Is it credible that a high average IQ is unnecessary for social progress because:
"The most fundamental advances, fire- and tool-making language and clothing and social organization, were made by apish dim-bulbs. It simply took a long time between discoveries.
"Given a million years, much can happen. Newton founded modern physics in one lifespan. A hundred less talented men, over a thousand-year period, could slowly and painfully have accomplished the same thing...
"It is only some freak of mutation which has made the Earthman so intelligent; he never actually needed all that brain." (p. 166)?
Could less talented men have accomplished the same over longer time? Are sudden intuitions, inspirations, insights and illuminations not necessary to shift paradigms? A quantitatively lower IQ would be incapable of initiating qualitative transformations of understanding.
Sean commented here that the low-IQ Galactics seem to assume that their technology, once in place, would continue to run indefinitely. Higher alertness and intelligence are necessary to cope with breakdowns, diminution of resources, the unexpected etc. We have to run as fast as we can just to stay where we are. Our behavioural adaptability and versatility in response to environmental changes made human beings intelligent and also made some individuals above-average geniuses.
No comments:
Post a Comment