Not really. There's an upper limit to the survival value of intelligence. Not to oversimplify, but that limit is reached when the person says, "What? I should add to the world's problems by having children?"

In all seriousness, the fact that the average I.Q. is located where it is, tells us that's the outcome natural selection blindly chose. And natural selection is always right.

Sure, if you define success strictly in terms of reproductive fitness. By that standard, two of the heroes of hners, pg and Steve jobs, are abject failures, while a crack whore who has eight kids who were taken away by cps is a paragon of success.

That's how nature works. We don't get to decide for nature, she decides for us.

Paul Graham and Steve Jobs are/were both fathers.

I thought jobs was a father of one, but a quick look on wiki shows I was mistaken. But I'm pretty sure pg is, and probably always will be at his age and the age of h his wife. One child is better than none but still fails from a reproductive fitness point of view. You only pass on half of your genome to each kid, so it takes two just to break even, let alone succeed. If that's your definition of success.

> ... so it takes two just to break even, let alone succeed. If that's your definition of success.

In modern times, ideas are more influential than children. If you doubt this, try to tell me the names of Einstein's children. Give up? They're special and general relativity, and the photoelectric effect. They look charming in group photographs.

Would you rather have two children, or influence the thinking of a million people -- and their children? Which has the greatest effect on evolution?

Wait, you aren't saying Steve Jobs was a genius, are you? I worked with Steve and no, that's not how most people would describe him.

Just for the record.

The average IQ produced by natural selection depends on the environment. There is no ideal level of intelligence apart from environment. If the Earth had a uniform climate, terrain, and so on from pole to pole, this presumably would not be the case.

> If the Earth had a uniform climate, terrain, and so on from pole to pole, this presumably would not be the case.

I think that would also produce an optimal IQ, just a different one. But all IQs, indeed all traits of living organisms, ultimately derive from the degree to which they contribute to fitness.