We can increase the FLOPs of a CPU by reducing resistance, increasing the size of cache, reducing distance between I/O devices.
Might IQ be a measure of the aggregate of the benefit of equivalent measures of neurons?
For example, we know that MS patients have autoimmune diseases that attack the myelin sheath on neurons which slows their neuronal processing speed. Perhaps higher IQ people might have more Schwann cells to speed neuronal transmission more than lower IQ people.
Maybe the diameter of neurons or the width of the gap between the synapses. Or the sheer number of neurons and synapses might be different.
IQ could be an indirect measurement through test taking, that approximates a combined measure of all the physical properties of neurons and their arrangements that contribute to higher intelligence.
That seems a reasonable approximation from my perspective as a layman. A couple of things (that I am sadly lacking sources for right now) that might suggest this interpretation include:
- there is a meaningful (albeit small) correlation between IQ and reaction times
- people with higher IQs show lower brain activation when performing cognitive tasks compared to people with lower IQs. That is, their brain has to do less work to perform the same task.
Sure. For example, we know that IQ is correlated quite substantially (though far from perfectly) with the brain volume within all populations for which such measurement was made. There is a huge confounded here however, which is women having significantly smaller brains than men, but not scoring any worse on IQ tests, or being any less intelligent than men, even though smaller brained men tend to be less intelligent than larger brained men, and also smaller brained women tend to be less intelligent than larger brained women. It is thought that this apparent disparity is can be explained by increased “density” of neurons in some sections of women’s brains, compared to the same sections of men’s brains. I’m quite sure you can find references for it in Jensen’s “The g factor”.
The density difference is due to physical support for impact resistance. The jawline difference also relates to impact resistance. It seems that evolution accounts for men getting punched more often.
I'd say all of Shakespeare, Jimi Hendrix, LeBron James, Martin Luther King (keep on going if you like) have a form of extreme intelligence not measured well by IQ tests. The kinds of problems in IQ tests are one thing our brain can adapt to solve but humans are so incredibly neuroplastic that IQ is much too narrow a concept to be definitive.
We are talking about general civilization's aggregate IQ though. Sure, there are people too smart or exotic to measure, but that's true on both ends of the spectrum, so might they balance out?
Perhaps, you know, in the past, it was more difficult for those with lower IQ's to survive. Now people with lower IQ's can survive for longer, which is good for them -- absolutely! -- however, it would reduce average IQ's.
That would also suggest, this isn't something bad for civilization like the article suggests. Perhaps the same number of incredibly intelligent people like the ones you mention are better able now in this modern age to get their solutions to more people to make it easier to live.
This is mostly a definition game using "intelligence" to mean "reaching the peak of a narrow skill." That sort of peak takes a tricky-to-nail-down combination of innate ability, practice, and environment to reach. When people are talking about IQ, they use the word intelligence to describe, essentially, fluid problem-solving and reasoning aptitude. A lot of disagreement in this domain can and should be resolved with clearer terminology.
IQ says little about the specific skills someone has trained, so more specific tests are useful for that, but it provides a lot of information on the general aptitude it is intended to assess.
