>>16776138
>Wrong. It works on everyone, smart or dumb.
It mostly affects those who don't quite understand hypotheticals or feel like solving an abstract puzzle, engaging in any competitive or non-competitive mental masturbation when you just sit still can be a lot of fun on it's own.
Even in the video from veritasium you link in, those scientists claim something among the same lines when it comes to financial incentive, it helps retards.
>But you could have a musical genius who's also illiterate.
How statistically significant is that? Music is some of the hardest things to produce for humans, apparently it's evolutionary. We put so much more processing power in what we see rather than what we hear, so that you can have plenty of great artists, but 'great' composers are often meh, it's just too hard. Relatively high IQ is almost mandatory to make music work consistently in unique ways, and not just one topic you obsess with for the whole life.
>Socrates was illiterate, for example.
Not real, he is too good, he had to develop it somehow through some sort of education, even just indirect exposure.