Smart people are stupid

[rousseau]

Define 'smart'. Define 'stupid'.

People have vastly different subsets of knowledge and ability. If intelligence is contextual than one could be smart in one context, and not smart in another context.

So it's better to think in terms of ignorance or lack-thereof. Are people who are less ignorant in general... Well... More ignorant? No. By definition they're less ignorant.

Getting back to the OP I think it's more a case of us being shocked that people we would normally (or hope to) regard as non-ignorant, are actually quite ignorant, than there being some twist of fate for people with more ability.

The other issue the OP seems to touch on is that high reasoning ability, and high awareness can actually have a negative effect overall.

I don't doubt this at all and have experienced it myself, but I can also say from personal experience that my life experience is, at times, probably much, much richer than people who don't really get how the world works.

Looking back I can remember times in my teens when I was in agony over pointless crap that meant nothing. Now I not only have the perspective to see through that type of stuff, but I have the perspective to see the world.. Mostly as it is.. Which is pretty cool.

 

[fromderinside]

Darn. I was gong to write that.

As ApostateAbe has proven smart is a dumb measure.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Fat Cats Turn Owls Into Mice

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:

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.”

High IQs create all the wealth of the ruling class, which uses school to humiliate them and make them pushovers, patsies, and Cash Cows for the Corporate Cowboys. Manipulating the society around High IQs to treat them like freaks is the first step; the absurdity of not being paid a salary in college is a further test of whether brains have become meek-geek nerds.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

When the Mind Shivers, Manhood Shrivels

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.

All college means is getting a job just because you can go four or more years without a job. It's pretty stupid to believe that makes any sense. The cause of this contradiction in giving the most intelligent a stupid goal and making them actually believe in such an absurdity is that the only positive feedback they get when young is how well they repeat what they are told by overpowering and intimidating authority figures.

 

[ronburgundy]

I don't doubt that intelligent people often make dumb decisions or that high intellectual ability is always insufficient and often not necessary for rational choice making. But the articles implication that they make worse choices than less intelligent people and most of the examples they use are problematic. I'll focus on this one:

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

This conclusion is false. The study in question is invalid crap. They did not use a coin and did not measure gamblers fallacy. Instead, they had a computer show either a red or black square. People were told the color was chosen completely at random for each trial. Subjects were forced to choose which color would appear on the next trial. Anytime they picked the color that was different from the last color shown, this was categorized by the researchers as "gamblers fallacy". That is nonsense. Note that picking the same color that was shown before is not at all a more rational choice. In fact, a major reason a person would pick the color to stay the same is that they are falling for the "hot hand fallacy" where they believe a streak of one color is meaningful and due to some non-random force, thus they think that force will continue to bias the outcome toward that color. The only rational choice is to pick neither color, but the method used does not allow this choice and forces people to pick between two irrational decisions.

The more intelligent people probably know that statistical "runs" are meaningless and happen for no reason and the odds are that they will end soon for no reason. They merely over-apply this notion and choice the different color when forced to pick one, but that isn't as stupid as thinking the next trial is more likely to continue to be the same color because some cosmic force is responsible for the prior outcomes.

Also notice that they had 5 measures of intellectual ability. 4 had zero correlation with the choices made, and one had a tiny r = .13 correlation. IOW, these researchers, their editor, and this journalist all failed to see that this study is meaningless drivel that fails to support any of the conclusions being made from it. This might be due to their own biased desire to believe the conclusion and not a lack of intellect. But I bet that the people who understand why this study is invalid are more intelligent than average.

 

[fromderinside]

Let's start with hot hand and gambler's fallacy are the same thing. It not an attribute of the situation but an attribute of the apparent situation. A fair coin will, on average result in approximately as many heads as tails over the long run as will the hand of the gambler at the table.

One can't start with a strawman and expect anyone to accept one's argument.

Since they are published and you started with a straw man you are judged wrong. Is this fair? Of course not. What's relevant is that humans and many advanced mammals take one of two options in choice situations, they maximize or optimize. Neither bears on the actual probability fair coin, but, both will appear as subject reports depending on how the situation is framed. If the observer knows the coin is fair he will optimize based on how many surfaces on the object. Given last toss was heads he will probably choose to balance the game by choosing tails. If all he knows is what he sees he will assume the coin is biased and choose to maximize. Seeing a run of heads he will choose to heads. Neither will work more than half the time.

As for intelligence, your noting the correlations is the clue. All humans have both capabilities if they can understand, they have the ability to remember ten trials and to understand a coin with two sides has equal probability of being heads or tails or same color or different color they will choose as I outlined above. The correlations were less than significant. One must conclude what they were measuring wasn't related to intelligence. If they are unable to comprehend or communicate they will randomly choose the same or different. One might make something of comprehend and intelligence I guess Inability to communicate can have many causes most of which have little to do with intelligence.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

Yes and to be a priest you have to have high wisdom. Intelligence is for mages. Therefore, _______________.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

Oh it does!

It's only because there's a star system to promote the lives of intelligent cheats that we tend to forget that a lack of wisdom is seriously detrimental on average. For each billionaire still alive there are very many intelligent but unwise people who tried to become rich who are now instead either dead or in very dire straits.

Disclaimer: Sorry, I don't have statistics to support my claim.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Yeah, they're all dumb!

There are definitely more dumb people than intelligent people like me.

Only evolution could have selected those dumb people over many hundred thousands of years and it had to deselect me and my forebears because we were too damn smart.

I wonder how they even could have a brain?

Yeah, I know this one! They do have a brain BUT they are so dumb they don't even know how to use it.

It's only people like me who know how to use it. And we are being DE-selected for it!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Yeah, exactly!

Van Gogh tried that. Didn't work.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Yeah, yeah! Just so.

But to apply yourself you need to believe that the word will repeat itself. This is like believing that the coin will repeat itself because he'd done it since you've been watching. So you need to have this little bit of smarts missing just there so you can have this dumb belief that the world will repeat itself and you can throw yourself and waste your time into becoming rich.

However, life's so short.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Van Gogh tried that. Didn't work.
EB

No he didn't. His brother did. Van Gogh was smart. He knew it was important to be famous so he cut off his ear, then committed suicide. The rest is history.

Millions I tell ya, millions.

 

[Source]

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.

Yeah, exactly!

Van Gogh tried that. Didn't work.
EB

I couldn't care less if Van Gogh was a genius or he was the stupidest person on the planet.

My original point was about Hitler, and he didn't make much money either.

I'm not interested in defending either of them or how much money they made.

The point was, different intelligences exist.

 

[ronburgundy]

Let's start with hot hand and gambler's fallacy are the same thing. It not an attribute of the situation but an attribute of the apparent situation.

One can't start with a strawman and expect anyone to accept one's argument.

I never implied they are the same. Quite the contrary, I said that they are both fallacies that actually can work in opposition the prediction that people will make on the next trial. The only rational choice is "50/50". If you are not allowed that option (which they were not in the study in question), then there is no rational response possible. You are forced between two choices. If you fall for the "hot hand" fallacy, you will prefer to choose the same outcome as the prior trials. If you fall for the gamblers fallacy option, you will prefer to choose the opposite outcome of the prior trials. With their study design that prohibited the only rational "50/50" answer, every choice that appears to be a gamblers fallacy can be just an effort to reject the hot-hand fallacy.

A fair coin will, on average result in approximately as many heads as tails over the long run as will the hand of the gambler at the table.

Exactly, which is why the "gamblers fallacy" is not that big a mental error and far less absurd than the hot-hand fallacy. The fact is that over 11 trials, a pattern of 10 heads and 1 tail will occur more often than a pattern of 11 heads. If you flip a coin 11 times and record the pattern, and do that a million times, there will be many more blocks of 11 that have only 10 heads than have 11 heads. The gamblers fallacy is merely an over-application of this factually correct understanding when judging the probability of a single flip within those blocks. It is a relatively minor brain fart compared to the immense idiocy and supernatural thinking required to believe that you have a "hot-hand" and that is causing the "run" you are on. IF you are thinking that hot-hand only applies to cards, you are wrong. These fallacies apply to any situation where there is a string of outcomes in a particular direction whose proportion is at odds with the proportion that would exist across infinite trials (or just a much larger sample).

Since they are published and you started with a straw man you are judged wrong. Is this fair? Of course not. What's relevant is that humans and many advanced mammals take one of two options in choice situations, they maximize or optimize. Neither bears on the actual probability fair coin, but, both will appear as subject reports depending on how the situation is framed. If the observer knows the coin is fair he will optimize based on how many surfaces on the object. Given last toss was heads he will probably choose to balance the game by choosing tails. If all he knows is what he sees he will assume the coin is biased and choose to maximize. Seeing a run of heads he will choose to heads. Neither will work more than half the time.

Great. None of that contradicts anything I said, and most of it supports what I said, with the rest being irrelevant. The subjects were directly told that the computer picked the colors completely at random. Picking the same color each time requires presuming without justification that they were lied to and that some non-random force (analogous to a "hot-hand") is at work. Also, there is no evidence that anyone who picked the same color did so by presuming they were lied to. They would give the same response if they irrationally believed in some cosmic force that always created patterns and rejected the notion of random (non-causally connected trials). Thus, it cannot possibly be concluded that picking the same color is a more rational response than picking the opposite color (the gamblers fallacy option). In fact, even if a person picked one half the trials and the other half the trials, this could still be due to completely irrational thinking on every single trial. We know people tend to fall for both the gamblers and the hot-hand fallacy, so they may just fluctuate between applying one or the other, coupled with an over-arching irrational belief is some cosmic force that created "balance" by ending "hot-hands" to return the aggregate distribution to "normal".
In sum, their methods prohibit any conclusion whatever about what pattern of response is more rational than any other. Valid research on this topic uses a different method where people are allowed on every individual trial to give the only rational response, which is "I don't know" or "50/50".

As for intelligence, your noting the correlations is the clue. All humans have both capabilities if they can understand, they have the ability to remember ten trials and to understand a coin with two sides has equal probability of being heads or tails or same color or different color they will choose as I outlined above. The correlations were less than significant. One must conclude what they were measuring wasn't related to intelligence. If they are unable to comprehend or communicate they will randomly choose the same or different. One might make something of comprehend and intelligence I guess Inability to communicate can have many causes most of which have little to do with intelligence.

As best as I can tell, I think we agree on this point. The scores people got in their little prediction game are virtually unrelated to intelligence. That is empirically true. My point is that even if they found an decent empirical correlation with intelligence, there conclusion would be wrong, because score on their prediction game do not reflect more rational thinking less influenced by fallacies or poor probabilistic thinking. They prohibited rational responses and different patterns of responses can merely reflect application of different kinds of irrational biases. It is a shit study that tells us nothing about intelligence or anything else, except that getting published is no where near sufficient to indicate scientific validity. But we already knew that and we knew of prior studies that pharmacology (the area that published this study) is the most corrupted fraudulent area of research, which is theoretically predictable given the very direct and immediate personal profits than can be and are made by lying about the benefits and harms of expensive patent-controlled drugs.

 

[bilby]

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.

Yeah, they're all dumb!

Pretty much. Few corporations have technical experts in management - indeed, the whole benefit of the division of labour relies on people mostly doing the thing they are best at.

If a software engineer can produce 1,000 lines of working code in a day, or could oversee 10 projects; and a manager can produce 10 lines of code, or oversee 8 projects; then the optimum output is achieved by having the engineer do nothing except produce code, and the manager do nothing except oversee projects.

Those who can, do; those who cannot, supervise. That's not a bug; it's a feature.

There are definitely more dumb people than intelligent people like me.

Yes. That's true for 50% of any population; and given the self-selecting nature of this board, is almost certainly a true statement for the majority of people here (relative to the wider population) - it is equivalent to saying 'contributors to FRDB are of above average intelligence'.

Only evolution could have selected those dumb people over many hundred thousands of years and it had to deselect me and my forebears because we were too damn smart.

Quite possibly. Being too smart is not necessarily a fitness advantage, particularly in a social species. Slightly above average intelligence might be an advantage; but vastly above average intelligence (like most very obvious dissimilarities from the tribe) tends to trigger innate xenophobia, reducing the fitness of the individual.

I wonder how they even could have a brain?

The complete absence of a brain is not a survival trait. I wonder why you feel the need to introduce an extreme position that I did not espouse - a straw man, as it were - rather than addressing the comment I actually made?

Yeah, I know this one! They do have a brain BUT they are so dumb they don't even know how to use it.

Pretty much. Brains are common; Intelligence seems to be limited to a handful of species - and to be very limited within those species too.

It's only people like me who know how to use it. And we are being DE-selected for it!
EB

I doubt that. But my point remains -

Most bosses in technical fields are not competent to judge ability, and tend to use confidence as a proxy.
The Dunning-Kruger effect implies that confidence is a very poor proxy for competence, and that ability is inversely correlated with confidence.
Bosses are chosen based on assessments of their competence made by other bosses - and those assessments are made using the flawed assumption that confidence is a good proxy for competence.
The assumption goes unquestioned, because the bosses are unaware that they are incompetent - and their misplaced confidence is exactly what Dunning-Kruger predicts.

 

[rousseau]

<snip>

The assumption goes unquestioned, because the bosses are unaware that they are incompetent - and their misplaced confidence is exactly what Dunning-Kruger predicts.

The anthropology of the work-place is really something.

Appearance: if you don't look like a CEO, good luck becoming a CEO.

Lingual speed: if you can't hold your own in any conversation, good luck becoming a manager.

.. and so on.

I find it hard to get upset about, though, it's just the way it is. Fortunately, the slot my peg fits into isn't awful.

 

[fromderinside]

And so people, we've just seen 36 posts demonstrating the point of the OP.

If not, why then does rousseau sees his peg fitting fairly well when all he's been about over the past years here is his continuing education.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Intelligence can be a burden, if you don't already have the tools to cope with certain things.

 

[ronburgundy]

And so people, we've just seen 36 posts demonstrating the point of the OP.
.

You've posted 36 times in this thread?

 

[fromderinside]

And so people, we've just seen 36 posts demonstrating the point of the OP.
.

You've posted 36 times in this thread?

Proof positive you are a smart person.