> We know Richard Feynman's IQ as a historical matter.[3] Feynman's IQ of 125 was above average, of course, but not astoundingly high.
This IQ figure is deeply dubious, as I have pointed out several times on HN and elsewhere. Oddly, your WP link doesn't include the context on that score which is in Feynman's own article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman#Education
> for the moment I will bet on Flynn's approach providing more long-term benefit for humankind than the approach of looking for genome-wide associations with IQ.[6]
So you want to bet on a improvements of a trait which hasn't even been nailed down clearly (much less shown to be changeable at all) rather than a straightforward approach which after incorporating that methodological critique (problem: early papers had insufficient alpha control and threw up mostly false positives; solution: genome-wide multiple correction + sample sizes 100x larger) has already had several hits? I think you may want to read up on these topics a little more...
> The uniform conclusion of ALL researchers who have looked at the relationship between IQ scores and scientific research achievement is that other personal qualities besides IQ matter a lot for research breakthroughs.
Yes, but if you want to select for Openness and Conscientiousness, you're going to need fairly similar sample sizes and GWAS procedures: personality traits seem to be highly polygenic too.
> Improving "mindware," the ways that people think and how they reality-check their own thinking, may have a more powerful effect for human progress than merely increasing IQ.
Uh huh. Call me when any of Stanovich's work moves beyond exploratory towards showing real-world benefits. I've read his books and the results are still tentative. In the mean time, GWAS/IQ research is happening now.
This IQ figure is deeply dubious, as I have pointed out several times on HN and elsewhere. Oddly, your WP link doesn't include the context on that score which is in Feynman's own article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman#Education
> for the moment I will bet on Flynn's approach providing more long-term benefit for humankind than the approach of looking for genome-wide associations with IQ.[6]
So you want to bet on a improvements of a trait which hasn't even been nailed down clearly (much less shown to be changeable at all) rather than a straightforward approach which after incorporating that methodological critique (problem: early papers had insufficient alpha control and threw up mostly false positives; solution: genome-wide multiple correction + sample sizes 100x larger) has already had several hits? I think you may want to read up on these topics a little more...
> The uniform conclusion of ALL researchers who have looked at the relationship between IQ scores and scientific research achievement is that other personal qualities besides IQ matter a lot for research breakthroughs.
Yes, but if you want to select for Openness and Conscientiousness, you're going to need fairly similar sample sizes and GWAS procedures: personality traits seem to be highly polygenic too.
> Improving "mindware," the ways that people think and how they reality-check their own thinking, may have a more powerful effect for human progress than merely increasing IQ.
Uh huh. Call me when any of Stanovich's work moves beyond exploratory towards showing real-world benefits. I've read his books and the results are still tentative. In the mean time, GWAS/IQ research is happening now.