4 Feb 2006
Laws of Average Intelligence
Ic = intelligence of a group
Ia = average intelligence of all the individuals that constitute the group
(If a group has n individuals, Ia = (I1+I2+I3+...+In)/n
Ip = average intelligence of the powerful people in the group
Ih = the borrowed intelligence of the past (could be negative or positive, depending on its influence)
Reference measure:
Sane - 1.0
Sensible/constructive - between 0.7 and 0.9
Utilitarian/pragmatic - between 0.4 and 0.6
Insensible/destructive - between 0.1 and 0.3
Insane - 0.0
Ia is the biggest contributor, but is not very powerful in deciding how the group uses the intelligence available. The intelligence of each individual is, in turn, a function of Ih - for, it forms the reference point for an individual to shape his intelligence.
Ip is the factor that decides the 'functional intelligence' (the bank of intelligence that is actually used) of the group. If a society has twenty Buddhas or Russells, the cumulative and average intelligence would look impressive, but it has little effect on the functional intelligence. This is dependent wholly on the intelligence of the people in power. So, a society with twenty enlightened people would be easily rendered useless by one dictator. The residual intelligence (only the utilitarian part) of the sane people would add to Ih and is passed on to future.
Ih is most variable. New ideas - not necessarily better than the old ones - replace the old. While it can never be brought down to absolute zero, it is prone to abrupt dips by events like War. A ruthless War might make the most intelligent individuals disillusioned and lose hope in mankind, ensuing in a complete rejection of the better part of Ih. Its value can be negative too.
Observations (for heterogenous groups):
1.Intelligence of a group is always less than that of a sane individual.
2.A group can, at best, be pragmatic. A sensible group is a rarity. Most groups achieve pragmatic level.
3.A group can never be sane. Only an individual can.
Natural selection wants the species to be efficient. It doesn't care for sanity. Thus, sanity is not in the genetic interest of the species. 'Sanity genes', for this reason, don't get passed on across generations. So, it's only an individual who can be sane; a group can never be. Besides, sane people, in most cases, do not leave behind any descendants, so the likelihood of the survival of sanity genes is slim. Even if they are passed on, it isn't likely that they sustain even for one generation.
Current Mood: Happy
Current Music: Ilaiyaraja
Comments (2) Trackbacks (0) Permalink
By Yajiv
6 Feb 2006, 11:28am [ Reply ]
Yep, I came around to the same inference some time ago, through a different thought-path, though.
Just like the Set 'best-selling' authors need not be the same as the Set 'best-writing' authors (though there could be some overlap on occasion), the Set 'Fittest (for survival)' need not be the same as the Set 'Sanest'. [For that matter, again, what constitutes 'sane' is a different question altogether, but I would be digressing if I went into that right now.]
The point here seems to be, as you seem to be suggesting too, that perhaps Nature's agenda is all about 'survival' and not about 'ascension', for want of a better term. Nature, I'm tempted to say, prefers people (and thereby, 'such' genes as these people would keep passing on) that would continue playing her games (survival, territorial, and mate selection games included) rather than those who would 'ascend' beyond these and other games.
By Donnie
4 Feb 2006, 10:47pm [ Reply ]
Wow dude...amazin, u really hit intellectual nirvana again i guess ;)