= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Q&A with Harpending and Cochran - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (103)
Far enough, and I'm not even sure the "more knowledge required" is that strong an argument for some parts of math.
A scary possibility is that there are fewer people at the far right end of the bell curve. I have no idea what could case that effect, but we don't know what makes for genius of the sort which does significant creative work.
It's conceivable but unlikely that teachers' ability to recognize extraordinary minds has declined.
Perhaps genius requires extraordinary effort, which is only worthwhile if you already have nothing to lose. So maybe the hardships and obstacles that previous highly intelligent people faced actually contributed to their eventual success.
There are still plenty of poor people, so lack of hardship doesn't seem to be the problem.
IIRC, there's a theory that you get more genius when political entities are small and competing-- hence the Renaissance. However, that's generalizing from one example-- any clues plus or minus for the theory?
There are always people with nothing to lose-- it may be less common to have elites with something to win.