The insights given to us by individuals of great intelligence can harm society. We have difficulty in dealing with the pace of scientific and technological developments. The brains of those like Einstein, Newton and Darwin spawn those developments. The decisions on handling them are made by men and women lesser in intelligence and understanding. They simply cannot deal adequately with the physical and biological forces unleashed.

We are trying to cope with nuclear proliferation and the accompanying threat of destruction, environmental changes wrought by technology, advances in medical technology and manipulation using sophisticated psychological techniques. We are failing.

The forces unleashed by the intelligence of Einstein, Newton and Darwin are destroying us because we cannot handle them. Would we better off if those outstanding individuals had not existed.

We probably do have difficulty in dealing with the pace of scientific and technological development but the wonderful thing about the human species is that we are adaptable.

Rapid change never comes easy but most change is reasonably slow or moderate and eventually we become accustomed to new technologies. The rate of acceptance appears to be exponential in that once we become even a little more technically savvy we can build on that more easily as other new developments come into being.

“The forces unleashed by the intelligence of Einstein, Newton and Darwin are destroying us because we cannot handle them. Would we better off if those outstanding individuals had not existed.”

I am not sure whether anyone can answer that one – we don’t have the luxury of knowing what might have been without them. I would not have included Darwin in that list as his theory is the best we have to date on the origin of man. Any scientific theory/hypothesis (as opposed to religious) is capable of changing in the light of new evidence. I also have highly intelligent religious friends [no I don't think it is an oxymoron :)] who believe in the basics of evolutionary theory they just think God dun it.

Intelligence and innovation in science has also led to great medical dicoveries and has probably saved many lives.

Continued...

Continued...

I can see where you are coming from in regards to some of the more insidious developments such as nuclear and biological warfare. Trouble is we are a naturally curious species and development is here to stay (unless we wipe ourselves out in the process). We can only hope that development can be tempered or wisely implemented via smarter political and social structures and a belief in a mutual desire for survival and peace.

I recently read a book written by Rex Weyler titled ‘Greenpeace: The Inside Story’ which detailed the origins of Greenpeace as an anti-nuclear organisation founded primarily by a Quakers group. It recites experiences of the first round of nuclear testing in the US and the impact on those living in nearby areas. The scientists involved found themselves increasingly uneasy about the impact of their research and the potential impact in the future. There was (allegedly) some unease at the political level but not enough to halt nuclear research because of Hitler’s foray into nuclear research at that time.

Who knows how many other insidious weapons have been manufactured that have been put in the “too nasty” basket, we certainly have the capability of producing even more weapons of mass destruction but the advancements in science will probably mean we won’t be able to see them.

David f “The forces unleashed by the intelligence of Einstein, Newton and Darwin are destroying us because we cannot handle them. Would we better off if those outstanding individuals had not existed.?”

I think the social costs of stupidity are of a far more detrimental consequence than some individuals being intellectually gifted.

I enjoy Mozart. I cannot play a note of music but part of me can not only appreciates but cherishes and delights in the creative genius who crafted such splendid arias and concertos etc and my life is enriched by same.

So would the world be a better place if we lived in ignorance of Newtons laws of physics? Hardly we might have electricity but still be pondering how to control it.

What harm has Darwin done, except present a focus for the religious bigots?

Einstein has helped define the relationship between humanity and the universe in which we live. I do not pretend to understand any of it but I see no “destruction” being derived from the existence of that knowledge, except by the small and frightened people who are fearful of anything which they cannot hold, hit on concrete and it not break.

My world is better for these men having graced the earth.

I would hope to make some small contribution too but that will be for others to decide.

The great tragedy of life is not, as the men you name, to have contributed to the progress of human evolution through individual ideas and thought but to have lived and die and no one notice

I literally could not disagree more. Great men and women push culture forward; they are the drivers of civilisation. They challenge us to keep up, to learn more about the world, to get closer to the truth.

Advances in medical technology have saved millions of lives both in the developed and developing world. And thought it's true we've damaged the environment, we are know looking to those with expertise to invent technology that is going to help us solve these problems.

Mankind is always questing, always exploring and moving forward. Swap places with a peasant — or even a noble person — in the middle ages and see how you like it. Invention and intellectual courage have improved the quality of our lives in countless, countless ways.

Hurrah for brainiacs!

Col Rouge wrote:

"What harm has Darwin done, except present a focus for the religious bigots?"

Darwin's work is the basis of modern biology. One technical achievement stemming from his insights is the ability for genetic manipulation. Where that will end we know not.

Dear David f,

The nature and rate of inventions in a particular society depend on its existing store of knowledge.

The cave dweller had little knowledge to work with, and merely to produce a bow and arrow was a considerable intellectual achievment.
We are no cleverer than our "primitive" ancestors; we simply have more knowledge to build on.

As Ralph Linton (1936) remarked,

"If Einstein had been born into a primitive tribe which was unable to count beyond three, lifelong application to mathematics probably would not have carried him beyond the development of a decimal system based on fingers and toes."

A fundamental insight of sociology is that once people no longer take their world for granted, but instead understand the social authorship of their lives and futures, they can become an irresistable force in history.

Whether we choose to destroy our civilization or save it is a collective decision - and hopefully one that may well be made during our lifetimes. If more and more nuclear weapons are built, and if more sophisticated means of delivering them are devised, and if more and more nations get control of these vile devices, then surely we risk our own destruction.

If ways are found to reverse that process, then we can divert unprecedented energy and resources to the real problems that face us, including poverty, disease, overpopulation, injustice, oppression, and the devastation of our natural environment.

It is our choice (as I wrote in another post).

We may hope and trust that our ultimate choice will be to enhance the life on this bright and lovely planet on which we all share our adventure.

Foxy wrote:

"Whether we choose to destroy our civilization or save it is a collective decision - and hopefully one that may well be made during our lifetimes. If more and more nuclear weapons are built, and if more sophisticated means of delivering them are devised, and if more and more nations get control of these vile devices, then surely we risk our own destruction."

It is not a collective decision. In most modern states the decision to build and to loose the weapons are in control of one person. I was circulating a petition that the Australian Prime Minister be obliged to have an open debate in parliament with public input before committing Australian forces to combat unless Australia was under attack or facing domestic insurrection. Most people I talked wanted that power left to the discretion of the Prime Minister. Even if most states are led by leaders who are conservative in the use of weaponry one monomaniac can upset things.

There is one important drawback we have not addressed.Genetically we are not evolving fast enough to cope with the change.In fact in the West we are saving babies with serious genetic faults.We are weakening the species.

There is so much information now,that people cannot grasp general trends and thus let Govts intrude more in our lives and slowly remove our freedoms.

The problem is that not enough have the great intelligence to see the future consequences of present trends.Many have just given up and elect to live in their own insular world.

It is not the presence of particularly intelligent individuals that is important. All they have done is present new scientific breakthroughs slightly quicker than they would have been presented in their absence.

Everything that Einstein, Newton, Darwin, da Vinci, etc have brought us would have been brought to us by others a very short time later. They just happened to get in first.

We should be asking whether the evolution of human intelligence and scientific/technological capability is good, bad or indifferent, not whether individuals of apparent great intelligence (or just ordinary people in the right place at the right time and with the right focus to discover something significant) are good or bad.

It is all pretty neutral. As we develop more complex lives, the quality of our lives doesn’t on average really increase. Are we any happier or healthier than the Aborigines were before European contact?

The same applies across the natural world. The bush stone-curlews and masked lapwings on my property have very simple lives. They spend a huge amount of time just standing around. Whereas the great bowerbirds spend a lot of time building a bower, decorating it and wooing a mate, and mimicking/mocking the neighbour’s cat. The brush turkeys build huge mounds of leaves and tend them religiously, spending a lot of time chasing other chooks off.

But is there any increase in quality of life with an increase in complexity of the amount of effort that a species is compelled by its genetics, instincts or intellect to go to? There doesn’t seem to be.

continued

I don’t think there is much of a social cost attached to great intelligence. Rather, there is an enormous social cost attached to the lack of great intelligence.

Many apparently great innovations have had huge negative aspects to them. We can hardly say that some significant innovation is the result of great intelligence if it results in enormous disadvantage for some or all of the people that it is purported to help or for others that become disadvantaged. Part of great intelligence should surely be to use the innovation in the most positive manner possible.

For example; many medical breakthroughs, that have resulted in the reduction of the infant mortality rate around the world and improved the quality of life for millions in the first instance, but which have also contributed greatly to a massive increase in the population growth rate, great stress on basic resources and environment, and interminable deep poverty for many millions.

Ludwig wrote:

"Everything that Einstein, Newton, Darwin, da Vinci, etc have brought us would have been brought to us by others a very short time later. They just happened to get in first."

I almost agree. They would have been brought to us later. Whether a short time later or not is moot.

Note that my original post had the sentence: "The brains of those like Einstein, Newton and Darwin spawn those developments."

'The brains of those like' acknowledges that others would have done it.

Wallace had some of the same insights as Darwin. Leibniz thought of the calculus at roughly the same time as Newton.

I was commenting on the pace of these developments. I agree that they were inevitable. I merely contend that a slower pace would make them easier to deal with.

"Darwin's work is the basis of modern biology. One technical achievement stemming from his insights is the ability for genetic manipulation. Where that will end we know not."

This is a prime example - whilst there are undoubtedly some negative aspects to flow from the biological sciences, they are overwhelmingly positive.

Medicines, nutrition, knowledge of the benefits of exercise - there would be a vast array of developments in those three categories alone.

Besides - I'd say the way we deal with problems in our future will be greatly affected by a few great minds who come up with ways to ameliorate their impacts.

While david f makes an interesting point, I'm afraid there's always going to be dissonance between innovation derived from highly intelligent individuals and the capacity of existing social and cultural systems to deal with them.

This is because 'intelligence' (however defined) is arguably the principal trait that distinguishes humans from other animals. In terms of adaptation, it has been intelligence that has given humans the edge over other species in our biocultural evolution.

Yes, virtually every great innovation has come with unanticipated costs, but so far humans have also displayed enough intelligence to create social frameworks to deal with them - more or less effectively. I agree with those who assert that the "social cost of great intelligence" is smaller than the social cost of ignorance.

“Darwin's work is the basis of modern biology. One technical achievement stemming from his insights is the ability for genetic manipulation. Where that will end we know not.”

I fully support TLTR’s response

Pandora lived in a “perfect” place until she opened the box.

Somehow, I think being challenged by the negatives of life is the test for being alive.

Pandora’s world might have been “perfect” but the “perfect” state is never changing, it can never get better.

It presents no challenges, no basis for growth, no opportunity to excel and no risk of failure and likely no need to exercise any freedom of choice

That all sounds so bleeding boring, death would be the only opportunity for a change from the perfection.

I prefer this imperfect world and the challenges and opportunities Darwin & co have offered us.

Ah, the irony. Let's use Darwin's basis of modern biology to genetically engineer society so that none of his brainy type are ever born again!

When I saw the heading I thought this was going to be about the personal social cost of great intelligence to brainy people. Nerds at school etc. Or the depression caused in those who have trouble relating to your average ACA watching lowest common denominator of society.

Humans are more than capable of bringing about species extinction and econological collapse with the most rudimentary technology. The stakes may be slightly higher now, but we are not worse off.

Ludwig wrote:

"Everything that Einstein, Newton, Darwin, da Vinci, etc have brought us would have been brought to us by others a very short time later. They just happened to get in first."

I almost agree. They would have been brought to us later. Whether a short time later or not is moot.

Note that my original post had the sentence: "The brains of those like Einstein, Newton and Darwin spawn those developments."

'The brains of those like' acknowledges that others would have done it.

Wallace had some of the same insights as Darwin. Leibniz thought of the calculus at roughly the same time as Newton.

I was commenting on the pace of these developments. I agree that they were inevitable. I merely contend that a slower pace would make them easier to deal with.

Ludwig also wrote:

"I don’t think there is much of a social cost attached to great intelligence. Rather, there is an enormous social cost attached to the lack of great intelligence."

It is the combination of decision makers lacking great intelligence or compassion combined with the tools given them by extremely intelligent individuals that is one problem. Bush armed with a spear can do limited damage. Bush with his finger on the nuclear (or as he pronounces it, nucular, trigger.) is dangerous.

However, all those of great intelligence do not become scientists and philosophers. Some turn their intelligence to other pursuits. Napoleon and Leon Trotsky come to mind. Both were unusually intelligent. Napoleon used his intelligence to make a trail of blood through Europe and around the Mediterranean. By destroying the flower of French manhood he may have been responsible for later French ineffectiveness against Germany. Trotsky might have been a great writer or contributed in other ways to society. Instead he was responsible in large part for bringing the bloody Lenin to power and keeping him there. Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Hitler and other historical monsters were probably also highly intelligent.

The foregoing intelligent individuals were responsible for enormous social costs.

“The foregoing intelligent individuals were responsible for enormous social costs.”

Only because they could out think the stupid individuals; otherwise the “stupid” would have been responsible for even greater social costs.

What is the difference between a smart man and a stupid one?

A smart man can tie his own shoe laces, a stupid one needs to impose upon me to tie them for him.

And stupid folk would be less likely to invent the slip-on shoe.

Dear David f,

Let me clarify my argument further: Ultimately, the prospects for peace depend on the collective action of ordinary people. This may seem paradoxical at first, for individuals often feel powerless in the face of distant governments and mighty arsenals. Yet if sociology has a central lesson, it is that societies, together with all the social institutions and social behaviour they contain, are continuously created and re-created by the acts of countless individuals, whether these individuals realize their role in the grand sweep of history or not.

If a modern society goes to war, it is not just because the leaders have opted for war, but because the people have implicitly or explicitly done so also - or at least, they have not opted for peace.

A striking example of collective action to stop war occurred during the 1960s, when the United States became embroiled in the longest and most humiliating military conflict in its history. The Vietnam war came to an end largely as a result of the antiwar movement, a social movement that consisted disproportionately of young people, including many college students.

When the antiwar movement first challenged the war, it received little support from politicians or the press, and its goals seemed almost hopeless. But the tide of public opinion gradually began to shift. In the 1968 presidential primaries, an antiwar candidate backed by student volunteers did unexpectantly well and President Johnson decided not to run for re-election. From that point on, political debate on war focused not on how to stay in it, but on how to get out of it. Similar to what is happening in America today - regarding the war in Iraq.

Through collective action, ordinary people with few resources other than their own determination had changed a national consensus of war to a national consensus for peace.

A fundamental insight of sociology as I've stated previously, is that once people no longer take their world for granted, but instead understand the social authorship of their lives and futures, they can become an irresistible force in history.

Lets get some facts straight - Darwin had nothing to do with genetics, that was Gregor Johann Mendel, Darwin observed what he saw, so did Mendel.

These guys were not necessarily "intelligent" they were seekers of truth.

There are modern day seekers of truth in many fields today, some making discoveries more important than all the smarty pants mentioned in prior posts.

If you don't like it tough luck it is not going to stop. Or maybe you think Pol Pot was correct.

david f sorry you are wrong, a slower pace of seeking the truth would have resulted in social misery.

"The forces unleashed by the intelligence of Einstein, Newton and Darwin are destroying us because we cannot handle them. Would we better off if those outstanding individuals had not existed."

I have great trouble understang all this

like "Mr Archemedes get back in the bath, slow down"

brilliance does not conform to any rules, it just happens and while it is evolving it consumes the individual as every waking second gets devoted to wrestling with the huge number of matters that must come together like a jig saw, BUT a jig saw WAS whole once so DOES have a solution, whereas there may not BE a solution to scenario the brilliant person posed for himself [normally him]

it is only the mere followers of a solution who can "arrange" their workload around using the guts of the brilliant solution to make a PC and commercial gain

there is no heart, no intelligence, no soul, no nuthin

best ever example was the $200 billion Y2K fraud

“The foregoing intelligent individuals were responsible for enormous social costs.”

Fair enough david f….. if you perceive intelligence as good mental aptitude for one or more subjects while not necessarily being good in a holistic sense.

True intelligence surely has to be holistic. I can hardly consider the likes of Napoleon or Hitler to be truly intelligent, when they ran so wildly off the rails, with enormous negative consequences.

I think that the vast majority of people that we uphold as being of superior intelligence are/were at least to some extent savant. That is; very good at some things while being very ordinary or below average at others…..and not at all good at using their intellect in an overall beneficial manner.

I can hardly consider those who made great medical breakthroughs to be of superior intelligence, unless they were very actively involved in mitigating the downsides of their discoveries. For example, with medicines that reduced infant mortality, that would have meant being heavily involved with efforts to keep the population growth rate from exploding.

Foxy wrote;

"True intelligence surely has to be holistic. I can hardly consider the likes of Napoleon or Hitler to be truly intelligent, when they ran so wildly off the rails, with enormous negative consequences."

Dear Foxy,

You are redefining intelligence to contain humanity. Intelligence doesn't have to be anything but intelligence. It is neither good nor evil. Napoleon was extremely intelligent whether or not you like what he did with that intelligence.

Dear David f,

Foxy did not write the reference to Napoleon - Ludwig did.

But Thanks for thinking of me...

I respect your interpretation of intelligence david f. But mine is quite different.

I wonder what the true correlation is between great discoveries / innovations and high intelligence?

Probably pretty small. Most great leaps forward would be due to people who certainly have a high aptitude in the particular subject, but who are working on just the right aspect in the right place at the right time and are fortunate enough to have the necessary equipment, budget and colleagues to enable them to win a significant advancement.

There are probably many many people of similar intelligence plugging away at similar things that just don’t get that lucky break. And many more who don’t ever apply themselves to tasks that could ever win them such recognition.

In fact, maybe the most intelligent of us all are those that basically just let the world go by and concentrate on maximising their health, wellbeing and overall quality of life, and that of their loved-ones….

….or who fight endlessly year after year for an end to the absurdity of continuous human expansion and the development of truly sustainable societies that are in balance with natural systems!

Ludwig wrote:

"I wonder what the true correlation is between great discoveries / innovations and high intelligence?"

That is a reasonable wonder. How do we determine high intelligence in the first place? It is not the same as creativity. The only measurable criterion we have the ability to do well on intelligence tests. Since intelligence tests are culture specific for one thing and designed to measure a number of attributes which are defined to comprise intelligence on the other they are an uncertain measure. My question should have specified creativity rather than intelligence. I am 82 and have scored very high on intelligence tests. I was bemoaning the fact that I have accomplished little with that intelligence. My wife said, "You have made yourself comfortable." Is that an achievement?

I think one indication of intelligence is the ability to doubt and question. I read that Einstein as a child could not accept the stories in the Bible as true. That to me is a sign of intelligence.

What is with ALL THE WIERD !@#$ING !@#$ ON THIS FORUM? ? ? Is this to be atypical of Australia? A bunch of whacky nutheads and controlling bigots (gleaming exceptions not included of course)? Seriously! It seems as though this forum, if it were to be a representation of Australia, that it would seem part of Australia has been inflicted with a debilitating mental illness. I mean, davidf HAS to be joking here, right? Right?!?

I mean, I agree with the premise about dangerous power in the hands of inferior fools, but how can you suggest it would have been better had they not existed? I mean how about concluding it may be better has they not existed rather than say, removing bigotry and religion (which is the sole true antagonist of science and discovery when you look at it closely enough), removing that from politics instead? The prbolem isn't great intelligence, it's the millions of people like you and me who foolishy presume that we know better or should dictate laws and command upon others.

Steel wrote:

"I mean how about concluding it may be better has they not existed rather than say, removing bigotry and religion (which is the sole true antagonist of science and discovery when you look at it closely enough), removing that from politics instead?"

If we remove bigotry and religion we also would be removing some extremely intelligent people.

Isaac Newton was a religious nut in addition to having magnificent insights into the movements of the cosmos, the nature of light and inventing the calculus.

St. Augustine was a neurotic bigot who created great misery by his doctrine of original sin and his hatred of those who didn't share his beliefs. However, in his Confessions he had sublime insights into the nature of Time and Space.

I agree with you about the harmful effects of bigotry and religion but some extremely intelligent minds can contain and promulgate that nonsense.

david f

“I was bemoaning the fact that I have accomplished little with that intelligence.”

Yep, I can sure relate to that. I suffer terribly from the frustration of lack of achievement in my efforts to ‘fight endlessly year after year for an end to the absurdity of continuous human expansion and the development of truly sustainable societies that are in balance with natural systems!’, and within my career as a botanist, ecologist and geomorphologist, which is perhaps in part due to putting so much time into the former.

Maybe one indication of intelligence is the level of frustration or even depression that some people face, if that frustration is due to their inability to achieve honourable motives.

There are probably many intelligent people who have failed to achieve as much as they would have with much less intelligence, and suffered a much-reduced quality of life, due to frustration and depression.

“I think one indication of intelligence is the ability to doubt and question”

Yes indeed. But most of the aspects of our lives that really need to be questioned and remedied are just too entrenched or too big to deal with, and lead directly to great frustration for those who really care.

So, maybe intelligence is closely linked with passion (for a particular subject or cause). Is it possible to be really passionate about something if you have a low intellect?

In reading these posts and some other threads too I have come to a believe david F’s view is a reflection of extreme sentimentality and emotion.

“Intelligence” is a human trait and not a virtue. David is assuming that all traits are measurable on a moral scale, the larger they are the morally better they are.

Intelligence ain’t like that.

Picasso would be called an extremely intelligent person for his ability to perceive and paint abstract thoughts of cubism as applied to a female image.

But Picasso was a political gypsy, drawn to a political ideal whilst simultaneously repelled by it. He was a womanizer and very amoral.

Salvador Dali was the same, brilliant yet vain and arrogant and self-centered but he had hangups from birth, starting with being given the same name as his dead older brother.

Mozart had a dirty mind.

Cellini was a thief

And more than one creative genius was as queer as a nine-shilling note.

“Savants” are an interesting case-study, extreme creative genius and insight, an obsessiveness for perfection yet some exist a state close to autism.

Chaos is the best uniform and diversity the only constant.

Ludwig “Is it possible to be really passionate about something if you have a low intellect?”

You might be right Ludwig.

My observation of people of “lower intelligence” (hate that term it is so mono-dimensional) is they often have so much trouble just dealing with the simple routine of their daily life that it consumes their entire day and have no time to take on other ideas which they could get passionate about

Col Rouge wrote:

"“Intelligence” is a human trait and not a virtue. David is assuming that all traits are measurable on a moral scale, the larger they are the morally better they are."

I have made no such assumption. I merely questioned the value of intelligence for survival and the good of society. Just as some blond, blue-eyed people have set up a hierarchy which assumes that blond, blue-eyed people are more valuable than those who don't share that attribute some intelligent people have made the assumption that Col Rouge charges me with making. I do not assume intelligence or other traits disconnected from morality can be evaluated on a moral scale.

Good Morning David f,

Exactly what "intelligence" is, nobody knows. Psychologists have been trying to define the concept throughout this century without much success. It is generally agreed, however, that intelligence involves a combination of two factors: an innate, 'inherited' element that sets a limit on a person's intellectual potential, and a learned 'environmental' element that determines how far that potential will be fulfilled.

Since there is no such thing as a person who has not been exposed to socialization in some environment, there is no way to measure either the innate or the learned component alone. Both are inextricably mixed in any individual.

IQ tests given at schools for example are not accurate.

An IQ test measures "intelligence" by comparing the subject's performance on a number of specific tasks with the performance of the rest of his or her age group. The IQ test is misnamed, however, for it is not really a test of "intelligence" at all, whatever intelligence may be. It is actually a test of skills in a very limited range of fields, primarily in linguistic, spatial, symbolic, and mathematical knowledge and reasoning.

The tests ignore many other intellectual capacities that are not directly relevant to the school curriculum - such as creativity (for example, literary imagination, art appreciation, or the ability to compose music), or social skills (for example, persuasiveness, wit, or the ability to be 'street wise'). In short, the IQ test focuses on academic aptitude, not on intelligence as a whole.

If we go on the assumption that "intelligence" is the capacity of reasoning, understanding, or similar forms of activity. How on earth do you measure it?

Interesting thread David...

David f
Quoting me “I have made no such assumption. I merely questioned the value of intelligence for survival and the good of society.”

Responded

“I have made no such assumption. I merely questioned the value of intelligence for survival and the good of society.”

Disagree, that is exactly what you are questioning.

Simply put, considering anything in the context of being “good” or “bad” for society is to question and therefore consider the morality of it.

Intelligence, like science, the weather or nature in general is not influenced by what is good or otherwise for survival or the good of society. It simply “is” a given dimension to human existence.

My statement (quoted above) was in response to david f’s comment “The foregoing intelligent individuals were responsible for enormous social costs.”

In describing them has being “responsible for enormous social costs” is to imply a moral responsibility.

Foxy your comments on the limitations of IQ are valid. My partner advises me everyone has a potential for some degree of competency in, I think it is 7 different mental processes, like communication, artistic creativity, IQ, social ability, abstract reasoning etc.

Certainly the limitations of schools as they are today and have always been is to measure the product (educated children) on only one or two of these measures and not all of them and even then some informally (“he is a popular boy”, “she does not work well with others”) rather than through formal examination / objective evaluation.

We invariably learn more after we leave the cloistered halls than before. Hence, my view, the best purpose of secondary education is to equip people to be able to ask the right questions (which is why some businesses employ me today) rather than pretend it can equip them with the right answer.

Col Rouge wrote:

"“I have made no such assumption. I merely questioned the value of intelligence for survival and the good of society.”

Disagree, that is exactly what you are questioning.

Simply put, considering anything in the context of being “good” or “bad” for society is to question and therefore consider the morality of it."

Like many words good has many meanings. Some meanings of good have nothing to do with morality. Good can simply mean effective as a good brewer, soldier or weapon maker. Bad can mean a bad or ineffective brewer, soldier or weapon maker. Good of society can merely mean that which promotes the survival of a society in competition with other societies. That is the sense in which I meant it.

The insights given to us by individuals of great intelligence can harm society. We have difficulty in dealing with the pace of scientific and technological developments. The brains of those like Einstein, Newton and Darwin spawn those developments. (I agree)
The decisions on handling them are made by men and women "lesser"(should read MORE) in intelligence and (NO) understanding. They simply cannot deal adequately with the physical and biological forces unleashed.
We are trying to cope with nuclear proliferation and the accompanying threat of destruction, environmental changes wrought by technology, advances in medical technology and manipulation using sophisticated psychological techniques. We are failing.
The forces unleashed by the "intelligence"(should read:Contact with higher knowledge) of Einstein, Newton and Darwin are destroying us because we cannot handle them. Would we better off if those outstanding individuals had not existed.
Intelligence: Is to make use of 'knowledge' for the benefit of etc.
Royal Raymond Rife for example was such a person who put knowledge into practice for the benefit of the human race.