I agree that improving IQ is a good goal and support (at least) the social interventions you propose. But why this IQ fetishism when raising educational levels is probably much more cost effective, easier to measure and already a more widespread idea? I’m skeptic about why a focus on IQ is better than a focus on education. There is evidence educational achievement is better correlated to IQ+EQ, which is more important for all the good outcomes you want than IQ alone. [Please take a look at James Heckman’s research on soft skills.]
Anyway, in general I like your idea, but don’t like much the way you sell it. Putting IQ as only a subtopic of education seems less elitist and easier to sell (at least to me).
IQ is easier to measure than “education.” PISA tests are not that widely distributed, are they? Only OECD I think. Plus, we need to wear down resistance to eugenics.
I agree that improving IQ is a good goal and support (at least) the social interventions you propose. But why this IQ fetishism when raising educational levels is probably much more cost effective, easier to measure and already a more widespread idea? I’m skeptic about why a focus on IQ is better than a focus on education. There is evidence educational achievement is better correlated to IQ+EQ, which is more important for all the good outcomes you want than IQ alone. [Please take a look at James Heckman’s research on soft skills.]
Anyway, in general I like your idea, but don’t like much the way you sell it. Putting IQ as only a subtopic of education seems less elitist and easier to sell (at least to me).
IQ is easier to measure than “education.” PISA tests are not that widely distributed, are they? Only OECD I think. Plus, we need to wear down resistance to eugenics.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/business/economy/as-global-number-of-pupils-soars-education-falls-behind.html
Are there any cost-effectiveness studies for lead exposure abatement that are specifically regarding a charity I can donate to?