Smart people are stupid

[Perspicuo]

Can high intelligence be a burden rather than a boon?
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150413-the-downsides-of-being-clever

Some bites and snips from the article:

For this reason, Terman concluded that “intellect and achievement are far from perfectly correlated”. Nor did their smarts endow personal happiness. Over the course of their lives, levels of divorce, alcoholism and suicide were about the same as the national average

many reported that they had been plagued by the sense that they had somehow failed to live up to their youthful expectations.

That is, they are less able to see their own flaws, even when though they are quite capable of criticising the foibles of others. And they have a greater tendency to fall for the “gambler’s fallacy” – the idea that if a tossed coin turns heads 10 times, it will be more likely to fall tails on the 11th

high number of Mensa members believe in the paranormal; or why someone with an IQ of 140 is about twice as likely to max out their credit card.

“The people pushing the anti-vaccination meme on parents and spreading misinformation on websites are generally of more than average intelligence and education.”

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's a reason role-playing games generally separate intelligence from wisdom and that article is showing a good job of showing the difference.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The problem with intelligence is the ability to fake yourself into justifying certain beliefs.

Wisdom is the only true indicator of intelligence, but then again, wisdom doesn't pay well.

 

[skepticalbip]

.......... wisdom doesn't pay well.

That's because people want to have intelligent people support their beliefs, not to have wise people point out reality.

 

[Perspicuo]

The disconcerting find for me is that education does not necessarily protect against bibbidybobbidyboo.

“The people pushing the anti-vaccination meme on parents and spreading misinformation on websites are generally of more than average intelligence and education.”

 

[Bronzeage]

Intelligence is just a measurement and the point of every measurement is to obtain a number which can be compared to other numbers. It's not that complicated and it's not that significant.

What is intelligence? Definitions vary, but we all agree it's better to have a high number, than a low number. There's no need to explain this, at least to intelligent people. The problem comes when we try to correlate other good numbers with intelligence. Annual income is a good number and everyone agrees a higher one is better. Why don't intelligence and income come as a pair? Happiness is a good thing, but a little difficult to measure. Even so, we would like for intelligence to go together, but smart people know this is not always true.

We acknowledge that happiness is difficult to measure, but put faith in our IQ tests. We do tend to prefer measuring things which are easy to measure. We can give 100 people the same test and get 100 scores, ranked from highest to lowest. A happy Quotient test couldn't work that way, because it can't be reduced to 4 possible answers on a multiple choice test. One person is happy because there a woman at the ARe coffee shop smiled and asked if he works out. Another is happy because his boss is on vacation. There's no real correlation between those two conditions.

Are we dumb enough to think there should be?

 

[rousseau]

The disconcerting find for me is that education does not necessarily protect against bibbidybobbidyboo.

“The people pushing the anti-vaccination meme on parents and spreading misinformation on websites are generally of more than average intelligence and education.”

There is a difference between wisdom and intelligence, and there is also a difference between wisdom and education level.

Wisdom is when you're intelligent and you've got something figured out.

Intelligence is when, if you had the time, energy, and motivation, you would be efficient at figuring things out.

Being educated means you've had the time to figure things out, whether or not you actually did.

In reference to your point above, of course people who are marginally more intelligent than average are going to be more confident in their beliefs, and more stead-fast in promoting them. This doesn't mean that because they're smarter than average they are infallible, it just means that they may be slightly less deluded than some, and slightly more deluded than others. Even the brightest of bright people have their blind-spots and delusions, it's just a part of being human.

Toward the articles point: does being intelligent have it's downsides? Of course it does, but it also has fantastic upsides. Whether it's a net benefit or net negative would depend on the individual in question.

 

[Bronzeage]

Most of what passes for intelligence is the combination of a good memory and being easily impressed.

 

[skepticalbip]

The disconcerting find for me is that education does not necessarily protect against bibbidybobbidyboo.

There is a difference between wisdom and intelligence, and there is also a difference between wisdom and education level.

Wisdom is when you're intelligent and you've got something figured out.

Intelligence is when, if you had the time, energy, and motivation, you would be efficient at figuring things out.

Being educated means you've had the time to figure things out, whether or not you actually did.

In reference to your point above, of course people who are marginally more intelligent than average are going to be more confident in their beliefs, and more stead-fast in promoting them. This doesn't mean that because they're smarter than average they are infallible, it just means that they may be slightly less deluded than some, and slightly more deluded than others. Even the brightest of bright people have their blind-spots and delusions, it's just a part of being human.

Toward the articles point: does being intelligent have it's downsides? Of course it does, but it also has fantastic upsides. Whether it's a net benefit or net negative would depend on the individual in question.

Although I generally agree with most of this, the highlighted is a quite questionable assertion. The Dunning–Kruger effect indicates otherwise - that the incompetent or ignorant are much more confident in their beliefs than the astute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

 

[bilby]

There is a difference between wisdom and intelligence, and there is also a difference between wisdom and education level.

Wisdom is when you're intelligent and you've got something figured out.

Intelligence is when, if you had the time, energy, and motivation, you would be efficient at figuring things out.

Being educated means you've had the time to figure things out, whether or not you actually did.

In reference to your point above, of course people who are marginally more intelligent than average are going to be more confident in their beliefs, and more stead-fast in promoting them. This doesn't mean that because they're smarter than average they are infallible, it just means that they may be slightly less deluded than some, and slightly more deluded than others. Even the brightest of bright people have their blind-spots and delusions, it's just a part of being human.

Toward the articles point: does being intelligent have it's downsides? Of course it does, but it also has fantastic upsides. Whether it's a net benefit or net negative would depend on the individual in question.

Although I generally agree with most of this, the highlighted is a quite questionable assertion. The Dunning–Kruger effect indicates otherwise - that the incompetent or ignorant are much more confident in their beliefs than the astute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

^This.

The Dunning-Kruger effect may offer a powerful mechanism for the lack of success amongst the intelligent, in a world where confidence is more likely to be rewarded than ability.

Indeed, as most bosses in technical fields are not competent to judge ability, there is a strong tendency to use confidence as a proxy measure. Who are you going to give the big project to - the guy who says 'Sure, I can do that, no problem!'; or the guy who says 'Hmm, that is going to be a challenge. I will need to do some more research to find out if it is even possible'?

A smart boss would pick the second guy. But there are no smart bosses, because they were passed over for promotion in favour of confident (but dumb) bosses.

 

[rousseau]

There is a difference between wisdom and intelligence, and there is also a difference between wisdom and education level.

Wisdom is when you're intelligent and you've got something figured out.

Intelligence is when, if you had the time, energy, and motivation, you would be efficient at figuring things out.

Being educated means you've had the time to figure things out, whether or not you actually did.

In reference to your point above, of course people who are marginally more intelligent than average are going to be more confident in their beliefs, and more stead-fast in promoting them. This doesn't mean that because they're smarter than average they are infallible, it just means that they may be slightly less deluded than some, and slightly more deluded than others. Even the brightest of bright people have their blind-spots and delusions, it's just a part of being human.

Toward the articles point: does being intelligent have it's downsides? Of course it does, but it also has fantastic upsides. Whether it's a net benefit or net negative would depend on the individual in question.

Although I generally agree with most of this, the highlighted is a quite questionable assertion. The Dunning–Kruger effect indicates otherwise - that the incompetent or ignorant are much more confident in their beliefs than the astute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

That's true. Maybe it's just that education level isn't a particularly good indicator that someone is enlightened.

In any case I can't imagine *less* educated people being less likely to buy the vaccination mean.

 

[Perspicuo]

I know some extremely faithful Christians who are great college students. They have a knack for not only remember everything they're told, but believing everything they're told. I figure these two must be related. They probably are.

 

[Source]

There is more than one type of intelligence.

Smart people are often stupid, or perhaps that should be, university educated people are often stupid.

Hitler was a genius with a seemingly superhuman ability to manipulate people (specially all those university educated people) but how would you describe or measure his genius. I doubt it could be measured empirically.

 

[Perspicuo]

There is more than one type of intelligence.

Smart people are often stupid, or perhaps that should be, university educated people are often stupid.

Hitler was a genius with a seemingly superhuman ability to manipulate people (specially all those university educated people) but how would you describe or measure his genius. I doubt it could be measured empirically.

You have to have a model of what you want to measure and a standardized test for it. I don't know of any psychometric intelligence evaluation that includes a sub-scale for sociopathic manipulation of massive groups of people.

The bottom line is if it exists, it can be measured. Conversely, if something can't be measured, how does the person claiming it exists know about it and how can they be sure someone has "lot's of it" versus "little of it"? Obviously there's something fishy in such a situation.

 

[Source]

There is more than one type of intelligence.

Smart people are often stupid, or perhaps that should be, university educated people are often stupid.

Hitler was a genius with a seemingly superhuman ability to manipulate people (specially all those university educated people) but how would you describe or measure his genius. I doubt it could be measured empirically.

You have to have a model of what you want to measure and a standardized test for it. I don't know of any psychometric intelligence evaluation that includes a sub-scale for sociopathic manipulation of massive groups of people.

The bottom line is if it exists, it can be measured. Conversely, if something can't be measured, how does the person claiming it exists know about it and how can they be sure someone has "lot's of it" versus "little of it"? Obviously there's something fishy in such a situation.

We all know Hitler had an ability (on a one on one basis, not just en masse). No one can pretend he was the same as everyone else. Just like we all know Van Gogh had a great painting ability and that he too was a genius.

Just because it cant be measured empirically, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Perspicuo]

You have to have a model of what you want to measure and a standardized test for it. I don't know of any psychometric intelligence evaluation that includes a sub-scale for sociopathic manipulation of massive groups of people.

The bottom line is if it exists, it can be measured. Conversely, if something can't be measured, how does the person claiming it exists know about it and how can they be sure someone has "lot's of it" versus "little of it"? Obviously there's something fishy in such a situation.

We all know Hitler had an ability (on a one on one basis, not just en masse). No one can pretend he was the same as everyone else. Just like we all know Van Gogh had a great painting ability and that he too was a genius.

Just because it cant be measured empirically, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

How do you know "Van Gogh had a great painting ability"? How do you know Hitler could manipulate people en masse or individually?

 

[Bomb#20]

How do you know "Van Gogh had a great painting ability"?

Nicole! My dirt. This is not ordinary dirt. It is van Gogh dirt. I mean dirt from his own neighborhood. I scraped it myself off these old 19th-century canvases. Like this. It took me weeks. A nice touch of authenticity, don't you think? I doubt if van Gogh himself would've gone to such pains with his works. - Hugh Griffith

He didn't have to. He was van Gogh! - Audrey Hepburn

But you know that in his whole lifetime, he only sold one painting. Whereas I, in loving memory of his great tragic genius, have already sold two. - Hugh Griffith

 

[Source]

How do you know "Van Gogh had a great painting ability"?

Nicole! My dirt. This is not ordinary dirt. It is van Gogh dirt. I mean dirt from his own neighborhood. I scraped it myself off these old 19th-century canvases. Like this. It took me weeks. A nice touch of authenticity, don't you think? I doubt if van Gogh himself would've gone to such pains with his works. - Hugh Griffith

He didn't have to. He was van Gogh! - Audrey Hepburn

But you know that in his whole lifetime, he only sold one painting. Whereas I, in loving memory of his great tragic genius, have already sold two. - Hugh Griffith

A quote from a movie!

Anyone can copy a work, geniuses can be copied. You could copy the works of Shakespeare but wouldn't make it your original work, nor would it make you a genius. Music can be copied, anything can be copied.

Go and create an original painting and try to sell it for £20,000,000 and see what happens.

 

[fast]

This discussion reminds me of Argumentum ad crumenam, my personal all-time favorite fallacy. If you're rich, then you're correct. Not so, since one can be rich and incorrect. But, the fallacy shouldn't be considered so narrow. Here's a question that presupposes a proposition that would fall under the fallacy umbrella: If you're so smart, then why aren't you rich?

The vast majority of 'reasons' citable can be readily dismissed, since smart people can overcome most challenges. Perhaps people aren't as smart as they'd like to think. Perhaps, but there are smart people that are not rich. It's not that money doesn't matter. The problem is that not all smart people apply themselves.

So, as others here discuss intelligence and wisdom, my contribution is in highlighting intelligence and application. Many people, I believe, would be far more financially well-off if they methodically utilized their smarts in successful pursuit of financial gain. Exhausting discussions about race and disadvantage, parents financial position, and social injustices (to name a few) would, in my mind, play little role, since those that are surely smart who also diligently applied themselves would not have commonplace cited obstacles as meaningful barriers to success.

Now, here's where my logic begins to unfold back on itself. I've already said that it's indeed a fallacy, as one can be smart and not apply themselves, but the insidious question lurking beneath the surface begs to ask: just how smart are the people that don't apply themselves?

Well, if I am in fact smart yet don't apply myself, then I am smart, if in fact it's so, but why suppose I am if I don't use my smarts? Awe, but if it's there and I don't use it, then I am smart and simply not applying myself, but doesn't that beg the question? If applying one's intelligence is a necessary condition for being smart, then one that doesn't apply themselves isn't as smart as one might think, if (if, I say) it's a necessary condition. Most smart people would not think that, but then again, most of them aren't rich, so color me circle--insidiously.

 

[Source]

This discussion reminds me of Argumentum ad crumenam, my personal all-time favorite fallacy. If you're rich, then you're correct. Not so, since one can be rich and incorrect. But, the fallacy shouldn't be considered so narrow. Here's a question that presupposes a proposition that would fall under the fallacy umbrella: If you're so smart, then why aren't you rich?

The vast majority of 'reasons' citable can be readily dismissed, since smart people can overcome most challenges. Perhaps people aren't as smart as they'd like to think. Perhaps, but there are smart people that are not rich. It's not that money doesn't matter. The problem is that not all smart people apply themselves.

So, as others here discuss intelligence and wisdom, my contribution is in highlighting intelligence and application. Many people, I believe, would be far more financially well-off if they methodically utilized their smarts in successful pursuit of financial gain. Exhausting discussions about race and disadvantage, parents financial position, and social injustices (to name a few) would, in my mind, play little role, since those that are surely smart who also diligently applied themselves would not have commonplace cited obstacles as meaningful barriers to success.

Now, here's where my logic begins to unfold back on itself. I've already said that it's indeed a fallacy, as one can be smart and not apply themselves, but the insidious question lurking beneath the surface begs to ask: just how smart are the people that don't apply themselves?

Well, if I am in fact smart yet don't apply myself, then I am smart, if in fact it's so, but why suppose I am if I don't use my smarts? Awe, but if it's there and I don't use it, then I am smart and simply not applying myself, but doesn't that beg the question? If applying one's intelligence is a necessary condition for being smart, then one that doesn't apply themselves isn't as smart as one might think, if (if, I say) it's a necessary condition. Most smart people would not think that, but then again, most of them aren't rich, so color me circle--insidiously.

None of this changes the fact that ability exists.