>>14330141> this is the surest signifier of intelligence; being able to understand and use new informationMoreso, being able to prove it. Education is the method, testing is the requirement. They got out of the midwit trap by each year of education.
Some people doubt this logic. They think IQs are highly variable innate traits but that is not true. An uneducated engineer just isn't an engineer, they are something else on a lower tier.
I believe, babies are pretty stupid and have low IQs. As the kids go through successive years of education, their brains improve, and if the education is good there is a greater density of knowledge transmitted, and a subsequent greater density of neural networks and by the time they graduate from a masters program, or 20 years of education, their IQ should be AT LEAST 20 points higher that the global mean of 88, but as much as (again, theoretically) 100 points higher.
Or to put it another way, you put people in low IQ environments, you tend to get lower IQ adults, and conversely, if you put people in high IQ environments, people's IQs will rise, over their intellectual development.
The whole theory of "Education" is based on the premise that the vast majority of people were created by accident, and usually by stupid and or horrible people. Nothing dysgenic about it, just that, on the whole, evolution selects for reproductive success, and nothing else. The "theory" was: society would get better, if education was performed, and IQs would rise.
Only later did it all get fucked up and people began to think school was for sorting and grading people's innate capacities, and not educating them. So the average IQ in America is 100, implying the minimum possible quality; clearly true; and in other countries, the mean IQ is higher because of the quality of the educational year in those places.
In sum, it is not INEVITABLE that normies can't learn understanding, or memorize things.
