At first glance, the answer to the question, “is intelligence virtuous?” may seem laughably obvious. Cultural perception would affirm this notion, but I believe it is worth asking why. Is the virtue of what we perceive as intelligence culturally relative, or natural?
To understand this inquiry from a proper lens, it is important to take an evolutionary approach. Why did humans develop intelligence? What was its evolutionary aim?
One factor that could cast doubt on the virtue of intelligence is whether or not intelligence varies with geography. If intelligence varies with geography, it may be the case that the trait is simply less advantageous in particular environments, and thereby less virtuous. Thus, the virtue of intelligence hinges on group differences.
IQ, for whatever its measurement flaws may be, is one of the most prevalent and consistent means of measurement, and therefore will be used for the sake of argument. A 2003 study by Richard Lynn found that IQs cluster around consistent ranges by geographic grouping. Europeans, East Asians, Sub-Saharan Africans, and other groups were found to have roughly consistent IQ ranges among their given groups. A variety of factors could account for these differences, such as cultural practices and malnutrition. But, assuming that these variables are accounted for without significant change, a genetic correlation with IQ might be likely. Of course, this is not to say IQ cannot change in populations over only a few generations (in fact, some evidence indicates that IQ can be malleable over the course of generations). Rather, this is to say that if IQ differences are genetically developed regardless of cultural factors (this seems to be the case according to Scarr and Weinberg’s famous Minnesota adoption study), there may simply be less of a need for intelligence in particular geographical regions. If intelligence was truly more valuable in these areas, then it would have been evolutionarily selected for.
A counterargument for the decreased need of intelligence in certain regions may be that the trait of intelligence was simply never introduced properly, and that, if it was, the trait would have been evolutionarily selected for. There could be truth in this claim; however, it remains incredibly difficult to prove without doubt. Two approaches in addressing this would be: checking whether or not there are any cases where higher intelligence was introduced into lower intelligence regions, and deducing whether or not intelligence would be a useful trait for their needs.
First, there is precedent for an evolutionary favoring of intelligence among hunter-gatherers, but only to the point where it is relevant. A 2003 study by Robson and Kaplan titled, “The Evolution of Human Life Expectancy and Intelligence in Hunter-Gatherer Economies” details the evolutionary needs that led hunter-gatherer humans from becoming significantly more intelligent than their animal counterparts. Brain size, learning capacity, and lifespan increased in hunter-gatherers due to consistent reinforcement. Spatial analysis, the crafting of tools, and social dynamics among the tribe were incredibly fruitful survival mechanisms enhanced by high intelligence. So, it is certainly the case that intelligence is advantageous to hunter-gatherers, but only insofar as their environment allows.
Nonetheless, it’s difficult to know whether or not agricultural intelligence would assist in what made hunter-gatherers so successful and smarter than other animals. Spatial analysis, tool crafting, and social dynamics are all accounted for by agricultural intelligence. With better hunting fitness comes sexual selection and therefore trait adaptation. However, agricultural intelligence might come with an inherent cost. Brain development is metabolically expensive, trading development in one area for another. Energy spent on brain development is energy lost on gut development, an important tool for hunter-gatherer diets (Aiello and Wheeler, 1995). Additionally, catering to the development of agricultural intelligence in children may require time and resources that are overly burdensome for hunter-gatherers to provide.
Another problem of carrying over agricultural intelligence is that the trait is implausible to isolate, often accompanying a host of anatomical adaptations to agricultural life that would be unfavored elsewhere. Agricultural adaptations would likely be slightly maladaptive in hunter-gatherer tribes and vice versa, albeit with a percentage of overlap. Anatomical developments such as mandible size account for difference in diet between the two life styles, along with many other traits. Though agricultural intelligence could be advantageous in a hunter-gatherer setting, its accompanying traits would hinder both survival ability and potentially sexual selection.
Second, if we are to analyze the utility of intelligence, we must first look into the behaviour of certain geographical groups. Regions with lower IQ tend to have a longer history of hunter-gatherer practices and nomadism, whereas higher ones tend to be experienced in agriculture, animal husbandry, and stationary settlements. Thus, the cause for higher IQ developing among post-agricultural societies may be an increased need for large-scale social cooperation. Agriculture is an evolutionary prerequisite for political civilization, causing a population boom, job specialization, and record keeping. Thus, monopolizing resource access in these communities is determined in part by who succeeds most at their specialty and appeals to the increased masses. These traits likely require a different form of problem solving than that employed by hunter-gatherers, and one that would serve as our basis for modern intelligence. Just as an agricultural citizen would likely perform low on a test of hunter-gatherer skills, a hunter-gatherer performs low on a test of agricultural skills, i.e., an IQ test. After tens of thousands of years of practice, agriculture has left a genetic imprint in the populations who have practiced it, likely creating a genetic IQ gap.
Furthermore, agricultural intelligence is abstract and indirect, whereas hunter-gatherers and foragers have concrete, direct means and ends. A specialized profession with currency that is able to purchase food is far removed from a forager who simply finds the food amidst wild brush. IQ tests often assess cognitive processes in a highly abstracted manner, one that is foreign to hunter-gatherers.
Similarly, it is also worth noting that agricultural societies reap the benefits of consistent and easy access to nutrition over the course of generations. At the very least, this stabilizes intelligence and allows more members of a population to reach the higher end of their potential IQ than if their food access was more scarce and competitive. Were food supply more consistent and ample for hunter-gatherers, similar to how agriculture allows, their capacity and behavior might be different.
In conclusion, the virtue of intelligence depends largely on societal context. Our conception of intelligence derives from an agricultural framework and is thereby virtuous for our own societies. However, it may be too costly for different lifestyles, making its virtue among hunter-gatherers far more ambiguous. That is to say, intelligence is good only when it is adaptively advantageous.
De Facto Times 