatial manipulation for adaptation. Also, our current state is a consequence of all the preceeding geniuses in time....Therefore, we must adapt to a higher degree of sophistication, which makes it a necessity for increased intellectual capacity.... The problem is that we have many distractions and responsibilities such that limited energy can be diverted toward a singular task....so, we are becoming more versatile, yet the ingenuity of one particular aspect should be suppressed.

 

[Pionart]

So your argument is that the presence of genius results in increased growth, which is unsustainable with large populations - but what if the person applies their genius to helping humanity adapt instead?

 

[hurl3y4456]

So your argument is that the presence of genius results in increased growth, which is unsustainable with large populations - but what if the person applies their genius to helping humanity adapt instead?

That's a good question, and is very likely some geniuses will do so....I do think the ability to foster ingenuity is being limited by the reduction of time expended per event over our lifetime with expanded growth. However, we do have more resources to utilize our potential yet our potential to foster ingenuity is being limited by the fast paced/event saturated society. Also, consider Mathematics wherein it becomes much more difficult to create novel ideas because so many great geniuses preceeded our time....Now, societal progression must eventually taper otherwise the rate of change would be too large considering increased population density....By condensing time per event, less energy is utilized per event, which hinders progression...This won't hold for all people but the effect is dictated by the pace of society.

 

[Non_xsense]

That's a good question, and is very likely some geniuses will do so....I do think the ability to foster ingenuity is being limited by the reduction of time expended per event over our lifetime with expanded growth. However, we do have more resources to utilize our potential yet our potential to foster ingenuity is being limited by the fast paced/event saturated society. Also, consider Mathematics wherein it becomes much more difficult to create novel ideas because so many great geniuses preceeded our time....Now, societal progression must eventually taper otherwise the rate of change would be too large considering increased population density....By condensing time per event, less energy is utilized per event, which hinders progression...This won't hold for all people but the effect is dictated by the pace of society.

It's funny when europe kill themself since forever and now U.s. kicked their asses so they stopped it .
Your concept of grown is just 'cause our economical system can reach that ...with all of theirs limitation of course.

Your concept is very pure/innocent but we are so far from reaching that.

 

[raskol]

I had the following thought recently pop up in my mind in regards to survival..."Doesn't it make sense that the proportion of geniuses must be suppressed to permit survival once society reaches the tipping point (rapid advancement)?....

No. You're overlooking two important factors: 1) regression to the mean; 2) the overall downward trend in IQ scores.

It should follow that the rate of change of growth would exceed our requirement for adaptation if the proportion were to stay fixed....This is due to the interplay between increased population and resources....

Your analysis lacks a socioeconomic dimension. Under current conditions, automation is gradually making work superfluous, which means that we are entering a new paradigm pertaining to our economic mode of production. It will be an order driven and maintained by a handful of innovators, entrepreneurs, and investors who will determine societal and technological development in its entirety. In other words, the relative frequency of individuals who possess genius-level intelligence will be largely irrelevant.

 

[hurl3y4456]

No. You're overlooking two important factors: 1) regression to the mean; 2) the overall downward trend in IQ scores.

Your analysis lacks a socioeconomic dimension. Under current conditions, automation is gradually making work superfluous, which means that we are entering a new paradigm pertaining to our economic mode of production. It will be an order driven and maintained by a handful of innovators, entrepreneurs, and investors who will determine societal and technological development in its entirety. In other words, the relative frequency of individuals who possess genius-level intelligence will be largely irrelevant.

I was incorrect to state that the proportion should be suppressed. I did mention later that the bar for intellect is being set higher. We are progressively increasing non-verbal/fluid intelligence at the expense of verbal intelligence. Our intellect is a function of our predecessors who spurred society upward....Being a genius is relative and hence, my first claim was irrelevant as you said. Now, there exists some gap in time between societal breakthroughs, which are propagated by geniuses. These breakthroughs open up new subsets for particular fields of study....Yet once the subset itself becomes saturated, it is increasingly difficult to develop novel ideas/theories until a branch is formed. Also, we tend to rely on the info presented once a field matures greatly, which can lead to contentment. Thus, it may be more difficult to foster ingenuity especially considering the automated future, which permits machines to do the work. This can facilitate mental laziness for some, however, others will capitalize on the resources available to invent new technologies to propel our society forward.

 

[raskol]

I was incorrect to state that the proportion should be suppressed. I did mention later that the bar for intellect is being set higher. We are progressively increasing non-verbal/fluid intelligence at the expense of verbal intelligence. Our intellect is a function of our predecessors who spurred society upward....

Then we are more or less in agreement. Technological advancement is indeed reshaping our cognitive assessment, all the while detaching newer generations from ancestral legacies pertaining to philosophy, literature, and critical thinking. Developmentally speaking, we are increasingly selecting against creativity.

Being a genius is relative and hence, my first claim was irrelevant as you said. Now, there exists some gap in time between societal breakthroughs, which are propagated by geniuses. These breakthroughs open up new subsets for particular fields of study....Yet once the subset itself becomes saturated, it is increasingly difficult to develop novel ideas/theories until a branch is formed. Also, we tend to rely on the info presented once a field matures greatly, which can lead to contentment. Thus, it may be more difficult to foster ingenuity especially considering the automated future, which permits machines to do the work. This can facilitate mental laziness for some, however, others will capitalize on the resources available to invent new technologies to propel our society forward.

Agreed. We have entered the age of the Nietzschean Last Man, where the struggle for survival has given way to contentedness and saturation in a land of plenty.

But I actually welcome that development and the trial by fire that it brings. When survival is guaranteed, giving way to the horror vacui of boredom and anomie at the core of existence, our civilization will be forced to return to creative selection. That is the step required by necessity in order to break out of the slow death of stagnation.

 

[Non_xsense]

I guess some people still think about the planet using this pseudo-concept ... Come on bro , arguments without social-economic point of views are just a joke in this case.
Just some kids tryng to play gods( evolution system ) without a real knowledge.