So you’re saying that freezing your eggs much younger is better because you can use more eggs for embryo selection.
This is not the only claim I am making, but yes, it is one of them. The number of retrievals you have to do to have as many children as you want also decreases if you freeze eggs younger.
It’s interesting how we did not need this technology for thousands of years of very intelligent human beings being born and changing the course of society through scientific breakthroughs.
We didn’t need vaccines to get Isaac Newton. Yet vaccines have in fact helped scientific progress significantly by keeping the population healthier and less vulnerable to plagues. There have probably been many people of Newton’s caliber who died before they had a chance to contribute meaningfully to scientific progress.
Now smart people who are rich enough can ensure they have smart kids with higher IQs, but I’m not really sure that higher IQ points would translate to better life outcomes for the child or for society. I really wonder if there’s much correlation between someone’s IQ and how much positive societal impact they have been responsible for.
So the research on this is actually fairly clear; higher IQ translates well into better outcomes both for the individual and for society. IQ correlates with higher incomes, better education, lower divorce rates, more occupational prestige, and more choices about what kind of life/career path to take.
There’s also fairly clear sign that higher IQ translates to better societal outcomes as well. There’s an exponential relationship between IQ and innovation, as measured by number of patents granted. Garrett Jones also has some really interesting data in his book “Hive Mind” showing that smarter individuals tend to cooperate more in iterated prisoner’s dilemma and public goods games. Not really because they’re more moral, but because they’re more able to recognize situations in which cooperation is mutually beneficial.
There aren’t many good things IQ correlates negatively with, though one notable exception is fertility, which (at least in past data) correlated negatively with number of children.
What is the point of having a neurotic super high IQ child that shoots up a school or sends bombs in the mail because they have emotional issues.
I mean… there is no point in that, so I think you’ve answered your own question. But you also seem to be implying that making someone smarter would make them more neurotic or more violent, which doesn’t hold up to any amount of scrutiny.
If you look at Stanek & Ones (2023), you can see there’s actually a NEGATIVE association between IQ and neuroticism. Even the 2025 correction to that meta-analysis shows a negative correlation (though I think for the better designed meta-analysis the effect size was closer to like −0.08)
So I don’t really understand why you think making people smarter is going to turn everyone into a violent psychopath. If anything we’d expect it to slightly decrease the odds of those sorts of outcomes.
This is not the only claim I am making, but yes, it is one of them. The number of retrievals you have to do to have as many children as you want also decreases if you freeze eggs younger.
We didn’t need vaccines to get Isaac Newton. Yet vaccines have in fact helped scientific progress significantly by keeping the population healthier and less vulnerable to plagues. There have probably been many people of Newton’s caliber who died before they had a chance to contribute meaningfully to scientific progress.
So the research on this is actually fairly clear; higher IQ translates well into better outcomes both for the individual and for society. IQ correlates with higher incomes, better education, lower divorce rates, more occupational prestige, and more choices about what kind of life/career path to take.
There’s also fairly clear sign that higher IQ translates to better societal outcomes as well. There’s an exponential relationship between IQ and innovation, as measured by number of patents granted. Garrett Jones also has some really interesting data in his book “Hive Mind” showing that smarter individuals tend to cooperate more in iterated prisoner’s dilemma and public goods games. Not really because they’re more moral, but because they’re more able to recognize situations in which cooperation is mutually beneficial.
There aren’t many good things IQ correlates negatively with, though one notable exception is fertility, which (at least in past data) correlated negatively with number of children.
I mean… there is no point in that, so I think you’ve answered your own question. But you also seem to be implying that making someone smarter would make them more neurotic or more violent, which doesn’t hold up to any amount of scrutiny.
If you look at Stanek & Ones (2023), you can see there’s actually a NEGATIVE association between IQ and neuroticism. Even the 2025 correction to that meta-analysis shows a negative correlation (though I think for the better designed meta-analysis the effect size was closer to like −0.08)
So I don’t really understand why you think making people smarter is going to turn everyone into a violent psychopath. If anything we’d expect it to slightly decrease the odds of those sorts of outcomes.