>>9803689So, you are just using your own definition of intelligence to encompass all "good" or "useful" human qualities. Ok, that's simplifying things bit much but I'll bite: Sure it takes some dedication and a fair amount intelligence to be an olympic sprinter for example, but that particular human's potential isn't maximized in "intelligence", it's maximized in "sprinting" or "physical activity". Nor can your typical artist do advanced physics equations, but they can paint a picture that can evoke strong moods and emotions and deep thoughts in someone. They may be intelligent to a degree, but they have "maxed out" in creative output and emotional intelligence.
What I'm basically saying is that there are categories for a reason, otherwise we won't be able to say anything specific to each other. If your goal is to maximize every human's innate potential in whatever realm they want, or even in every mode of living that they can, as renaissance men for example, that's fine by me, but don't get that confused with "everyone being intelligent", because it's not. It seems like you are just trying to apply your favorite label to everything, which I can understand, as an artist I tend to try and see everything as art or an artform, but that's far from how everyone see's it. So, chill out, try and help everyone be the best they can be, but there is no "brainlet solution" besides education, and maybe gengineering or augments.
