[General Battuta]

I did, right on the last page.

[Mustang19]

Royalty and the aristocracy basically practiced eugenics for centuries. Hereditary disease (hemophilia, the Hapsburgs, etc) was more common in some cases but my 2 second Google search can't find any information on royalty/aristocracy average IQ. It would be interesting to see a study on that, even if environmental factors would be confounding variables.

It's known that higher IQ individuals have fewer children. Does anyone think that this will ever overpower the Flynn effect and lead to reduction in overall IQ? inb4 xkcd

[Snail]

Yeah, I agree, haemophilia is a good trade off for higher IQ.

[Mustang19]

Yeah, I agree, haemophilia is a good trade off for higher IQ.

Then we must disagree. Because I was merely curious if aristocracy actually worked.

GB, when did you get trollface?!

[General Battuta]

Uh it was actually my avatar last week because I am the best at driving people nuts

[Mustang19]

Uh it was actually my avatar last week because I am the best at driving people nuts

I must say... your inconsistent use of periods 

[The E]

Royalty and the aristocracy basically practiced eugenics for centuries. Hereditary disease (hemophilia, the Hapsburgs, etc) was more common in some cases but my 2 second Google search can't find any information on royalty/aristocracy average IQ. It would be interesting to see a study on that, even if environmental factors would be confounding variables.

Aristocrats, as a whole, are no more and no less intelligent than Joe Average. Thankfully, they are no longer in positions where the comparatively sheltered upbringing commonly associated with nobility can lead them to make decisions about the fates of the people they supposedly rule.

It's known that higher IQ individuals have fewer children. Does anyone think that this will ever overpower the Flynn effect and lead to reduction in overall IQ? inb4 xkcd

This is arguably wrong. You are skipping quite a few steps there, namely that people who are well off tend to have fewer children in general (regardless of IQ) and that people with high IQs tend to have demanding jobs that they prioritize over procreation.

Because I was merely curious if aristocracy actually worked.

If it did, why do we have so many democracies? Why are first-world aristocracies largely relegated to fodder for paparazzi?

[Mustang19]

If it did, why do we have so many democracies? Why are first-world aristocracies largely relegated to fodder for paparazzi?

I meant "work" purely in a eugenic sense.

Aristocrats, as a whole, are no more and no less intelligent than Joe Average. Thankfully, they are no longer in positions where the comparatively sheltered upbringing commonly associated with nobility can lead them to make decisions about the fates of the people they supposedly rule.

cite

This is arguably wrong. You are skipping quite a few steps there, namely that people who are well off tend to have fewer children in general (regardless of IQ) and that people with high IQs tend to have demanding jobs that they prioritize over procreation.

That's even more concerning if well off people tend to have other desirable traits for job performance like motivation and self-control. And whatever reason given for this trend doesn't change it's effect on the gene pool.

[Snail]

How does something work in a eugenic sense?

[The E]

If it did, why do we have so many democracies? Why are first-world aristocracies largely relegated to fodder for paparazzi?

I meant "work" purely in a eugenic sense.

Same here. If whatever inbreeding they went through gave them qualities that would make them more fit for rule, why aren't they ruling?

Aristocrats, as a whole, are no more and no less intelligent than Joe Average. Thankfully, they are no longer in positions where the comparatively sheltered upbringing commonly associated with nobility can lead them to make decisions about the fates of the people they supposedly rule.

cite

Can't. As you said, there are no studies (However, given that we've already established that genetics has less of an impact on IQ than upbringing, I'd be really surprised if the statistics would deviate much from the standard found in the general population).

This is arguably wrong. You are skipping quite a few steps there, namely that people who are well off tend to have fewer children in general (regardless of IQ) and that people with high IQs tend to have demanding jobs that they prioritize over procreation.

That's even more concerning if well off people tend to have other desirable traits for job performance like motivation and self-control. And whatever reason given for this trend doesn't change it's effect on the gene pool.

...

It's quite simple, this. People tend to have more children if they do not have a lot of social security through their own work, or guaranteed by the society they live in. Children are an investment in the future, with the unspoken (and oftentimes unconscious) expectation that those children will be around to take care of you once you've grown too old to take care of yourself.
Now, in modern society, people with high intelligence tend to have jobs that provide a larger income, and therefore more security, thus reducing the need for children to take care of you in your old age. And then there are people who do not want to take the time off to raise children for whatever reason.

[Mustang19]

Snail: Improvement of genotype to promote greater ability and health without net undesirable tradeoffs.

Same here. If whatever inbreeding they went through gave them qualities that would make them more fit for rule, why aren't they ruling?

There are countless historical reasons why that would be so besides genetics. It was really political and economic structure more than anything else that ended monarchy; genetics had little to do with it.

It's quite simple, this. People tend to have more children if they do not have a lot of social security through their own work, or guaranteed by the society they live in. Children are an investment in the future, with the unspoken (and oftentimes unconscious) expectation that those children will be around to take care of you once you've grown too old to take care of yourself.
Now, in modern society, people with high intelligence tend to have jobs that provide a larger income, and therefore more security, thus reducing the need for children to take care of you in your old age. And then there are people who do not want to take the time off to raise children for whatever reason.

Okay. Well my original question had to do with potential decline in future generation's IQ due to natural selection.

[Grizzly]

Snail: Improvement of genotype to promote greater ability and health without net undesirable tradeoffs.

There is one problem that some 'greater abilities' are mutually exclusive, and the same goes for increased health.

THat, and we don't exactly know what gen does what. In fact, we don't know if it does anything at all. The thing about identical twins? They are not identical. There are many, many more factors then genes involved.

[Snail]

Snail: Improvement of genotype to promote greater ability and health without net undesirable tradeoffs.

The implicit assumption here is that eugenics can actually work (and that something can therefore work eugenically).

[Grizzly]

Okay. Well my original question had to do with potential decline in future generation's IQ due to natural selection.

Here's an interesting point: We send our most able people to do the most dangerous work (such as, in space). Which subsequently gets them killed. That's a potential decline right there.

[Luis Dias]

Snail: Improvement of genotype to promote greater ability and health without net undesirable tradeoffs.

The implicit assumption here is that eugenics can actually work (and that something can therefore work eugenically).

We've been doing that for agriculture for the past 10 thousand years. I'd say that it works pretty well. Not that it should be desirable.

[Luis Dias]

Okay. Well my original question had to do with potential decline in future generation's IQ due to natural selection.

Here's an interesting point: We send our most able people to do the most dangerous work (such as, in space). Which subsequently gets them killed. That's a potential decline right there.

Make them breed before launching them to space. And if they come back alive after major complications and heroic performance, give them a brothel

[Snail]

We've been doing that for agriculture for the past 10 thousand years. I'd say that it works pretty well. Not that it should be desirable.

Well human eugenics, slightly different.

[Mustang19]

Actually the most well off have the longest life expectancies and the poor tend to do the most dangerous work (soldiering, policing, fishing, etc).

The implicit assumption here is that eugenics can actually work (and that something can therefore work eugenically).

And? In the broadest sense "eugenics" includes plant eugenics, or plant breeding, which has flaws but is widely used and valued regardless. Indeed selective breeding and domestication have been used since the beginning of agriculture.

[Luis Dias]

We've been doing that for agriculture for the past 10 thousand years. I'd say that it works pretty well. Not that it should be desirable.

Well human eugenics, slightly different.

In what way? If you get to control the human breeding process and have enough quantitative criteria in order to be able to make the most efficient choices, you will be successful.

For example, a state that has the power to sterilize any child who doesn't have an iq over 95, all else being equal, will score much better in just two generations. Of course, "all else" is not "equal" at all. But for the sake of argument.

[General Battuta]

For example, a state that has the power to sterilize any child who doesn't have an iq over 95, all else being equal, will score much better in just two generations. Of course, "all else" is not "equal" at all. But for the sake of argument.

Or they'll all turn into drooling morons because they've accidentally killed the alleles involved in some kind of partial dominance or simultaneous expression.