4 ms·
Especially if there's some tradeoff involved, such as a correspondingly lower ability to socialize with your peers If there's any reason for an "intelligence g
by danielweber 14y ago
Especially if there's some tradeoff involved, such as a correspondingly lower ability to socialize with your peers
If there's any reason for an "intelligence gene" not being completely wide-spread, it would be this. Intelligence would have to have some very significant drawbacks. Some people have theorized that autism is when you get "overloaded" on those intelligence genes. It strikes me as unlikely this would really provide significant pushback against the intelligence genes completely dominating the gene pool, but I agree it's possible.
- twoodfin 14y agoBut why? Even if there's no tradeoff, what advantage would Albert Einstein have had over an average intelligence competitor for mates had he lived even a mere 200 years ago? Slim, I'd think. And who's to say he would have used that narrow advantage to win a mate of above average intelligence, vs. some other desirable characteristic? Exceptional intelligence as a strong determinant of economic and social success (and thus presumably reproductive success) seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon in the human species.
- hackinthebochs 14y agoAlso, we need to take a larger view of what "intelligence" is. Take the longer view of human history, and we all are probably geniuses. Those intelligence genes have indeed spread across the gene pool. It's just new ones (or new combinations of existing genes) are now showing themselves and need time to prove their fitness.