> I postulated that innovation in a society is not bounded by the median intelligence (or perhaps more accurately ability to innovate) of its members but by the

> I postulated that innovation in a society is not bounded by the median intelligence (or perhaps more accurately ability to innovate) of its members but by the intelligence/ability to innovate of its top members as ranked by intelligence/ability to innovate. I have not seen anything so far that disputes this hypothesis If you don't see how the anthill is relevant I'm not sure what else I can say to make it clear. This argument is circular and, in the case of innovation (as opposed to a better-defined domain of competence like, say, the shotput) egregiously self-defeating. I'm not sure how to help you see that either. So I think we'll have to leave it. I don't disagree with anything in your third paragraph, for what it's worth, assuming you somehow operationalize innovation, but it's a separate discussion. I strongly disagree with a CPU being more complex than an anthill. One of these things is a primitive automaton, the other an instance of by far the most advanced technology (to adopt a familiar but limited point of view) in the known universe. Cheers