3 ms·
There is little wrong with it, but it's an uncontroversial fact that human intelligence peaks around 22 and what remains after it is a slow decline, ameliorated
by sinenomine 4y ago
There is little wrong with it, but it's an uncontroversial fact that human intelligence peaks around 22 and what remains after it is a slow decline, ameliorated by amassing more crystallized knowledge.
Hardest fields require this extreme raw intelligence, thus even capable people have only their 20s to produce their most groundbreaking work.
It would be cool if human aging weren't structured like this, but if this is a problem with a solution at all, a solution still needs someone extremely talented in their 20s to work on it for a few years.
Compared to the upside, I think that providing UBI to such people should be a non-issue.
- malux85 4y agoThis makes the assumption that “raw intelligence” is all that’s required to push at the edge of “hardest fields” This is simply not true. Some fields require learning 10-20 years of domain knowledge before one can push at the edge. Another factor is discipline, often the young are impatient, and lack the rigour and discipline required to execute. I think that the large leaps made by the young are through fresh ideas made from new perspectives, their minds unburdened with legacy methods. I’m not arguing that human intelligence peaks at young adulthood, I’m arguing that contributing to “hardest fields” is NOT simply a factor of raw intelligence like your answer assumes.