Talent

Well, I heard somewhere (I don't care to say how I got there) that "Biologists explaining the origins of intelligence largely concur that the most powerful amplifier of intelligence is sociality, especially in the need to infer what others of one's own species want and intend so that one can react and plan accordingly." To me, this is quite obvious, to the degree that others try to convince me that my self-deprecation/other-praise is unwarranted. I've always said the only reason I am smart is because I surrounded myself with intelligence. My question here is at what point is talent the factor of intelligence and at what point is it your surroundings. This can be seen as the nature vs. nurture debate. Now, if morality is the way of drawing lines, then it seems to me that the fate of morality lies in helping to answer these deep scientific questions. The lies moralists have told for the sake of expressing the deep human need to distinguish and categorize finally has a purpose. All this mental preparation has waited for this sort of nature vs. nurture debate. Now that the moralists have a context for which their tools can be used, they should be ecstatic. However, the vast majority of them have opposed scientific findings based on the fact that they cannot release themselves from their convictions. In the time in which their tools have the greatest use, they refuse to show them. As South Park has so keenly noted, Richard Dawkins treats science with a sacredness which can only be compared to religion. I think it is time that the great moral teachers of our time start realizing that science can use their help. In a question in which the great amounts of information being appropriated will simply complicate matters more, the capacity to take a large amount of information and weigh it pound for pound is highly valued. I guess what I'm trying to say is that moralists throughout the ages have had a capacity which is hard to understand, recreate, express, so as a result they have had to make up things like God to help them along. Most of the people who follow a morality do not really understand the thoughts behind it, but accept it because of the consequences, which themselves are just made up for the purpose of a morality. The point is, the lies moralists perpetuate are so obvious that the power of their ways of thinking must be great to be so convincing. If a moralist tells a lie, is it not up to another moralist to put him in his place? The great moralist, who uses scientific information to make generalized assertions, who no longer needs to use invented Gods but can use the theory of evolution, a power which has empirically proven itself to be much more powerful. Personally, it is quite obvious that I am not a moralist, I am highly unconvincing, and do everything within my power to indicate to those with whom I am conversing that I doubt, that "I have no idea what I'm talking about."