On Dementia

When the news of James Watson’s racist comments came out a few days ago, a close friend said “It’s remarkable how narrow intelligence can be.” Comparing this to Star Simpson’s adventures in airports, it’s clear what incredibly much more damage Watson has just done than a thousand Simpsons can do. I’d advise anyone whose fears of genetic technologies were placated by the pablum such scientists routinely spew about how it will all work out (MARKETS!) to start feeling a wee bit nervous again.

What a striking contrast to this tour de force by Garry Kasparov. I knew this guy was a hero for simply opposing Putin, but I had no idea how incredibly _wise_ the guy was. This is the distinction: It’s easy, given the 6,602,224,175 (July 2007 est.) people in the world, to find some one who’s a fraction of a percentage point above the next smartest person on some narrow, easily measured dimension. Take, for example, someone who is good at a part of maths, or chess. In contrast, there are the holistically smart people who don’t have a narrow specialty. You’ve never heard of them. In rare, coincidental moments, there are people who are both wise and have an easily quantified skill. Thank you, Garry Kasparov. I hope you and your family die of natural causes.