> Reed:
> > >Wake up. If you are well fed, clothed, loved, educated and attendend to as
> > >a child then you will be more intelligent as a result, presuming you are
> > >not handicapped by significant menal defects.
>
> Sorry Reed, it seems like you and I end up on opposite ends of an issue
> more often than not these days, it's nothing personal.
>
> But you are using a mutated version of that "means nothing" meme that's
> been floating around the U.S. for the past three years--- Family Values.
>
> I can imagine a family where children are well tended and grow up to be
> as dumb as a bag of hammers. I can also imagine a situation where
> children who are not well tended develop intelligence out of pure need
> for stimulation.
Let's say technology ends up with cheap genetic engineering, so that the
children are well-tended to at conception.
Say the parents want to control their medical bills from their children.
Those children WON'T be unusually intelligent. Not without some major
redesign of alleles, rather than adaptation from the current pool.
All of the allele-complexes that bias for intelligence [speed of
thinking] (that I consider plausible) simultaneously bias for high
medical bills via psychiatric care. This is because all traits of highly
intelligent people, in excess, are viewed as mental illness. All of the
major ones can be accounted for this way.
I'm not sure where the "instability required" threshold is, but it's
somewhere between 120 and 140 on the Stanford-Binet scale.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////