Modern scientists and academics, of course. I was inspired to this possibility by Steve Sailer, who noticed that some PhD at Stanford is trying to purge nature/nurture from the vocab.
You notice how the phrase “nature or nurture” is now denounced as hopelessly simplistic by the ideological descendants of the simplistic and failed orthodoxy: “only nurture, never nature?” The moderates like Galton (coiner of the phrase “nature and nurture”) who saw both as important turned out to be right. So now it’s considered crucial to obfuscate this highly useful bit of conceptual shorthand.
Sapolsky: Nature and Nurture are obsolete
I’m beginning to understand that this was inevitable. Academia is now in the hands of two primary groups: bigmelons and high-forehead cro-mags, with a heavier contingent of the latter everywhere except Washington’s breeding grounds (Harvard, Yale, et al). This is necessarily true when the incentives of continued study are religious, financial, and social. Neither of these processing styles, parietal nor frontal, is suited for science and high complexity.
The parietal is suited for procedural thinking and extreme focus, and can be seen in the eyes as either a piercing gaze or a burning intensity, or both (depending on facial phrenology). Generally a “burning” gaze indicates higher IQ and therefore idealistic focus. A piercing gaze indicates middling IQ and materialistic focus. People with big parietals are very good at math, metaphysics, microeconomics, and reality-based social cognition. Their social skills are not instinctive but rather constructed through scientific modeling, experiment, and observation, which is possible because social skills are actually very simple and straightforward. Hideki Tojo exemplifies this strange sort of intelligence through reductionism:
This processing style does not work well in complex fields like biology or history, which resist reductionism.
The frontal lobe is primarily a toolbox of linguistic and archetypal memes for intuitive social navigation. It is capable of some basic deduction skills as well, which is why you see them on a lot of programmers. But it’s instinctive and unconscious. Similar to the occipital, it is an unconscious statistical machine specialized for simple social calculations. It is handicapped by its processing mechanism because it weighs all inputs more or less equally, so that cros will tend to believe whichever beliefs they are around the most often. Still, this makes sense in R-selected environments, where conformity is key. And their box of archetypal memes gives them failsafes for certain social dangers, like the dangers of being white in the ghetto. And this, no matter how “colorblind” their beliefs have molded them to be- it’s a great system for the modern environment, eh?
This style cannot be applied to the sciences because it is not visuospatial. Cros can’t “see” where the wrinkles would be if you were to fold a piece of paper five times. What cannot be expressed in words cannot be conceived, hence Newspeak:
If you want a scientist worth far more than his weight in gold, a Newton or a Ramanujan or a Gauss who can “see” the reality and the math as if they were one and the same, you want this guy:
Notice the gaze. Dumber bigoccs like myself have the haunted gaze, whereas the actual geniuses tend to have a look of relentless pity as if the thought “oh, come now” had crossed their minds so often that their faces defaulted to that expression just to avoid the extra energy of reassuming it.
Notice that Ramanujan’s bigger, sensitive, wider-spaced eyes led to greater cynicism.
I have mentioned before this an inferiority complexes lead to a lot of trouble. This is an example. I think cros and melons walk do not walk into the library and experience a feeling of reverence when they see rows and rows and shelves and shelves of books. I think they feel that creation itself has wronged them with its overwhelming complexity. They are mad at the universe for existing so extensively outside of their own egos.