From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lcrocker@calweb.com)
Date: Tue Jan 14 1997 - 00:01:54 MST
> <<
> Even if De Garis's interpretations are hideous, his facts are still
> facts--"things of substance". They must be dealt with as such. The
> proper interpretation of those facts is more likely to come up in an
> environment of unrestrained discourse.
> >>
>
> Again, I must not be making myself clear, and I again apologize
> WHAT I am trying to say that the topic: GENIUS, is of interest and I would
> like to discuss it and it's implications to Extropy, leaving behind the de
> garis issue and opening it up for a new thread.
I understand, and agree. But the numbers were brought up, and we had an
interesting discussion on what they might mean, on how that discrepancy
might have come about, and what that implies about the subject of genius.
That is precisely what we were after--a discussion on the nature of
genius. This one datum is so remarkable that understanding it naturally
leads us to a better understanding of the topic, which is precisely what
we wanted. If we dismiss it as junk, we can't learn from it.
How this might relate to Extropy is obvious: what is our society doing
wrong that is squashing the potential genius of our daughters? And if
the child's environment is such a major factor as it appears, what can
we do to create that environment for more children of both genders?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:00 MST