Good post. Griffe discusses the effects of 12 - 15 points above mean at the top levels. I forget where, but in here: lagriffedulion.f2s.com
Your reading of Tendler is reasonable. Maybe I was stretching a point.
<I would suppose that there are multiple/many genetic factors that influence intelligence.>
That's what I thought too, but an intelligence researcher I know in Australia told me he figures there are only half a dozen genes causing a major effect. That's pretty cool! Easy to pick up and plug in. Not thousands of interlocking genes.
<I think chess is grossly overrated as a measure of "genius". You can get a computer program that will stomp the dickens out of the vast majority of masters and grandmasters. Yet no one considers the computer program to be a "genius". On the other hand, how many computer programs have won a "nobel prize"? To exaggerate, you can become a chess master and be dumber than a stump...but have an excellent ability at visualization and memory for prior played chess games. Do you know all the opening moves? >
No, I don't know many opening moves at all. But I do know I do better when I play to the centre and back up pawns and get the knights out rampaging and get the King out of the way etc. I remember once upon a time in the early 1970s when chess was considered the ultimate intelligence and that computers could never beat humans [and they meant pretty low-level humans at that]. Now, a cyberphone can run a programme and thrash nearly everyone.
So, "intelligence" has slipped off to greener fields. Memory has usually been considered a great market of intelligence and schoools and education in general is full of simple memorizing with people who are good at remembering being considered intelligent. "Mastermind" competitions usually involve asking questions to see if somebody knows some fact.
Google will wipe everyone completely, even if all humans combine together to answer, because Google doesn't forget and can locate information quickly. Humans grow old and die. They forget. Can't recall quickly and have trouble figuring out who has the right answer.
So, two major measures of intelligence have already been lost to machines. The fig-leaf "ah but humans built and programmed them and gave them the data" is usually trotted out about now. Give it a bit of time and even that idle claim will be sidelined [and those making the claim usually wouldn't have a clue how to build or programme so it's a special kind of human who can do it - a symbiotic kind, moving off with cyberspace to the new realm, leaving the chimpoids behind in the biological red in tooth and claw bucket chemistry world].
Intelligence is a bit like pornography; tough to define, but you know it when you see it.
Mqurice |
