h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Perils of Demystifying Human Intelligence - A26722983
Author: veearora - U2803120

This is the first part of the series of articles that I plan to write on human intelligence. Each article poses a unique and unconventional hypothesis. I shall be putting all these articles in the peer review with the objective of inviting valuable comments and suggestions of my peers. This way, I would be able to check the veracity of my ideas and also put forth arguments in favour of these unconventional ideas.

I sincerely hope that many of these ideas would invite serious discussion and reinvention of many established ideas and beliefs. I also hope that some of these ideas would trigger a paradigm shift and cause newer studies and research in the realm of human intelligence.

I haven't read this yet, but I think you should know by now that Peer Review is not for this kind of entry. It is for accepted facts rather than discussion of 'unique and unconventional' ones. As I am sure has been suggested to you before, veearora, you should post this in the Forum.

In general, h2g2's Peer Review is not the place for airing unconventional views. It is a place where factual descriptions of our planet can be reviewed to see if they are suitable to be added to the Guide, and to see if they can be improved in any way.

But although you describe your article as unconventional, I don't think it is. It very much echoes my own feelings about the world. So it may have a place in the guide. Let's see what others feel.

You've left no place for religion in your view of the world. This will certainly leave you open to a lot of criticism, since many people still believe in a god of some sort.

We already have an entry on the Vingean Singularity, but it is very much a minority view; not something that "Scientists call the Singularity". I also think that you are using the word "sanctimonious" wrongly. Look it up.

Thanks a lot. For the first time, I have received positive feedback for my entries. I will certainly look-up my entry and make amends on suggested lines. I look forward to more positive suggestions on improving the entry.

I've only skimmed through this (it's a bit early) but I did notice one sentence that needs adjustment.

"We can also find effective cure for several old-age related diseases like the Alzheimer’s"
"... AN effective cure/effective cures.... old-age related dementia such as Alzheimer's disease".
(I'd go for "cures" since not all dementia is Alzheimer's and each kind might need a separate cure.)
There is a Edited Entry on Alzheimer's: A311338 that you can link to.

I too am of the opinion that this Entry is not suitable for inclusion in the Edited Guide, if for no other reason than that it fails the test 'Is it factual?'

However, it does come as a refreshing change to read something of this sort, submitted to PR, that is not a rant. It is a straight-forward statement of a proposition. It does not denigrate and it does pose legitimate questions. I am sure that it will find a warm welcome in the Forum, where it will receive due and reasoned consideration by that Community.

sanctimonious >> I think the word you are looking for here is 'sacrosanct'.

There are other typos and grammatical problems, but I will leave them for the Forum to address, should you decide to move your Entry there.

Sorry, veearora. That will teach me to comment on something before reading it properly . It was not what I was expecting from the way you introduced it. My apologies.

As for EG suitability, I'm in two minds. After I have read it, I see it is a well-thought out essay rather than a rant or one-sided view. I think this has already been discussed in other PR threads: does the EG include essays? I have certainly seen essays in the EG - some which I think should be there, some which I think shouldn't.

Thanks for all the positive feedback that I've received so far for my entry. I've replaced 'santimonious' with sacrosanct and have also amended sentence related to "...effective cure for diseases like the Alzheimer's".
It would be a rare privilege for me if the entry is accepted in EG or Forum. I look forward to suggestions of my peers for further improving the entry.

Had a quick glance at this entry and I agree with much of what has been said so far. If this entry were to be suitable for pr I would make one suggestion at the moment. I think the problem lies in stating what you have done (the decoding of human intelligence and development of superior intelligence) as a done deal. It is rather like talking about a cure for cancer as if we had already found one. I would suggest that you keep the entry basically the same but talk in hypothetical terms instead, although obviously it remains to be seen what the general concencus is. Otherwise there are a few small issues that need addressing but this is a good entry which I will read more thoroughly a little later.