Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: THE ANT who wrote (118644)	5/1/2016 12:08:44 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 220205

That was a bit like yore spelling: <I ask my students where are the zeros and 101's? The answer is they do not survive long and do not tend to pass on these traits. Those at the 101 of bravery are killed in Afghanistan or somewhere else and those zero can't seem to find a mate.> If you meant percentile rather than having only 100 people, then the answer your students should give is not that those at 101 are killed or can't find a mate, but that percentiles don't go over 100. There are not actually many genes in the supersonic hot-stuff brainpower. Tim Bates is an intelligence researcher at Edinburgh university. He had suggested that my brother and I [back about Y2K] invest in finding those few really cool genes and patent them and make a fortune while doing some great eugenics. We didn't do it for one reason and another. More recently I asked him about it and he said it's not as simple as he had thought it might be. The number of genes is larger. Not just 2 or 3 but the whole lot have to synchronize to go really high. The idea that anything good must get something bad [schizophrenia] does not make sense in this case. Maybe there's correlation, but I don't believe that as with sickle cell malaria protection the bad must come with the good. I don't see why having the best intelligence is a bad thing. It's not like having the biggest muscles which means a lot of food is needed and therefore more of other physiological problems. Or being extremely impulsive. Or completely fearless. Or extremely black [great sun resistance]. Or etc etc which have negative effects too. What's the negative effect of having enormous g? A little bit bigger brain but brain size isn't much of a physiological problem. I have never found that I was too intelligent for something. Always, when a problem arises, it was due to not enough intelligence rather than too much. How is being in the 99.99999%ile a problem? I would like an upgrade. Everyone would like to have more [I don't recall anyone disappointed that they are too intelligent]. There's a huge shortage of it. Evolution is rocketing human intelligence up the scale. The rate of improvement is now at all time record rates, with 7 billion people working on the problem and women working flat out to eliminate the bottom decile each generation. Humans were like chimps and all are now vastly smarter than chimps. That's because intelligence is a good thing. More is better. Mqurice