At Our Wits’ End Review Part The First:  Increasing Intelligence and Civilization

“Give the likes of Baldrick the vote and we’ll be back to cavorting druids, death by stoning and dung for dinner.” – Blackadder

I love accurate historical dramas.

What happens when you find a set of ideas that might explain the world as we see it, that ties together dozens of topics you’ve written extensively about over the course of years?

You smile, even if it means civilization might be ending.  Heck, if civilization ends, no more mortgage!

Let me go back to the start.

I was listening to YouTube® on my way to work.  YouTube™ has some interesting algorithms that select your next video.  From time to time the videos presented have been horrific, but on this particular occasion, a gentleman was interviewing Dr. Edward Dutton about his new book At Our Wits’ End.  I enjoyed the interview so much I ordered the book that night, and have watched many of Dr. Dutton’s YouTube© videos as well since then – he’s named himself quite appropriately the “Jolly Heretic.”

I was not disappointed when At Our Wits’ End arrived and, in my first spoiler alert for the review, I heartily recommend the book without reservation.  Dr. Dutton wrote the book along with his colleague, Dr. Michael Woodley, and together they have put together an interesting and compelling scientific narrative.  I research many of my posts, and some research takes hours and has dozens of notecards of notes.  In this case, I typed my notes about the book – the notes alone are sitting right now at 1725 words.  We’ll see how many posts that ends up being:  I’m betting it will be two, and I’m certain that not all of my notes will be used.  I may end up posting the combined review when it’s complete as a separate page on the blog, along with the interview of Dr. Dutton that he was gracious enough to agree to.  I’ll be posting that interview after the review is complete – I think it will form an excellent post script.

Last week’s Monday post (I.Q. – uh- What is it good for? Absolutely Everything. Say it again.) was a warm up – it dealt with how I.Q. shapes the present.  In it, the relationship between I.Q. and national wealth is fairly obvious.  This week’s post deals with (to me) the more crucial and compelling question – what will the future of Western Civilization and humanity be?  This is the core of At Our Wits’ End.

But first, from page 108 of At Our Wits’ End:

One problem with science which many people find difficult to get their heads around, is that the aim of science is to understand the nature of the world and to present the simplest explanation, based on the evidence, for what is going on.  Science is not there to be reassuring, to make people feel good, or to help bond society together . . . . Those who call for suppression are, in effect, arguing that scientific pursuit is fine until it forces them to question the worldview that they hold for emotional reasons.  Once it does this it is ‘bad science’ or ‘a higher standard of proof should be demanded’ or ‘it is immoral’.

This is perhaps the quote that impacted me the most strongly from the book.  We live in a world filled with truths – and the most uncomfortable questions are perhaps the most important to ask.  We may not like the answers, but when dealing with reality we cannot make rational decisions without that knowledge.  In my personal life, the questions that I hate to ask myself are nearly always the most important ones.  Strangely, I also seem to know immediately the answers to those questions, at least when I have the courage to ask them.

The first question posed by the book is a simple one:

What is intelligence?

As discussed previously in this blog, intelligence is the ability to solve complicated problems, generally with some speed.  For this review, I’ll use I.Q.  and intelligence as well as ‘g’ – the general intelligence factor – interchangeably.  Although these are all very different terms for a scientist studying the subject, for the purposes of this review I’ll mangle the language and call them all the same thing and use them more or less similarly.  It’s like calling a zebra a horse, but hopefully it excludes centaurs and giraffes and makes for clear reading for the lay reader.  Also, keep in mind that these are group numbers – we all know and can cite examples of individuals who don’t follow the group correlations we’ll discuss – the genius level smart dude who has bad body odor and lives in his parent’s basement.  The sort-of dim kid who developed a business and makes $350,000 a year.  They exist.  But they’re the exceptions, not the rule.

Intelligence has a most interesting property:  it’s inheritable – with a correlation of about 0.8, which is pretty high.  1.0 is perfect correlation, -1.0 is perfect negative correlation.  Educational attainment and economic status correlate with intelligence, as does salary – at about 0.3.  Other things that are correlated with intelligence include impulse control.  People with higher IQ are also more trusting.  On an individual level to predict a person’s performance you also have to have information about their personality, but on a group level I.Q. has significant predictive power.

It’s generally the dream of every first grade teacher that all of her students are equal.  But she knows that’s a lie.  Every student isn’t equal – some are much better at some tasks than others.  Some are much better at every task, and people who do well on one task generally do well on other tasks – intelligent brains just seem to have more bandwidth in general – it’s like they have an overclocked nervous system.  Again, this doesn’t mean that they’re more virtuous, simply that they have greater capabilities.

The average IQ also determines interests to some extent – the average IQ of someone who studies anthropology is lower than someone who studies physics.

What are the properties of IQ?

• IQ test scores fall out on a bell curve.
• ~70% of the population has an IQ between 85 and 115.
• 95% between of the population is between 70 and 130.
• Intelligence is “polygenic” – lots of genes are involved in making a smart kid.

But certainly, John Wilder, intelligence means different things to different cultures?  In the very succinct commentary of Dutton and Woodley, “No it doesn’t.”  I realize that’s not an argument, it’s a refutation – I’ll let you read the book for details.  Scientifically it appears that IQ is a valid concept across cultures.  It’s valid if the culture is literate.  It’s valid if the culture is non-Western.  IQ (or intelligence, or “g”) is potentially one of the most predictive and studied properties in social sciences, which tend to be a bit squishier and less science-y than, say, physics or chemistry, so give the social science folks a break that they found this gem.

So can a civilization get smarter?

Yes.  If a trait can be passed on via sexual selection (like my butt), then it will be selected for.  But in, say, the year 1400 a great butt wasn’t as important as regular food.  If you look at the data as generated in the study Survival of the Richest (Gregory Clark) – as quoted by Dutton and Woodley, between 1400 A.D. and the mid-19^th century, the top 50% had more surviving children than the poor 50% – nearly twice as many.  Since economic status is strongly correlated with I.Q., society became smarter each generation.

Brutal?  Yes.

Concerned with sexy butts?  Not at all.

Why would smarter people have more surviving children?  Less intelligent means less money.  That means less food, less heat.  That means the poor children are all weaker when the ice weasels (extinct since 1745) came.  There’s plenty of evidence for this, as Dutton and Woodley note:  the average height on the ship Mary Rose was 5’7” around the time Henry VIII lived.  Henry VIII was 6’3”.  Henry got better food.  He got better genes.

No, it was the genes, silly.

Henry wasn’t especially good at having children, but most of the nobles around that time were good at it – with or without their wives.  There is evidence that as many illegitimate children of nobles survived as legitimate children.  Most people have to work their whole lives to become a bastard, but like me, those lucky kids were born that way.  And some of them did okay – William the Conqueror was illegitimate and managed to invent the paperclip (I made that up) and invade England at the head of the Norman Conquest (I didn’t make that up).

According to the genealogical records I’ve seen, I’m related to William the Conqueror.  This would be an amazing story.  Except . . . I won’t polish my claim to the crown just yet and become known as John Wilder the Usurper©, Eater of PEZ® and Defender of the Remote Control™ anytime soon:  European society became one of constant trickle down – sons of nobility would have sons that were merchants who would have sons that were farmers who would have sons that worked on farms.  The poor fraction was replaced by the rich fraction over time.  The children of the wealthy replaced the poor in a silent way.

I don’t know the percentage, but I’ll bet a sizable chunk of England is, like me, related to William.

Genes for being wealthy, which is correlated with intelligence, spread throughout society.  This still doesn’t explain my sexy, sexy butt.  But there were further selection pressures in place:  2% of males were either executed or died in prison.  Presumably these were the worst 2%, so society was pruning itself.  But mobility worked both ways – people could move up the social strata as well based on their (generally I.Q. related) merits.

Also pruned were the children of unmarried women who didn’t have the position of mistress to someone higher up the social strata.  Unmarried mothers have an average I.Q. of 92 in the United States.  Childless or married women have an average I.Q. of 105.  Today children live via welfare, but back in 1741 (when one study in particular was done) moms would have abandoned them.   71% of these abandoned children in 1741 were dead by the age of 15 versus 40% in the population as a whole.  Presumably there would be even less child mortality in the upper incomes.

These selection pressures led to the gradual increase in intellect, culminating in what Dr. Dutton mentioned in one of his YouTube® videos as his estimated date for the smartest generation in recorded history – those born in and around 1750.

So, all is well, and humanity keeps going on an ever-smarter upward march of intelligence?

Spoiler alert!

No.  And Soylent Green® is people.

We’ll discuss that (the intelligence piece) in Part II of this here:  At Our Wits’ End Review Part II: I.Q. and the Fate of Civilization (Hint, It’s Idiocracy).

Meanwhile, go out and buy the book.  It’s good.