I don't like the way you are talking to me, and I especially don't like that you may not have read carefully enough to understand that parts may be agreeing wit

I don't like the way you are talking to me, and I especially don't like that you may not have read carefully enough to understand that parts may be agreeing with you. > a glorified daycare with rote-learning for line-workers, of which we somehow expect intelligence gains if only we could spend more time instilling it Drilling tons of math in rigorous ways for excessive amounts of time clearly improves various kinds of outcome measures. It also tends to cause other harms. If we want to improve intelligence, first we need to agree what intelligence is. Then we can talk about what measures are appropriate or ethical to use to try and improve it. Even if we just take a somewhat stupid measure, and say "all we care about is a hybrid of IQ and SAT-I scores at age 16"-- there's still the question of whether we care more about moving the top performance upwards or the entire distribution. If we don't agree what intelligence is, we can't answer questions like this. If we use a traditional measure like IQ as a measure of G factor-- I don't think brain-computer interfaces are going to swing things much and they may even make it worse. (But they could also allow explosions in human productivity or quality of life that are not measured on that scale). e.g. Smartphones have not made us smarter, but they may sometimes allow us to do smarter and better things.