It’s so sad to read this in a book published half a year ago
Why aren’t we pouring billions and billions of dollars into this?
In this chapter titled “Revising the Bell Curve” this author alludes to Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences which could partially explain why we still haven’t discovered this gene, because we still don’t know what we’re looking for, we still can’t define what intelligence itself is, for instance
It almost seems misguided to speculate “what the most intelligent intelligence is”. Or perhaps, only a mean-spirited person who wants to “put people down” would wonder about that. In the thought-experiment of imagining how future parents would want to design their children, you’d have to be lying to yourself to say that they wouldn’t want to synthesize all of these different intelligences into one being.
What, do you have a few quibbles with the above charts? What kind of intelligence is it that disagrees? Is it a couple intelligences that disagrees?
We could also see these intelligences through the prisms of race/class/sex. Even left/right. Left might have a higher interpersonal IQ while the right might have a more mathematical-logical IQ. Are certain IQs opposed to one another? Is there a gene for leftist intelligence and one for rightist intelligence? If they’re opposed to one another how could we synthesize them in one designer baby?
In our political climate, intelligence often seems to be defined darwinistically as being able to conform enough not to get fired/ostracized. Is that a “noble” definition of intelligence though? So there’s a master/slave prism as well to consider. Is someone like Gates going to presuppose the slave definition and design another generation of slaves? Which of these intelligences in these charts should be in charge of the definition of the intelligence gene? What happens if smooth-talking salesmen decide what “intelligence” is? Which might be likely given the pact between corporations, money, and technology. Gattaca might be instructive here- if most are edited to be sophists, the anomalous “naturals” might end up being more intelligent. Or we might anticipate the bias of the geneticists defining intelligence. Obviously they’re going to tend to believe that the naturalistic definition is the most intelligent intelligence. Part of why this research is so slow in developing I’d guess is because of a lack of interdisciplinarity, related to my recent question about whether DARPA’s Safe Genes program has any theorists involved, or if they’re all just scientists- that wouldn’t be smart, at least in my definition of smart. We need people with a high linguistic intelligence to convince the rest to synthesize on what the definition of intelligence is. Then we need people with high interpersonal intelligence to rephrase this post of mine itself in a way that wouldn’t upset people, since if there’s a subject that most upsets people, the most intelligent intelligence has to be up there on the list. Yet if we want posthumans–people who are better, less fragmented, than the ones alive today–this is a conversation that needs to be had. Further, this is why I say it seems like a cheatcode we could use is to dig up the skeletons of renaissance men and use their genetics as blueprints for “the total human being”. Has DARPA already done this? They’d be “stupid” not to have.