Re: No Genius Left Behind

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>"R. Steve Walz" wrote:
>> Herman Rubin wrote:
>> > I do not think that all expense here is needed or justified.
>> > However, we need it down to a much lower level than 160.  If
>> > we want competent teachers, physicians, etc., for the next
>> > generation, we will need to get it well below the genius
>> > level, as we need those who can do similar things year after
>> > year.
>>
>> Absolutely, most teachers are only 110-130 IQ. The IQ 160 genius is
>> only 1 in 200 or 300 people.
>
>The IQ-160's are the folks who are going to make the Nobel Prize
>winning breakthroughs that seriously improve society: Cure cancer,
>make fusion power work, stop the OzoneHole and GlobalWarming,
>save species extinction, reclaim toxic waste, improve crop yields,
>to name a few.  

Any evidence that Nobel prize winners are generally IQ 160 types, as
opposed to IQ 120 types who worked harder than usual and got lucky?

I think not.

Can a single Nobel prize be earned without an army of more ordinary
people growing the food he eats, building the lab equipment, educating
his children, and taking out the trash he generates?  

I think not.

Are they not just as necessary as he is?

I think so.

You of course don't think, merely spew.

lojbab
-- 
lojbab                                             [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org