This paper says its variance is from mutation-selection balance. I.e. it is a highly polygenic trait giving it a huge mutational target size, which makes it hard for natural selection to remove its variance.
That’s what I said in the comment you are replying to.
If you want to predict how someone will answer a question, your own best answer is a good guess. Even if you think the other person is less intelligent than you, they are more likely to say the correct answer than they are to say any particular wrong answer.
Similarly, if you want to predict how someone will think through a problem, and you lack detailed knowledge of how that person’s mind happens to be broken, then a good guess is that they will think the same sorts of thoughts that a non-broken mind would think.
That’s what I said in the comment you are replying to.
OK. I just fail to see the utility of this concept of ‘prototypical human intelligence’ for issues touched on in the OP.
If you want to predict how someone will answer a question, your own best answer is a good guess. Even if you think the other person is less intelligent than you, they are more likely to say the correct answer than they are to say any particular wrong answer.
Similarly, if you want to predict how someone will think through a problem, and you lack detailed knowledge of how that person’s mind happens to be broken, then a good guess is that they will think the same sorts of thoughts that a non-broken mind would think.
Yay! I got it! Thanks for putting up with me.
Thank you for keeping after him! I didn’t see that resolution coming either.