Oh there's various things, but the main issue is people just plain don't already know stuff (like Popper's philosophy) and learning a lot of material is a big challenge most people won't approach.

Guilty as charged. I couldn't tell you a single fact about Popperian philosophy, other than it being a controversy on LessWrong. In general, I find philosophy dense and difficult to understand (maybe because I think more concretely than abstractly) but if you could recommend a book or webpage that presents the ideas clearly with some concrete examples, I would love to check that out.

I think this kind of thing (combined with your attitude to genetic traits) is a common attitude here. But having investigated the field, basically none of the science for it is correct. Most is blatantly irrelevant: not capable of reaching the conclusions it purports to reach based on the evidence it purports to be using. Would you be interested in discussing that?

I would love to discuss that once I've had time to do the research...I'm at work right now and my break only lasts another 5 minutes, so I'll get back to you sometime tomorrow or the next day. This isn't a good week, I have 3 exams and a paper due, but I'll find time.

But, if this and your other comments about wanting to learn and be open minded are representative, it easily puts you in the top 20%, especially counting lurkers.

Open-mindedness and curiosity are one thing. Raw native intelligence is something different. I might be above average on the first two, but I expect I have less of the second that the average LWer. For example, I would love to understand the math of quantum mechanics, but it's hard for me and really learning it, if I decided to, would likely be a multi-year endevour. Same with computer programming...I would love to actually be able to do it, but it doesn't come super easily.

Got to go I have to go teach first aid to 13-year-olds! I'll reply to the rest of your comment later.