Which-way-to-carnegie-hall?

It appears that what I thought to be an unoriginal mention of uncontroversial logic may have somehow offended some folks.  My apologies if I have misspoken.  It's unlikely to be of great use to expound further, but it does give me a chance to retell a story.

The story seems unlikely to me at present, perhaps it was added to my memory by an untrusted subprogram (I can't seem to bring up a signature verification), but I will report it faithfully nonetheless.  I was in Manhattan at the time.  A woman approached and asked me:

Do you know how to get to Carnegie Hall?

Seems just too perfect doesn't it.  Anyway, I was thankfully armed with the answer.

(By the way if you aren't aware of the answer, there is no way you will "make it to Carnegie hall", for most any value of "Carnegie hall")

The answer to her:

 

 

 

Practice, practice, practice!

 

You'll notice that I didn't say "Start out with having a G type star about 1 AU away from you", or any other number of similar statements identifying environmental factors that are part of an initial state vector which includes a high enough expectation value of her arriving at Carnegie hall.  I didn't say "80 percent nature, 20 percent nurture" or any other such nonsense.  The causative agent is practice.  Yes, there are many other things that contribute as enabling environmental factors; there always are in any cause and effect scenario.

Look, it doesn't matter how you define your N-telligence.  The mere fact that abortion exists is proof that your observable metric was not exactly caused by that thing set in stone at the moment of conception, was it.

I don't know how to spell this out for you any easier.  Do you think that "being tall" was the causative agent that made Kareem a high scoring basketball player?  If so, maybe you think we should just skip the game then and tally up the heights to see who the winners are.  I might go so far as to say it was the sky hook, but I don't want to say anything too controversial with you pansies.

If we care about intelligence of anyone in particular we are limiting the damage of television use, promoting reading, and challenging them with WTFOMG problems (for whatever WTFOMG it is you think "intelligence" is as something worth having).  Use it or lose it.  If we don't really care about intelligence, we put our kids in front of the TV and go out to derp about "eugenics" to whoever will listen in bars.  "My kids are going to be so smart.  They are inbred descendants of some dude called Steve Mumbo Jumbo who was totally like famous and stuff, and we spliced in Monsanto's new resistance to McDonald's gene".  Uh, no.  Muscles are strong because they are exercised.  It's nice you want to put the very best Cera-F wax on your downhill boards, and maybe you can name your Austrian great grandfather, but guess what - if you don't know how to ski, you are still going to suck.

Incidentally, the common answer now to today's question of the day is probably "use gps".  Have you noticed how bad we are getting at navigation and orienteering?  Oh wait, never mind that's probably genetic.  Those people who have some clue how to navigate (because they have practised)?  "Naturally talented."

Theorem 1:

The phrases "it's genetic" and "everything will be fine in the afterlife" both can be used after the initial phrases "It's OK that I suck, because" or "I'm a success for just being me, because" to yield bullshit.

Now stop googling your stats and get out there and actually practice something.