What Would Happen if Only the Rich Could Become Super Smart?

[randl985]

I recently checked out Poul Anderson's novel "Brain Wave" where everyone suddenly becomes smart when the Earth moves out of a region in space that was inhibiting neuronal action in people's brains. Everyone becomes super smart, and this basically causes a collapse of society. Things like money economy and centralized government disappear, people suddenly begin rebelling against the governments and even creating their own religion. This was very interesting to me because the novel discusses consequences I never would have even thought would have occurred.

Then I began thinking, what if it was like a procedure that could be done for a very hefty price (as opposed to the novel, where everyone becomes a super-genius in an instant), so only the richer parts of society would become smart. How would this change?

I would imagine money economy would be more important rather than disappear. Since only the rich would be smart, the rich would get the better jobs and get better pay, while the poor get the worse jobs and worse pay. It'd be like a catch-22, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the gap between them widens. I'm not sure how this would affect government and stuff like that.

And then I began thinking something else. In the book, everyone becomes super-smart, as in abnormally smart. What if instead, everyone gained knowledge sufficient for a high-school or college degree, like standard education knowledge? Since people aren't super-geniuses, I'm sure this would change the consequences.

I know this is kinda random, but I just found it really interesting. Anyone want to discuss?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Any sudden change of any sort can cause calamity.

Sudden intelligence was explored in a movie called "Charly" that came out in the 1960's: a retarded man is cured by a brain operation and begins to acquire normal intelligence. As he does, much upset results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charly

The same theme came up in a couple episodes of the various Star Trek series. I think the whole notion of sudden intelligence might have been suggested by what happens in some small percentage of cases of bipolar disorder: their problem solving abilities increase exponentially before the mania peaks. But, of course, they crash eventually and there is emotional calamity.

 

[zcd]

Flowers for Algernon, the book from which the movie was adapted, was a great read.

 

[Char. Limit]

If everyone is smart, then no one will be.

 

[DrClapeyron]

There is a difference between education and smartness.; you can be well educated and at the same time be observationaly clueless. Having a great level of education does not qualify nor entitle you to be smart. To show people that you are smart you will still need things like discipline, dedication and desire. When you become respected as a result of your competition amongst your peers you may seem smart. Just saying that there are plenty of people who go to college, get a degree and are completely helpless.

It's like saying that having lots of money entitles you to benefits that others cannot afford. Afford is not synonomous with deserve. Nor is need synonomous with want. But hell, history shows again and again that such things may be true because people are dumb enough to be persuaded that such things are true - without a fight. So, you may have a point.

 

[Drakkith]

I think this is difficult to discuss without defining precisely what you mean by "smart". You could be a genius at math, but if you are unwilling or unable to accept other peoples opinions and viewpoints then you aren't going to do well in a lot of areas such as managing people or working on big projects that require a team.

Being able to sort through a hundred different options and finding the best solution to a problem is different from being able to do quantum mechanics math in your head. Some of the "smartest" people in the world would make terrible leaders or politicians.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Well, right now only a few smart people can build a nuclear weapon or create highly lethal and contagious viruses. If everyone was smart, there might be two possibilities: Everyone could have their own nukes and lethal viruses or we might be smart enough to decide no one needs these things. Of course the second option is smarter than the first option, but as we "progress" perhaps we will get to the first option first, which is a problem.

 

[Drakkith]

Well, right now only a few smart people can build a nuclear weapon or create highly lethal and contagious viruses. If everyone was smart, there might be two possibilities: Everyone could have their own nukes and lethal viruses or we might be smart enough to decide no one needs these things. Of course the second option is smarter than the first option, but as we "progress" perhaps we will get to the first option first, which is a problem.

I think these are more related to availability of the required components, equipment, and money, not just pure smarts. These things can be designed so that someone using step by step instructions can do it if they have the right materials and equipment. Most of the actual work in construction, maintenance, and related areas are done this way.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I think these are more related to availability of the required components, equipment, and money, not just pure smarts.

Not a problem for smart people. The point is, is "smartness" survivable?

 

[Drakkith]

Not a problem for smart people.

Can you elaborate? Just because you are smart doesn't mean you have the ability to create a nuclear weapon from scratch materials. This requires entire industries and thousands of people.

The point is, is "smartness" survivable?

Again, define "smartness", otherwise this is kind of a pointless discussion in my opinion. I'm not trying to be difficult, I really need to know the context of the discussion.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Can you elaborate? Just because you are smart doesn't mean you have the ability to create a nuclear weapon from scratch materials. This requires entire industries and thousands of people.

If you're "smart" enough, these things can be accomplished. Besides, making a lethal virus can be done in a single lab with just a few smart people.

Again, define "smartness", otherwise this is kind of a pointless discussion in my opinion. I'm not trying to be difficult, I really need to know the context of the discussion.

I'm distinguishing between "smartness" and intelligence. The former IMO is related to technical ability while the latter is related to understanding the consequences of one's actions both for the individual and society in general.

 

[Drakkith]

If you're "smart" enough, these things can be accomplished. Besides, making a virus can be done in a single lab with just a few smart people.

Only if you have the required equipment. And like I said before, if you can make it into a step by step process then almost anyone can do it.

I'm distinguishing between "smartness" and intelligence. The former IMO is related to technical ability while the latter is related to understanding the consequences of one's actions both for the individual and society in general.

The problem I have is that I don't think it's possible to break this down into just a couple of general categories. There is no such thing as simple "technical ability" in my opinion. The basic skills to do maintenance on our cruise missiles here requires the ability to read, turn a wrench, plug in some cables, and use a keyboard. However, there is much more to the job than just that. The ability to plan ahead, solve problems, work with people, and do basic math can drastically alter whether someone is successful. And it isn't a set standard. As your job position and rank change the amount that each "skill" helps you can change as well.

So how do you determine who's smart or intelligent? I've seen people that are excellent at everything except for working with people fail miserably because of it. On the flip side I've seen absolute morons excel simply because they can work with people and can use their teams successfully in spite of not being able to do the basics very well.

So, would someone who's intelligent be good at only some of these? How about smart?

See some of these skills to get an idea of what I'm talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skill

Also, intelligence itself is pretty ambiguous as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence

 

[zoobyshoe]

Flowers for Algernon, the book from which the movie was adapted, was a great read.

Yeah, I think I actually read the book years and years ago, and was impressed by it, but I was probably only 15 at the time.

 

[zoobyshoe]

On the principle that sudden change is usually not a good thing, I don't think it matters how you define "smart". A sudden change in a lot of people's level of intelligence, however you define it, would just about be guaranteed to be disruptive to society.

 

[Moonbear]

Yeah, I think I actually read the book years and years ago, and was impressed by it, but I was probably only 15 at the time.

I remember reading it and enjoying it back in junior high school, but I don't even remember anything about the story other than the title. Maybe time for a re-read.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. What if everyone is already smart? People tend to define smartness according to what's important to them, maybe what they're particularly good at, or maybe by the things they find particularly challenging. Both are self-serving definitions. The first let's the person elevate their own smartness standing, while the latter allows them to excuse ignorance of something as acceptable because they've elevated it to a category achievable only by a super genius.

So, while folks are tossing around being able to build a nuclear reactor as a level of smartness, what if we changed the requirement a bit and defined it as being able to build a house, or fix a car, or operate construction equipment? Or, what about being good at gaming the system to get free meals and shelter while sitting around all day not working? (My cat seems really smart in terms of communicating her demands for food and a warm lap to sleep on when she wants it.) If we more broadly define smart as being able to acquire a skill set that enables one to obtain all of the essentials for survival, very few people would fall into the stupid category.

 

[nitsuj]

In a lot of ways this scenario already exists doesn't it?

I know it's hard to always consider where we rank among the World population, but if your posting in this forum I would guess it's in the top few percent.

I have (and always have since a fetus) 24/7 access to nutritious food (brain developement).

I can read & write (thanks to spell check), and have relatively free access to relatively unbiased education.

 

[uperkurk]

I like the idea of future technology being able to connect wires to the part of the brain responsible for learning and then you can effectively download knowledge and then after 5mins of your brain being stimulated by this technolgy that's it, you have learned it.

That would be so amazing.

 

[Containment]

The book sounds kinda backwards to me as I would think the world flying into a "stupid zone" would do more harm then one that makes you smart. It almost sounds like a dream come true to me honestly. Just think about it you would no longer see stupid people running around shooting each other. Instead it would be genius's running around shooting each other how could that be worse?

 

[turbo]

Charly was the best movie ever! My mother and I went to see it together, and I never saw her cry so hard about a movie. Very moving. I read the book later, but the movie was even more immediate and emotionally gripping, IMO. One of the very few examples of when a film adaptation might overshadow the novel. Cliff over-did himself on this one. Sometimes, the Academy should award two Oscars, not just one.

 

[phoenix:\\]

Not everyone would be at the same level of "smartness" as there are limitations of an individual's brain. We'd still be where we are, but in a different sense in my opinion.

 

[uperkurk]

Tried to download that film but can't seem to find it :(

 

[Gew]

Thanks for the tips on Charly.
I'd totally missed out on this film.

Cheers~

 

[mathwonk]

as a start, check out the uses of the subjunctive tense. (the word "was" suggests consideration of a past time when this was indeed the case, rather a hypothetical situation which does not exist.)

 

[atyy]

as a start, check out the uses of the subjunctive tense. (the word "was" suggests consideration of a past time when this was indeed the case, rather a hypothetical situation which does not exist.)

isn't "was" accepted nowadays as having the same meaning as the subjunctive in this context?

to consider a situation that did not exist, but could have been, wouldn't one use "had been"?

 

[netgypsy]

What if we all be smart? (nothing like subjunctive hehe)

Any human who is not brain damaged for one reason or another is smart and much smarter intellectually than the species used to be when it lived in caves.

The smarter a person is, the more they realize just how little they know and just how inadequate their intellect is.

Really smart people are not uniformly smart. (Example: Stephen Hawking's comment on women - soooo dumb)

I wish the English language would adopt a non gender specific singular personal pronoun. In these days of gender sensitivity I really get tired of writing he/she so default to their which is of course incorrect. BLAH.

 

[Char. Limit]

I wish the English language would adopt a non gender specific singular personal pronoun. In these days of gender sensitivity I really get tired of writing he/she so default to their which is of course incorrect. BLAH.

I use 'it'. Technically correct.

 

[netgypsy]

But not personal. People tend to be offended when referred to as an "it".

 

[Char. Limit]

That sucks for them, doesn't it? If they don't like it, they can up and tell me their gender.

 

[Evo]

Any human who is not brain damaged for one reason or another is smart and much smarter intellectually than the species used to be when it lived in caves.

The modern human brain has been around for ~50k years, so a caveman's brain was basically the same as ours. Did you mean that modern humans are more educated?

 

[rootX]

Just reading the first few OP lines, Poul Anderson doesn't seem to be the smartest person on the planet.

I think "smart" here implies everyone think similar to you and everyone has similar priorities in life. I don't want to live in that kind of place.

 

[netgypsy]

Good point about the brain size. Here's an interesting article about FLO and includes info on comparative brain size.

quote Still, the biggest shock is the fact that Flo’s puny brain—no bigger than a chimpanzee’s—was so capable. “The hobbit discovery challenges the idea that intelligence is directly proportional to brain size,” Morwood says.

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/may/25-homo-sapiens-meet-new-astounding-family/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C=

No I didn't mean educated. Education is very significant but "smartness" is more related to how fast your learn rather than how much you know. But modern man has such a stimulated environment and such a myriad of problems to solve on a daily basis. This is probably why I said today's homo sapiens sapiens is smarter. More problems that have to be solved faster, a much larger social group and the necessity to communicate with large numbers of diverse people.

Again, as many have mentioned, it's the definition of "smartness" that's the kicker.

For most people smartness is related to the ability to solve problems quickly and correctly, communicate their solutions clearly and reproduce the solutions, understand cause and effect. It also indicates the ability to understand others quickly and correctly and respond in like manner. So you wouldn't call a world class cellist "smart". You'd call them talented, skilled, amazing, but not smart, unless they had other skills that demonstrated what you perceived as "smartness".

Consider a whale compared to a human. Most humans think they are more intelligent than whales although of course we can't survive as long in the ocean.

I remember an anthropology course that indicated that when a society doesn't need anything extra to survive, they develop amazing language and complex interpersonal behaviors, using their intelligence in a very different way. And the south sea island cultures are examples. They have all the food, shelter, comfortable climate, already in their environment. They don't need buildings or inventions so their intellect goes elsewhere. What Europeans consider primitive, is quite comfortable, and I'm sure the Islanders considered Europeans most primitive in their human relations skills. So it's quite possible that since whales have no need for any of the complex things we create, that they use their massive brains in ways we can't comprehend, that are no less "smart" by their standards.

I've never understood the need to send our location into space not knowing what might be out there when we cannot yet adequately communicate with other intelligent species on our own planet.

So if people were suddenly "smarter" using the definition of being able to solve problems more quickly, understand cause and effect, communicate more clearly and quickly, understand communication from others more quickly, why should this do anything more significant than overwork the internet and hopefully reduce misunderstandings?

 

[Danger]

Sudden intelligence was explored in a movie called "Charly" that came out in the 1960's: a retarded man is cured by a brain operation and begins to acquire normal intelligence. As he does, much upset results.

That is my second favourite movie of all time, next to "Birds of Prey". The original short story "Flowers for Algernon" was the best short story that I ever read. It actually made me cry (keeping in mind that I was very young and unarmed at the time). It was so well liked that the author, Daniel Keyes, was asked to expand it into a full novel. I expected it to suck, but be damned if he didn't pull it off and make the novel even better than the short. It was something that I (as a professional writer and screenwriter at the time) considered to be unfilmable... and there they went proving me wrong. The only Science Fiction movie in history to win a Best Actor Oscar award, and it was well deserved. Cliff Robertson absolutely owned that role.

 

[Curious3141]

I like the idea of future technology being able to connect wires to the part of the brain responsible for learning and then you can effectively download knowledge and then after 5mins of your brain being stimulated by this technolgy that's it, you have learned it.

That would be so amazing.

Read Asimov's short story, "Profession". Covers this exact idea in detail along with the pitfalls.

 

[Curious3141]

That is my second favourite movie of all time, next to "Birds of Prey". The original short story "Flowers for Algernon" was the best short story that I ever read. It actually made me cry (keeping in mind that I was very young and unarmed at the time). It was so well liked that the author, Daniel Keyes, was asked to expand it into a full novel. I expected it to suck, but be damned if he didn't pull it off and make the novel even better than the short. It was something that I (as a professional writer and screenwriter at the time) considered to be unfilmable... and there they went proving me wrong. The only Science Fiction movie in history to win a Best Actor Oscar award, and it was well deserved. Cliff Robertson absolutely owned that role.

I had read the short story version first, then seen the movie, then read the novel later in life. The novel is one of my favourites, possibly my all-time favourite. The movie "Charly" is good, but the "psychedelia" scenes (perhaps inevitable in a '60s movie, but out of place here) and their take on the "quiz" scene where Charlie Gordon shoots snarky smart-arse answers back at the audience spoil it for me.

There's a more modern TV movie by the name "Flowers for Algernon" staring Matthew Modine. Much more faithful to the source material, and I think it's highly underrated.

There's another movie (possibly also a made-for-TV movie) with a female lead and a similar plot; though I think her regression wasn't absolute, so the ending was less tragic. Can't remember the name of this movie.

Then there was the film adaptation of "The Lawnmower Man" by Stephen King. That had an IQ-enhancement theme, too. I remember thinking how crappy this movie was, and I haven't ventured to rewatch it.

There's news that Will Smith's thinking of remaking FFA with himself as director and lead, that should be interesting. Hopefully he won't train-wreck it.

 

[Danger]

the "psychedelia" scenes (perhaps inevitable in a '60s movie, but out of place here) and their take on the "quiz" scene where Charlie Gordon shoots snarky smart-arse answers back at the audience spoil it for me.

The psychedelia was what made it work. That's why I considered it unfilmable; I hadn't considered that approach, and it was brilliant. As for the "snarkiness", that was demonstrating the personality change that accompanied the blast of intellectual increase.

a more modern TV movie by the name "Flowers for Algernon" staring Matthew Modine. Much more faithful to the source material, and I think it's highly underrated.

I've never heard of that until now, but I guarantee that I will not rest until I obtain a copy of it. It has never appeared on TV in my area, but the video store can probably get it for me.

news that Will Smith's thinking of remaking FFA with himself as director and lead, that should be interesting. Hopefully he won't train-wreck it.

I very much admire Will Smith, and I actually trust him to do this properly. I don't think that he was responsible for the plotline of "I, Robot", but he acted well in it. Susan Calvin is supposed to be a dumpy woman in her mid-50's. I can live with the filmatic alteration, even though I don't like it. That, of course, is totally aside from the question of whether or not he can pull off Charly Gordon. He did a hell of a lot better job of Omega than Heston did. (And I just loved it when he punched out the squid in Independence Day.)
I don't know anything about the rest, with the female lead or whatever. That gender change would just obliterate the personality of Charly. The entire lead-up to the story was Charly being torturously harassed by his co-workers at the bakery. That can't be translated to a female character without bringing in a totally different definition of harassment.

 

[mathwonk]

good question about 'had been'. i think however the difference is whether you believe the past situation may or may not have been what you hypothesize. If it is only hypothetical but not actual, then 'had been' applies, if you believe it may have been so, i think 'was' applies.

 

[Curious3141]

I've never heard of that until now, but I guarantee that I will not rest until I obtain a copy of it. It has never appeared on TV in my area, but the video store can probably get it for me..

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0210044/ if that helps.

 

[Danger]

Thank you, Curious. I must admit that the synopsis disturbs me in that it doesn't coincide with the plot of the short story/novel/movie. Charly didn't want to be a genius; he was chosen as a test subject without knowing what was happening to him. That was one of the main sources of the story's pathos. Also, there was no physical hazard to him. The treatment wasn't in any way going to kill him; it just was doomed to wear off and return him to his original state.
Still, I'm going to try to find a copy.

 

[Curious3141]

Thank you, Curious. I must admit that the synopsis disturbs me in that it doesn't coincide with the plot of the short story/novel/movie. Charly didn't want to be a genius; he was chosen as a test subject without knowing what was happening to him. That was one of the main sources of the story's pathos. Also, there was no physical hazard to him. The treatment wasn't in any way going to kill him; it just was doomed to wear off and return him to his original state.
Still, I'm going to try to find a copy.

Are you kidding? Charlie (that's the way *he* spells it) in the source material always desperately wanted to be smart.

Quoting verbatim from my ebook versions (the spelling is as it is in the source, since this is written by Charlie of IQ 68):

Short story:

Their going to use me! I am so exited I can hardly write. Dr Nemur and Dr Strauss had a argament about it first.

Novel:

I hope they use me becaus Miss Kinnian says mabye they can make me smart. I want to be smart. My name is Charlie Gordon

Note how he spells his own name. I always considered the name of the '60s movie ("CHARLY" with a laterally inverted "R" in the poster) to be "too much" - a person with an IQ of 68 should be able to spell his own name.

I said that's what Miss Kinnian tolld me but I don't even care if it herts or anything
because I am strong and I will werk hard.

I want to get smart if they will let me.

I told him thanks doc you won't be sorry for giving me my 2nd chance like
Miss Kinnian says. And I 'meen it like I tolld them. After the operashun Im
gonna try to be smart. I am going to try awful hard.

*Believe me*, the TV movie is *far* truer to the plot and intent of the source material than that 60s movie. Oscar award notwithstanding, I consider the movie "Charly" vastly overrated, and the TV movie quite underrated. The source material (both novel and short story) are still better, of course.

The real pathos of the story is that Charlie just wanted to be smart enough to fit in. Yet they made him so smart that he became even more of an outsider. And then the cruellest thing of all was that he fell all the way back down, possibly regressing even lower than his former baseline, and possibly dying (this is left ambiguous).

There is a not-so-subtle subtext of "the forbidden fruit" - one of those bible-bashing ladies in Charlie's bakery (Fanny) even mentions the parable of Adam and Eve in response to seeing the new Charlie. This fits in well with the cautionary tale which censures both the scientists for trying to "play God" and (more mildly) the subject for wishing to be something more than the Good Lord intended. If Charlie had just been an involuntary test subject, only the former would've applied, and the story would've lost its impact. I can't remember the plot of the '60s movie very well - I saw it too long ago, and it didn't leave the best impression - but if that's the tack they took, then I'm even less impressed than I was.

 

[netgypsy]

I wish there were an "unsmart" pill. When very intelligent kids make fun of those less gifted they should have to take one that lasts at least a week - maybe more if they deserve it.

also I don't know why there is the perception that very intelligent people are misfits. Most are not. The absolute best and brightest I've ever known are as successful socially as they were academically. But being very intelligent academically does not mean the person is intelligent socially - that they have empathy, can read body language, or even care about other people. But this is NOT typical of intelligent people, not even the true standouts.

Any of you who haven't read Richard Feynman's "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman" really need to. It is so hilarious and he is super intelligent obviously but just plain funny too. He is much more typical of the super bright people I have known than the social misfit many people expect of this type of person.

 

[Curious3141]

I wish there were an "unsmart" pill. When very intelligent kids make fun of those less gifted they should have to take one that lasts at least a week - maybe more if they deserve it.

also I don't know why there is the perception that very intelligent people are misfits. Most are not. The absolute best and brightest I've ever known are as successful socially as they were academically. But being very intelligent academically does not mean the person is intelligent socially - that they have empathy, can read body language, or even care about other people. But this is NOT typical of intelligent people, not even the true standouts.

Any of you who haven't read Richard Feynman's "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman" really need to. It is so hilarious and he is super intelligent obviously but just plain funny too. He is much more typical of the super bright people I have known than the social misfit many people expect of this type of person.

My favourite parts of the Feynman book include him:

1) fixing the radio by "thinking" and reversing the order of the vacuum tubes, and winning the skeptical older guy over.

2) trying to find out if the symbol on the blueprints was a valve (or a window!) and getting branded a genius by the Lieutenant.

3) sassing the psychologists at the interview (the scene where he argues about whether people are looking at him, and the use of the word 'supernormal' vs supernatural) and gets branded crazy

4) the paint mixing story

5) the mental arithmetic ("raios cubicos!") story

I read the book more than 20 years ago and I can remember most of it vividly, with a good deal being recalled verbatim - like "map of the cat". But I can do that with most literature. Still, a very enjoyable read.

Getting back to the "misfit" stereotype, there are some geniuses who exemplify it. For instance, Grigori Perelman. I wouldn't consider him very well socially-adjusted, would you?

Maybe that's the difference between genius-level mathematicians vs genius-level physicists. The latter still have to live in the real world, sort of.

 

[Curious3141]

BTW, Danger, if you're really interested in the theme of artificially-inflating human intelligence, I can recommend some other good reads/watches:

1) The Dark Fields by Alan Glynn - very depressing ending, but this was the original source for the recent movie "Limitless".

2) Limitless - a much more upbeat movie rendering of the above. The screenplay is worth checking out as well.

3) Understand - a novelette/short story by Ted Chiang. Freely (legally) available on the Net: http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/under.htm

The stories above all concern themselves with the theme of increasing intelligence, albeit of a normal human being raised to supernormal levels. Alan Glynn's book and the movie depict a person who's still able to live in society, just more successfully (but still prone to making stupid mistakes that undo him). Ted Chiang's story portray such a vast leap that the enhanced person becomes superhuman and unable or unwilling to really participate in society (until he meets an equal, with tragic consequences).

I was wondering whether to recommend "Harrison Bergeron", a short story by Kurt Vonnegut, which is about a highly intelligent person in a vengefully mediocre society. It's not really about enhancement of IQ per se, and I just found it weird. But you might like it.

 

[DaveC426913]

If everyone is smart, then no one will be.

While that may be true, that is not where the calamity comes from. In times of sudden flux (flux of anything), everyone will be madly jockeying for an advantage. This will be the source of the calamity.

Imagine if the world's governments glutted the world with 5x the volume of money. Suddenly, everyone's rich. Simple as that? No way. The world would be in upset. Lives would be ruined, whole nations would be ruined, before everything settled.

On the principle that sudden change is usually not a good thing, I don't think it matters how you define "smart". A sudden change in a lot of people's level of intelligence, however you define it, would just about be guaranteed to be disruptive to society.

Full concurrence.

 

[netgypsy]

My favourite parts of the Feynman book include him:

Maybe that's the difference between genius-level mathematicians vs genius-level physicists. The latter still have to live in the real world, sort of.

Yaay for the physicists

If everyone gained intelligence in proportion to what they currently had it wouldn't have much effect because it wouldn't affect the power structure. Those in power would still be dominant. BUT if everyone suddenly became both brilliant and equally brilliant there would be a horrendous upheaval until things were sorted out and a new power structure emerged.

 

[diamond58]

My own short-form answer: Intelligence is the ability to solve problems through reasoning and creative application of knowledge. A cynic's rejoinder: Intelligence is whatever an intelligence test measures. IQ testing has ornamented the study of intelligence with a colorful tapestry of secrets, lore and mystique, but few settled facts. I read this info here : http://www.getiq.net/info.jsp

 

[Alexander_joh]

Things like money economy and centralized government disappear, people suddenly begin rebelling against the governments and even creating their own religion. This was very interesting to me because the novel discusses consequences I never would have even thought would have occurred.

 

[turbo]

I was wondering whether to recommend "Harrison Bergeron", a short story by Kurt Vonnegut, which is about a highly intelligent person in a vengefully mediocre society. It's not really about enhancement of IQ per se, and I just found it weird. But you might like it.

That is one great story. Enforced mediocrity is not all that far off the mark. No Child Left Behind implies that a lot of children will not be allowed to advance to the limits of their capabilities. We should get back to a public school system that encourages "tracking" so that the students that are performing well in one area or another are encouraged and allowed to advance.

 

[daveb]

There was an outstanding episode of the new Outer Limits show that depicted a futuristic society wherein all adolescents were given an intelligence test that (somehow, not explained) couldn't be faked. The parents were very worried how their son, a particularly bright boy, might perform on the tests. he assured them everything would be fine.

At the end, after having taken the tests, the parents get a call from the government stating that the boy had exceeded the passing level for the intelligence test, and inquired whether the parents would like the boy's body for private burial, or whether they wanted a state-sponsored funeral.

The point was the government was dystopian, and anyone who showed exceptional intelligence was viewed as a threat and therefore eliminated.

 

[skeptic2]

My favourite parts of the Feynman book include him:

1) fixing the radio by "thinking" and reversing the order of the vacuum tubes, and winning the skeptical older guy over.

2) trying to find out if the symbol on the blueprints was a valve (or a window!) and getting branded a genius by the Lieutenant.

3) sassing the psychologists at the interview (the scene where he argues about whether people are looking at him, and the use of the word 'supernormal' vs supernatural) and gets branded crazy

4) the paint mixing story

5) the mental arithmetic ("raios cubicos!") story

I read the book more than 20 years ago and I can remember most of it vividly, with a good deal being recalled verbatim - like "map of the cat". But I can do that with most literature. Still, a very enjoyable read.

Getting back to the "misfit" stereotype, there are some geniuses who exemplify it. For instance, Grigori Perelman. I wouldn't consider him very well socially-adjusted, would you?

Maybe that's the difference between genius-level mathematicians vs genius-level physicists. The latter still have to live in the real world, sort of.

Also in the book is the story of him telling a boy that there are twice as many numbers as numbers. The boy says a number and Feynman doubles it. Regardless of what number the boy says, Feynman is always able to double it proving there are twice as many numbers as numbers.

I tried this with my 7 year old daughter. Twice she named a number and I doubled it. On the third try she said zero. How can kids that young make you feel so stupid?

Does anyone here know how to find cube roots on an abacus?

 

[Danger]

Curious, I very much want to continue this discussion, but I really have to sleep now. I most specifically want to explain why my view of Charlie Gordon (I was just going by the movie spelling because that is how it was introduced in the thread) differs from yours. For now, though, good night.