Playbook
Tasteful Skills
“Tasteful Skills” argues that the best agent skills are not documentation or best-practice lists.
Back to Podcast Digest
The Cost of Having a High IQ – David Reich
TL;DR
High IQ is unusually prized right now — David Reich argues modern societies put a hyperfocus on IQ, schooling, and “smarts” in a way that’s historically rare, noting that texts like the Bible and Homer elevate strength, courage, beauty, or religiosity instead.
IQ-test performance may not map cleanly to survival intelligence — Reich says the trait we measure today might be poorly correlated with the kind of intelligence needed to enter a new environment, process food, build shelter, and survive with a small band, echoing themes from Joseph Henrich’s work.
Selection can run against elite modern traits — using Iceland over the last 100 years, Reich points to selection against a shared cluster of variants correlated with years of schooling, IQ-test performance, household wealth, walking pace, and even obesity-related traits.
The real tradeoff may be fertility strategy, not raw smart-vs-dumb — Reich frames it as two reproductive investments: have many children and invest less in each, or delay childbirth, accumulate resources, and have fewer children with more investment.
His key analogy is mammals versus fish — mammals put heavy investment into a small number of offspring while fish spawn huge numbers with low per-child investment, and Reich suggests human trait selection may similarly toggle with ecological conditions.
Even disorders like schizophrenia or bipolar may reflect context-dependent traits — Reich speculates that subclinical versions of anxiety, imagination, neuroticism, or visionary thinking could be advantageous in settings like shamanistic or religious traditions, which is why complex traits may not be pushed in a single direction.
The Breakdown
Why “smarts” may be a modern obsession
Reich starts by challenging the obvious assumption: of course intelligence is always good, right? His answer is basically, not so fast — we’re speaking from inside a society that intensely values IQ-test performance, long schooling, and abstract “smartness,” and he says that may be unprecedented in human history.
What older cultures actually rewarded
He contrasts today’s value system with the Hebrew and Christian Bible, Homer, and other religious texts, where intelligence is barely the star. The admired traits are strength, courage, beauty, and religiosity, which makes the current cultural fixation on IQ look less like a timeless truth and more like a historically specific preference.
Maybe IQ isn’t the same as real-world adaptive intelligence
Reich then narrows the claim: maybe what we measure on IQ tests is not the same thing as the broader intelligence that mattered most in the past. He points to the challenge of entering a new environment and figuring out food, shelter, and survival — the kind of practical competence Joseph Henrich talks about when modern people underestimate how hard small-band living actually was.
The weird cluster of traits that move together
From there he gets more speculative and more interesting: many very different traits — obesity, years of schooling, walking pace, IQ-test performance, household wealth — are all correlated and seem partly governed by shared genetic variation. He’s careful not to overclaim, but he uses that pattern to ask what selection might really be acting on.
Iceland and the fertility tradeoff
His example is Iceland over the last century, where he says there has been selection against this package of variants. One possible interpretation is not “being smart is bad,” but a deeper tradeoff between two strategies: have many kids with less investment in each, or delay children, build wealth and resources, and have fewer kids with more investment.
Fish, mammals, and human ecology
To make the idea vivid, Reich reaches for biology: mammals invest heavily in a small number of offspring, while fish release huge numbers into the river knowing most will be eaten. His point is that different ecologies can reward different reproductive strategies, so selection may swing back and forth rather than steadily favoring one end of the trait spectrum.
Why even psychiatric traits might persist
He closes by extending the same logic to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, asking how such traits could ever be advantageous. His speculation is that subclinical versions — anxiety, imagination, neuroticism, visionary thinking — might be useful in contexts like shamanistic or religious traditions, where creativity or visions are valued, so complex traits may persist because both ends of the spectrum can pay off in different worlds.
Share
Keep Reading
Two Ways to Follow
The Weekly Echo. The inbox-shaped summary of what mattered.
New editorials announced here.
