> Having had the extreme privilege of actually working with some really exceptionally smart people I can assure you that intelligence is a general trait without any significant extradimensionality.
This claim is not persuasive. It also may contain various logical and statistical fallacies, depending on your word meanings. If you want to persuade, I suggest that you'll need to give more context.
A. How do you define "exceptionally high intelligence"?
B. Where and in what capacity have you worked with these people?
C. How do you assess this trait?
D. What do you mean by 'crab bucket ideology'?
E. You are aware that there is considerable scientific writing arguing in support of many kinds of intelligence, no?
F. What parts of (E) do you dispute?
G. What do you mean by 'general trait'?
H. What do you mean by 'extradimensionality'?
I. What do you mean when you say your definition of intelligence "is a general trait that does not have any significant extradimensionality"?
J. WRT (I) are you saying that your definition of intelligence is not correlated nor caused by other traits?
K. Do you have a physiological or biological basis for your claim?
L. Please share sources (writing such as studies) that you find persuasive.
M. What are the chances that we are talking past each other? Do you have questions for me?
> E. You are aware that there is considerable scientific writing arguing in support of many kinds of intelligence, no?
There's certainly considerable social demand for this to be true, and Howard Gardner is tirelessly promoting it, but the current expert consensus seems to be against it. Both Stuart Ritchie's _Intelligence: All That Matters_ (ch. 2) and Russell Warne's _In The Know_ (ch. 5) consider the multiple intelligences hypothesis false and have further citations.
> Having had the extreme privilege of actually working with some really exceptionally smart people I can assure you that intelligence is a general trait without any significant extradimensionality.
This claim is not persuasive. It also may contain various logical and statistical fallacies, depending on your word meanings. If you want to persuade, I suggest that you'll need to give more context.
A. How do you define "exceptionally high intelligence"?
B. Where and in what capacity have you worked with these people?
C. How do you assess this trait?
D. What do you mean by 'crab bucket ideology'?
E. You are aware that there is considerable scientific writing arguing in support of many kinds of intelligence, no?
F. What parts of (E) do you dispute?
G. What do you mean by 'general trait'?
H. What do you mean by 'extradimensionality'?
I. What do you mean when you say your definition of intelligence "is a general trait that does not have any significant extradimensionality"?
J. WRT (I) are you saying that your definition of intelligence is not correlated nor caused by other traits?
K. Do you have a physiological or biological basis for your claim?
L. Please share sources (writing such as studies) that you find persuasive.
M. What are the chances that we are talking past each other? Do you have questions for me?