OfficerJones

I agree with your assertion, though it's no refutation. "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." Inherent intelligence, based upon genetic success or failure, is still intelligence. Sensory data is knowledge, as much any residue of its successful and unsuccessful processing. The day a snake is born, it is able to detect potential food (acquire sensory data), decide whether it wants to try to eat it (apply knowledge), and strike (apply skills). It may also learn from the experience (acquire knowledge)

Noted, thanks.

What you're referring to are two different effects: 1. The seductions of martyrdom (a lemming's tale). The questioning of oneself that arises when a person visibly overcomes their animal instincts and endures torture or death for a "principle" or "movement". This was particularly ingenius in the Christian/Muslim invention of an "afterlife". It is always a startling spectacle (and emboldening) to see men and women courageously entering the jaws of death. (also notable of family honor in Rome) This is closely related to social virtue signaling. Exhibiting accepted values to herd members in the hopes of a raised social status. In the absence of an audience, this performance is directed to a "ghost" official or benefactor. 2. The sympathy acquired when an injustice is exposed socially (especially when a benevolent narrative is patently falsified). Ghandi was positively brilliant at publicly exposing how British actions did not correspond to their declared intentions. He provoked responses in a way that could never have allowed the British to pretend that they were motivated by humanitarian aims. This is a direct play on the maternal and paternal instincts, directed toward those who might intervene on an act of predation.

I want to address the most important factor affecting the cost of medical care, and several other industries: mandated licensure. Licensure is a form of representative intelligence. What I mean is that licensure is an authoritative stamp approval for those who have neither the time or means to discover or discern for themselves the validity of a claim. But, this feature does not preclude fraud, bias, malpractice, or other ethical violations (overselling, overdiagnosing, overprescribing). The FDA does not take tens of samples from every carcass that crosses a slaughterhouse floor. They take a high level view of the operation, and random samples. I'm not advocating for abolition of the AMA. I'm advocating that it be placed where it belongs, as a certification option, and not as a requirement for health professionals and organizations. We should accept that a certain level of regulation is imposed to preclude legislation. We should also accept that this sort of mechanism was evolved prior to the communication and information accessibility revolution of the 21 century. We have an incredible method of self-regulation available to us called social media feedback, and it's a better barometer of value than any bureaucrat can provide. I think what we'd find evolving would be specialized social media authorities (like Angie's list) that helps individuals evaluate risk and cost at a much lower cost basis than Federal or State agencies. The objectivity of the social media agency being its only value argument for existence. How many people would risk an operation or evaluation from a medical vendor with a 50% satisfaction rating, a 75% satisfaction rating, a 90% satisfaction rating, a 95% satisfaction rating, a 100% satisfaction rating? (assuming the ratings come from a reliable source) Aside: Theoretically, it takes a certain level of effort (100%) to achieve 100% quality. The fact that this never occurs, indicates that there is always a certain level of acceptable risk or acceptable defect. Competition dictates that those who find an acceptable package of value for an acceptable cost will sell the product, and those who succeed in modifying market expectations will change the equation of value. According to the Pareto distribution, a mere 20% of effort yields 80% of the effects. This is the value argument. It takes 5 times the effort to guarantee the last 1/5 of the result quality. The question of success is always relative to the demand and expectations of the market. The licensure barrier to entry also prevents some of the brightest candidates from entering various fields, knowing full-well the sacrifices they would have to make, and the multitude of opportunities they will lose thereby.

Every time I hear the phrase "intelligent life", or see a documentary about the miraculous problem-solving abilities of a non-human animal, I'm reminded how self-centered the human species is, and rightfully so. A certain amount of self-importance and self-deception is required for an organism to assert itself on its environment and achieve its full potential. I'd like to assert that intelligence is common to all of life. Its just that for the majority of species, this "intelligence" is expressed through genetic mutation and success (interlifetime) instead of conceptual mutation and success (intralifetime). Complicating this, is the amount of knowledge passed between generations, the stability of the environment, as well as existing breeding preferences. We should certainly question just how much choice we have in our thoughts. Biological drives are still the motivating force, and contemplation is the simulated environment through which viability for success is tested. The quality of the results are determined by: the depth and diversity of sensory exposure the development of ideas the capacity for memory and incorporation and ignorance (willful or otherwise). The force of the biological drive(s), the perceived availability of resources, and forces in the environment determine the speed and focus of the investigation as well as the speed and focus of action. It seems that the "awareness of contemplation" actually provides the framework for the concept of divinity; this "world in the man" in which he has omnipotent power and omniscience (to the extent of his understanding). Snap to reality, to the "man in the world", and the parallel is easily drawn.