The government (or companies) would employ their smartest staff to work with and teach new hires.

Yet, this basically NEVER happens.

Like, imagine you have a company with 1000 engineers, and also are hiring more every year.

And, you have one already on staff who is VERY good.

Imagine that "nurture" of adults is significant as part of their ability

It seems obvious that since the 1000 are on staff, that many candidate "ability transmission rates" would lead you to find some way to get that +4sd engineer to teach your engineers something. i.e. you can calculate the rate of improvement that huge skill gap would lead to, then calculate the value you'd get from improving all that skill, vs the cost in salary and risk of that good engineer leaving, and come up with some solution. Surely, some company in the world would find this useful. Yet, they nearly never do. OFC there are retrainings and things, but it's normally pretty peripheral.

We observe the opposite: the best technical staff is generally never used to do anything like education.

Contrast this with the effort spent on searching for the best candidates, where there will often be thousands of applications for a single position, and where elite companies and schools are extremely selective

Similar argument for childhood teaching.

Among tutors, why isn't there a market for the tutor's ability? i.e. if nurture matters, does the current ability of the tutor vs the current ability of the matter? I'd assume we want it to be large? yet there's no market.

Compare to horse racing: there IS a massive market for the genetics of fast horses and there are 1000 year old rules and traditions for how it works, w/stud fees etc. Why do they even bother?

Ofc, I do have to rely on social arguments to explain why this system, which I'm claiming would "work" for humans, doesn't happen.