Why Smart People Are Stupid 337
nicholast writes "There's a good piece by Jonah Lehrer at the New Yorker about why smart people are often more likely to make cognitive errors than stupid people. The article examines research about the shortcuts that our brains take while answering questions, and explains why even the smartest people take these shortcuts too. Quoting: 'One provocative hypothesis is that the bias blind spot arises because of a mismatch between how we evaluate others and how we evaluate ourselves. When considering the irrational choices of a stranger, for instance, we are forced to rely on behavioral information; we see their biases from the outside, which allows us to glimpse their systematic thinking errors. However, when assessing our own bad choices, we tend to engage in elaborate introspection. We scrutinize our motivations and search for relevant reasons; we lament our mistakes to therapists and ruminate on the beliefs that led us astray. The problem with this introspective approach is that the driving forces behind biases—the root causes of our irrationality—are largely unconscious, which means they remain invisible to self-analysis and impermeable to intelligence. In fact, introspection can actually compound the error, blinding us to those primal processes responsible for many of our everyday failings.'"
Makes sense (Score:5, Funny)
The article examines research about the shortcuts that our brains take while answering questions, and explains why even the smartest people take these shortcuts too.
Because without taking shortcuts those very smart people wouldn't be able to achieve their goal of getting first post.
Funny or Insightful? (Score:2)
I find myself primed by statements like âoeHere is a simple arithmetic questionâ to answer quickly. Its probably pride, in that I think of myself as able to answer difficult questions, to attempt to answer the question as quickly as possible.
I hope I wouldnâ(TM)t employ such a cavalier approach to anything important, like a questionnaire for an important research paper. Sadly, unless I am analyzed by a thick outsider (perhaps a psychologist?), I will never know.
I know, dumping on psycholo
Physics Training (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Did you ever take training in recognizing sarcasm, or other comic devices? The trick is to consider what you are reading from multiple perspectives simultaneously. If it tickles your funny bone, it was likely meant to.
Its a bit like lyrics in the jazz and blues roots. If you vaguely think it might be about sex, it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Funny or Insightful? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
The best way to avoid making mistakes is not doing anything at all.
Unfortunately it's not that easy. My biggest mistakes have consisted of not doing things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The best way to avoid making mistakes is not doing anything at all.
Unfortunately it's not that easy. My biggest mistakes have consisted of not doing things.
Even someone as smart as "the Bard" was deeply troubled by that. He left us "... to be, or not to be ...", didn't he ?
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Funny)
The best way to avoid making mistakes is not doing anything at all.
A guy at my work has a good safety slogan: Nobody moves, nobody gets hurt.
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Funny)
A guy at my work has a good safety slogan: Nobody moves, nobody gets hurt.
You work in a bank or post office?
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a couple of months and they start having postural problems, injuries due to muscle atrophication, lack of circulation, etc, etc.. :P
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are concrete things that can be done though. There are also "smart people patterns" of systematic errors in thinking. For example, smart people are better at arguing their position, hence better at defending bad decisions , allowing them to persist in bad choices. Or, smart people can suffer more from analysis paralysis. It helps then to be aware of these weaknesses so you can compensate for them.
oh the irony (Score:5, Funny)
i heard you like to overthink shit
so i overthought the shit you're overthinking
so you can overthink shit
while i overthink you overthinking the shit you're overthinking
i must be stupid (as in smart, not smart as in stupid) because i got those little word problems correct. the lily pad example was really easy.
Re:oh the irony (Score:4, Insightful)
The other answer to the lily pad question could also be "1 day", depending on which half of the lake you were looking at.
Re: (Score:2)
The lily pad one didn't even take a second thought for me - it was the first answer to pop into my head. Bat and ball I had to think about a second (I knew immediately 10 cents was wrong, and quickly figured it out, but it was the first thing to pop into my head, so my brain did jump to the shortcut first). I would agree that if you have a feel for exponential growth you won't think the "24 day" answer though - I didn't even consider it - I just thought "it was half yesterday then, so 47."
Bull (Score:5, Insightful)
The premise here is that "introspection" (a vague name for a wide range of practices) cannot reveal unconscious biases, bring them into consciousness, and enable self-analysis and intelligent adjustment of them. We are to accept this premise why? In my experience, it's quite possible to gain a conscious vantage on previously-unconscious biases, and subsequently lessen and/or compensate for them. If Lehrer can't do the same, maybe he isn't very good at introspection. No reason to condemn an activity others do well and productively just because you suck at it, Jonah.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I believe it's possible as well, but it takes some work and also requires you to first realise that you do have unconscious biases. I'm not sure how that leads to the conclusion "which means they remain invisible to self-analysis and impermeable to intelligence" though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johari_window [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole concept of the unconsious as an inaccessable region of thought that drives behavior without any chance for the consious to understand or correct it is basic Freudian psychology, and largely discredited. Minsky's 'Society of Mind" is probably a lot closer, and there's literally generations of psychologists, cognitive scientists, and people who do whatever that thing Daniel Dennett does that have had some impact post Minsky's book. There are lots of things the brain normally does subconsiously. They
Re:Bull (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree completely. I have caught myself a number of times acting in a way that I couldn't completely explain, and after thinking for a while -- sometimes a long while -- I have figured out what I was subconsciously doing. I think this is one of the primary benefits of therapy; a trained professional may be able to spot what's really bothering you when you don't know.
Re:Bull (Score:4, Informative)
That's not a premisse, that's the conclusion. We are to accept it because of the study.
Now, all the disclaimers of a statistical study apply, so you'd better keep doing that introspection you are so good at.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are not rational beings, they are rationalizing beings. Just because a line of thinking is rationalized, that doesnt make that line of thought necessarily rational.
A good common sce
Re: (Score:3)
In my experience, it's quite possible to gain a conscious vantage on previously-unconscious biases, and subsequently lessen and/or compensate for them.
You just locate your own mind patterns, but you don't get a deep understanding on how it works internally.
In my opinion, it's impossible to understand our unconscious mind with thoughts, because the unconscious mind is much faster than our thoughts, and it takes a lot of time to consciously analyse only a fraction of our decisions.
The more you analyse your behaviours, and the more you tend to constrain yourself.
From what I heard, zen masters are able to "observe" their unconscious mind during their actions,
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. I've got a bad habit of blurting out (potentially) humorous things at contextually inappropriate times. It's compulsive. Quite often, the things I blurt out are just generally inappropriate, but I do it because I think it's funny. I've managed, over the years, to consciously curtail this trait by telling myself, "self, shut the fuck up". Since I've realized my proclivity, it's saved many an embarrassing, awkward moment from happening.
Re: (Score:3)
LSD is great for getting a better understanding of your subconscious processes. When you look at things on acid sometimes it's like you're seeing the thing for the first time without a lifetime of biases built up. Other times you become conscious of all the associations you have with certain things, sometimes going far back into your childhood. It's really a shame it's illegal.
As parent is AC, the comment may be overlooked by a lot of people. I fully and completely agree with this.
My first experience with a large dose of LSD I was only able to describe as having "multiple levels of consciousness" - that is, I'd be looking at something and thinking about it; while another "part of me" was simultaneously thinking about the part of me that was thinking about what I was looking at; and yet another part would be examining those thought processes and so on. At one point, I managed to
SAT socres? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or perhaps high SAT scores do not correlate well with intelligence, but rather correlate with being able to answer questions quickly through the use of mental shortcuts or the ability to recall what was learned through rote learning?
Re:SAT socres? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or perhaps high SAT scores do not correlate well with intelligence,
SAT scores strongly correlate with life time earnings, probability of going to prison, life expectancy, divorce rate, and many, many other things. Out of political correctness, you may not want to call it "intelligence", but you cannot deny it is measuring something much more significant than an ability to take tests.
Re:SAT socres? (Score:5, Insightful)
SAT scores strongly correlate with...
That's become a self-fulfiling prophecy in the US. Hig SAT scores are required (often) to get to the next stages of education, and education correlates with success, so it makes high SAT scores correlate with success.
That said, people will make the same mistake with SAT scores and IQ scores. If you do very well at either then you are intelligent. Failing to do well at either doesn't imply a lack of intelligence.
The end result is that of course IQ ans SAT scores correlate with intelligence. Simplifying a great deal, a high score implies inelligence. Low score gives no imformation so implies a 50% chance of intelligence. Given two people and no other information except SAT scores, the one with the higher SAT score is more likely to be intelligent.
But if you're making decisions based purely on SAT scores, then you're not being intelligent :)
Re:SAT socres? (Score:5, Interesting)
SAT scores strongly correlate with...
That's become a self-fulfiling prophecy in the US. Hig SAT scores are required (often) to get to the next stages of education, and education correlates with success, so it makes high SAT scores correlate with success.
But even if you account for that, by only comparing people of similar education levels, people with high SAT scores do better on a wide variety of metrics. In fact, someone's SAT score is a better predictor of their success than their educational level. That is not what you would expect if a high SAT score was just a "door-opener".
Re: (Score:2)
That's because education (field and level of degree) has largely been meaningless for the past 15+ years. You've got a 1600 on your SAT but have a double BA in Humanities studies and foreign affairs? You're still a fucking idiot - but people with a 1600 on their SATs don't go into those fields, normally, because they're too highly logical.
So you've got people with 'medium' SAT scores going to school and getting advanced degrees in useless fields, but the people with the best scores end up doing something "s
Re: (Score:2)
a high score implies inelligence. Low score gives no imformation so implies a 50% chance of intelligence
That logic doesn't work. Since the group of people scoring low on the SAT includes all unintelligent people in the population of those who took the test but only includes the intelligent people who did poorly, the likelihood of being intelligent is lower in that group than in the population as a whole. So it doesn't give no information, it just gives less accurate information.
But if you're making decisions based purely on SAT scores, then you're not being intelligent :)
Two points: you just said you can decide on someone being intelligent based purely on their SAT scores, and nobody in their right min
Re: (Score:2)
I know people who tested close to perfect on both the SAT and their GMAT. They're complete fucking idiots: generally incompetent at life, but also not that mentally quick or capable. Some might describe them as "blond", regardless of gender or hair color.
I'd argue that a high SAT (or GMAT, or ACT) score doesn't correlate to intelligence any higher than a low one does. It might be more correlative, if only due to a self-selection bias. From what I've seen, at least.
Re:SAT scores? (Score:3)
I didn't understand this until I learned about my wife. Her ACT score was only ~+1 standard deviation above the norm--nothing special really--but she graduated cum laude in college and then top 15% in medical school (AOA). She has OCD, and it inhibits her on any question presented using the paradox of choice.
I think a lot of people have analogous problems--they may fully understand the concept being tested but remain unable to demonstrate that in their test score or other metric for whatever reason. I think
Re: (Score:2)
When I took SAT, roughly 70% of the test was reading comprehension, something I do poorly on when timed, so my SAT score were really bad - I don't think I even finished half the test and I felt like a moron when I got my scores back, especially when my best friend aced it. My ACT score, on the other hand, which had less time pressure and less reading comprehension was 28/33 (and again I stumbled on fast reading comprehension, but that was 10% of the test) and that was the same score my friend got (keep in m
Re: (Score:2)
The above, coupled with the ability to consciously recognize and avoid the bias traps created by those who write the tests (or unconsciously avoiding them by coming from a culture without the bias those traps are designed to exploit in the first place).
My theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
My theory is that smart people are mostly stupid, and that stupid people are fully stupid.
LOL...quite true, and I wish more of us "smart people" (as well as the stupid ones, of course) would realize it!
Someone mod-up parent, please! :-)
Best example: Scott Adams (Score:4, Interesting)
Scott had trouble with a pager, it wouldn't work and wouldn't work. He took out the battery, put it back in, tried a different one and still no success. Finally took the pager to a service center where the tech looked at it for about 10 seconds, took out the battery, flipped it around and put it back in - so the pager worked.
It's a question of competency at some things does not translate into a competency at all things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of a time many years ago when I had a run of people come to me with amazingly dumb problems. "I can't log into my computer" translated to "Press the power button." "My printer isn't working" = "Turn it on." "My printer isn't working" = "Plug it in then turn it on." "My printer isn't working" = "Put paper in it." (Lots of printer problems.)
This went on for a couple weeks, word got around, and good laughs were had all around. One day a guy came to me with, "I swear it should be working. It's
Case in point. (Score:5, Insightful)
Try reading that article. It's full of smart sounding long-winded sentences, which all basically translate to: "Dude, you're overthinking it".
Then, the article ronically ends with: "We spin eloquent stories, but these stories miss the point. The more we attempt to know ourselves, the less we actually understand."
Dude...
Re: (Score:2)
Ronically, I missed an eye.
Smartest dumb people I know (Score:2)
I only know that I know nothing (Score:2)
Excellence in anything, including smarts can easily boost one's ego to the point where it cloudstheir judgement.
The article is written by a fucktard. (Score:5, Funny)
Hereâ(TM)s a simple arithmetic question: A bat and ball cost a dollar and ten cents. The bat costs a dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
The vast majority of people respond quickly and confidently, insisting the ball costs ten cents. This answer is both obvious and wrong. (The correct answer is five cents for the ball and a dollar and five cents for the bat.)
Why on earth would you ever think that it was 10 cents for the ball and a dollar for the bat? You'd have to be stupid, or something.
In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake?
Your first response is probably to take a shortcut, and to divide the final answer by half. That leads you to twenty-four days. But thatâ(TM)s wrong. The correct solution is forty-seven days.
What the fuck? Do I need to to take a dope test or something? Why the hell would you think I'd "take a shortcut" and divide the answer by two? Fuck's sake, the clue is right there! IT DOUBLES IN SIZE EVERY DAY! So it's twice as big today as it was yesterday, so if it fills the lake in 48 days it half-fills it in 47 days. Jeez, how the hell can you even think people would say 24 days? Is there something wrong with your brain?
Also, what the hell kind of lilies grow in your lake, that they crowd the whole damn thing out in a month and a half? Don't you ever rake them back and dredge it? Your fish are going to suffer from lack of light and oxygen with all that crap in there.
Ghod pop-psychologists make my piss boil.
Re: (Score:2)
s/to to/you to/
This article made me so irritable I started mistyping things and didn't even preview.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The article is written by a fucktard. (Score:5, Funny)
Also, what the hell kind of lilies grow in your lake, that they crowd the whole damn thing out in a month and a half? Don't you ever rake them back and dredge it?
If they grow that fast, dredging is the least of your worries. In another 48 days, they'll have covered the entire earth. Oh, and if you leave even a single lily cell behind, they'll have covered the earth AGAIN in another 90 days or so. You're basically doomed.
GM Lilies! (Score:4, Funny)
Personally as a member of the human race I think that would be a fairly ignominious way to die off.
Alien Teacher: You see in this example the race of "Humans" actually managed to kill themselves off by creating a common "lily pad" (similar to our Xanopods here on Trellic) that reproduced much too quickly. It quickly choked out all food supplies and eventually the Humans themselves.
Alien Kid: But teacher, that is stupid why would they do that?
Alien Teacher: Because class, sometimes even very smart people can be stupid when they take cognitive shortcuts. OK class that is all for today, dismissed!
Re: (Score:2)
I understand why many people might divide by half, but really don't believe othe
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, you are stupid. Sorry, research doesnâ(TM)t lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Why on earth would you ever think that it was 10 cents for the ball and a dollar for the bat? You'd have to be stupid, or something.
I did that (yeah, call me stupid, like I care, it gets me women). Then I stopped and thought there must be something missing. The problem is actually divided into two parts:
ball + bat = 1.10, and bat + 1.00 = ball. If you're lazy like me (and no, that doesn't get me women. Yes, that's where I put the blame for not getting women), then you only look at the first half, ball + bat = 1.10. Find a solution that fits the first half, and your sick of stupid word problems anyway. Turn in your answer and go home (
I can vouch for that. (Score:5, Interesting)
In my own experience--both by observing smart people and by being one (if I may be so bold), I've noticed that the more "smart" a person is (by several definitions; see below), the more easily he/she can convince him/herself--and others--of incorrect things. Furthermore (as these findings suggest), a person who possesses unusually great capacity for self-analysis often becomes quite accustomed to analyzing things on a much "higher level" than what actually motivates one to (erroneous) thought and action.
For example, a "stupid" person might see another person as a threat to getting into a relationship with someone he/she, him/herself, likes, and will therefore treat that person poorly--while probably having few illusions about why he/she is doing so. A "smart" person, on the other hand, will have that same "root" motivation cause him/her to come up with "rational" reasons (which aren't nearly so rational as assumed, of course) for why that rival is actually bad at his/her job, "annoying," unethical, unreliable, unintelligent, etc., and will then treat that person badly without realizing just how "base" or "primal" the root cause of the behavior is.
Notably, I've seen/experienced this with people who are "smart" by way of IQ, and "smart" by way of education (and, of course by way of the two, combined; though--as we all know here--the two aren't always the same thing). Apparently, simply engaging the analytical portion of one's brain habitually--whether by training or nature--almost invariably creates this effect--and can often lead to some truly irritating "smart" people (myself at the forefront, at times, I'll admit).
I'm glad that someone with "license to wear a lab coat" has also determined as much in a somewhat more scientific/official fashion.
Re: (Score:3)
I personally think this article is destructive in claiming that there is no mental facility for getting underneath bias. Clearly if it exists it's something other than rationality alone, and it's rare enough that it barely moves the needle in group norms.
Kahneman is doing us a service to point out that universal tendency toward bias is the best first approximation, and that intelligence on its own is no antidote.
Kahneman is doing us a disservice to presume that there's no human capacity which does make a d
Re: (Score:3)
How could a person who sees the idiosyncrasies of society laid-bare (to some significant degree) tolerate not to act otherwise than those idiosyncrasies dictate?
Most of us simply descend into lives of desperation and depression. Eventually we die, relieved that it's over. At least, that's what I think happens.
Smoochies...
Jean-Paul Sartre
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the college-educated AGW and evolution denialists.
AI vs People (Score:3)
An interesting extension of this issue of introspection is that: In some cases, AI systems perform much better than humans.
To a machine, there is no such thing as subconscious. Given the limitations of hooks built in to a system, one can always ask a machine to 'explain itself' when it makes a decision. This could take the form of a cor dump, list of fired rules, or scores of each alternative path at every decision node.
In addition, humans can build knowledge bases from various sources. And at the time knowledge is acquired, it can be weighted by the credibility of its origin. But, once committed to memory, the origins of these 'training sets' is often forgotten. And should some reason arise to downgrade the credibility of a knowledge source, machines can much more easily recalculate the rule weights leading from it.
Got both problems right the first try... (Score:4, Interesting)
Both problems given in the article were word math problems.
and
I got them both right almost immediately, but I think I understand why people would frequently make the errors the article mentioned.
Ultimately, I think that the reason people make those mistakes is not because they are naturally irrational, but because they simply have not had enough practice at those types of math problems.
The former took me back to grade 7 math... where I was always solving for x. How I would have done it on paper is as follows:
I happened to solve this particular one in my head, but the mental steps I took still reflected the above process. And I think it's the sheer amount of practice that I got solving those types of problems in grade 7 and 8 that I didn't get hung up on anything.
The latter problem was so obvious, I didn't even have to arrange a formula to solve it... saying it doubles every day, and filling after 48 days means it *MUST* be half full after 47 days. There's probably a formula for it, but I didn't happen to notice it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would suggest that people with a lot of math background aren't as likely to slip up on those types of problems, even though the answers are no more important for them than they are for anybody else... I would suggest that they are less likely to make the mistake simply because they've had so much practice at solving those types of problems than most people.
Fortunately, the solution is obvious. (Score:5, Interesting)
So other people, even stupid people, will have a relatively easy time spotting my mistakes? Meaning that all I have to do is listen to them when they try to point them out to me. Problem solved.
This is how I lose at chess (Score:4, Insightful)
When I'm playing a weaker opponent in chess I tend to be extremely careless with my queen and I put her in dangerous places that are quite threatening. The strategy relies on the fact that weaker chess players get squeamish when an opponent's queen hangs out on their side of the board and they start investing too many of their moves into defense, thus ceding board control.
The downside is that a strong opponent knows to relentlessly attack the queen until she's either dead or in a position that isn't advantageous. Another downside is that, even against weaker opponents, she's still in a vulnerable position and I tend to lose her that way.
A computer would never do what I do with my queen (and I would never use the strategy vs. a computer . . . again). What makes people intelligent is their ability to make estimates, predictions, and generalizations that compensate for the limitations of memory. I may not be able to beat my computer in chess, but my computer works harder than an entire nation of brains to kick my ass at it.
I don't like the article confusing this way of thinking with irrationality, concluding that, "we're not nearly as rational as we believe." One's thinking can be rational and imprecise. It can also be rational and wrong. These little tests these researchers are doling out catch people on common fallacies. The more intelligent you are the less likely you are to second guess your answer, the more likely you are to rely on a logical shortcut. Like playing a weak chess opponent. And then, when you've lost, your weak chess opponent can point and laugh and say something stupid that he somehow thinks is clever, like, "hah! Smart people are stupid!"
That's why, in the rematch after losing to a weaker opponent, I dot all my i's and cross all my t's. I don't experiment and I double (triple, quadruple, etc.) check my moves before committing to them. Then, after my pride has been returned, I go back to poking and prodding with attempts to scholar's mate my opponent in some variation because no other victory is more satisfying.
Too smart for easy money (Score:2)
please read this book (Score:4, Insightful)
The Invisible Gorilla: How Our Intuitions Deceive Us
If you care at all about understanding how your brain works, this is important. The book is very well researched and explained and full of real examples in many areas and backed up with serious science. Our brains lie to us about what they do and how well they do it in nearly every respect. I almost want to force feed it to everyone I know, because it's just that significant. Please read it.
Poker hands (Score:3)
It sounds a lot like when a you watch a friend play a hand in poker and you can see all the mistakes, but when you are in the hand you are blind to them.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
sound like people with BAs in CS doing IT (Score:2)
sound like people with BAs in CS doing IT
They may have book smarts but there IT smarts are mostly theory with out the hands on parts.
Re: (Score:2)
sound like people with BAs in CS doing IT
They may have book smarts but there IT smarts are mostly theory with out the hands on parts.
Not to bash the Arts degree, but a CS degree is BS. Also, IT isn't science. A computer scientist working in IT is akin to an MD striping candy.
It might also be ego driven (Score:2)
Tying your self worth to being smart might also mean you question potential mistakes less often.
You're right and everyone else is wrong because a stupid person couldn't possibly have a better answer.
Not buying it (Score:2)
This is just an article designed to make stupid people feel better about themselves.
Everyone is smart and dumb (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't really agree with the conventional idea of people being "smart" and "dumb", the concepts are used in shallow ways. Most people I've met are "smart" in some form, even as so many have proven themselves dumb in another form. I believe that it's a matter of how it manifests.
Some people are good at memorizing things. Some people have a keen perception of patterns which gives them insight into what might logically come next. Some people just put a lot of effort into studying and work their way into understanding a subject through sheer diligence. Some are fast learners. And that thug loitering on the street corner that barely knows how to speak properly? He picks up on body language in a way nobody else can.
Meanwhile those people all have their flaws. The memorization guy might have horrible social skills. Perhaps insightful pattern guy gets sentimental about the things he believes in, and thus becomes stubborn and irrational about things that don't match his views. The diligent one is really just a stubborn person faking it-- they are terrible and it takes them a long time to learn, but they invest the time beating it into their head. The fast learner picks up on something quickly, but then becomes bored of it right away and moves on with only a superficial understanding of the subject. Or, the fast learner never learned to study, so when the time comes he is in a fix. I think you can fill in the blanks as you wish for the thug on the street corner.
This is the reason why society manages to function while we witness so many stupid people.
Uh.. wait a minute (Score:2)
. We scrutinize our motivations and search for relevant reasons; we lament our mistakes to therapists and ruminate on the beliefs that led us astray. The problem with this ... is that the driving forces behind biasesâ"the root causes of our irrationalityâ"are largely unconscious, which means they remain invisible to self-analysis and impermeable to intelligence. ...blinding us to those primal processes responsible for many of our everyday failings.
Uh, I think a therapist would tell you that's why you need them.
Just sayin'
The point is, we need each other (Score:2)
A smart person can't be smart without interaction with others. Preferably other intelligence. It's called iron sharpening iron.
That's what she said (Score:2)
We scrutinize our motivations and search for relevant reasons; we lament our mistakes to therapists and ruminate on the beliefs that led us astray. The problem with this introspective approach is that the driving forces behind biases—the root causes of our irrationality—are largely unconscious, which means they remain invisible to self-analysis and impermeable to intelligence.
I call Bullshit!
Old news (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I feel stupider just reading the summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. One of the things that I find is a problem with really bright people is overconfidence, a belief that because they are brilliant in one area, they therefore are brilliant in all areas. You find this sort of thing with engineers who think they are scientists, doctors who think they are scientists, or scientists who make fools of themselves by making elaborate and tragically awful claims in areas where they have no expertise.
True polymaths are probably so rare that even the most seasoned and well-connected academic won't meet one.
Re: (Score:3)
engineers who think they are scientists.
Computer engineers who think they're engineers, for that matter...
Re: (Score:2)
Or engineers who think "PE" or "EE" irrevocably imbibes them with capability in engineering - or, for that matter, competence in general.
I'm a "computing engineer", not in that I think of myself as an engineer, but because I engineer things. In computing, your paper certificate means nothing: what matters is competence and engineering capability.
That said: I know a lot of really shit "software engineers", ie people who couldn't properly design a toilet paper roll onto the dispenser.
It's a wide ranging course (Score:2)
I used to be an engineer, but then somebody had to look after a cluster a bit over a decade ago and I can't call my job engineering any mor
Re:I feel stupider just reading the summary (Score:5, Funny)
I agree. It's like how economists are always so shocked that girls with the least principle always seem to draw the most interest.
What Constitutes an "Education?" Or "Smart?" (Score:2)
I'd argue that the guy who went into debt to finance his MFA in Byzantine Art History is several times stupider, on multiple levels, than the High School graduate who apprenticed himself to a plumber at age 18.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because you do not understand someones motivation, does not mean that that motivation is stupid. Not everybody picks their major with dollar signs in their eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but the only reason to get a MFA in Byzantine Art History is to decode the secret symbols to activate the ancient machine of doom so you can be a James Bond Villain, holding the world for ransom for enough money to pay off the loans. Thus the graduation ceremony should result in immediate imprisonment.
-nB
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So I'm guessing that by your above (GP) post and this PP following it that you are highly educated likely from Berkley or Stanford (RPI and MIT grads don't make those kinds of errors :p )
-nB
Re: (Score:2)
Most people really start forming rational political preferences out of college. College is such a protected environment, shelter food education gym huge amounts actives going on, all paid for by student loans that you don't need to worry about yet. Any money you make will first go to books and after that it is all recreational spending. This is good for education because you can focus on your studies without the worries of real life problems. However your political opinion at the time isn't complete.
After
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The majority of universities are left wing because that is in their best self interest. Look at who pays professors at state-run universities: the state. In general, democrats spend more on education meaning the university gets more money and they get paid more. Similarly if you are in the "p
Re:Liberals = More Educated = More Cognitive Error (Score:4, Interesting)
You could have cut down your entire post by simply acknowledging that Universities lean left because critical thinking, empirical evidence, scientific inquiry, meta-cognition, and heavy doses of skepticism are staples for both.
You also failed to acknowledge that what qualifies as "right wing" and "left wing" swings wildly based on era and geography. I registered Republican in the 1980s. I haven't had anyone in my party to vote for since G. H. W. Bush left office. I've also lived in Georgia and Texas, but grew up in the Northwest. I'm more liberal than some so called "Democrats" in those states. I've also lived in England and Germany, where the concept of right and left are on completely different scales.
So, no, I don't think your analysis is very accurate. In fact, it sounds like the same sort of anti-intellectual rationalization for not having an education that I hear daily on conservative talk radio.
Re:Liberals = More Educated = More Cognitive Error (Score:5, Funny)
Its not that conservatives are generally stupid, it is that the stupid people are generally conservative. It is the base of support they lean upon.
Apologies to JSMill for the poor paraphrase.
Re:Liberals = More Educated = More Cognitive Error (Score:4, Interesting)
Well there are more factors.
Blue states tend to have more colleges, because blue states have more/bigger cities.
Cities in order to operate work best with liberal principals. Bigger government to offer services because in the city you don't have resources to be fully self reliant. You need city water and sewer because there isn't room for well and septic systems. Too many cars you need a good public transit system to move around faster. When you live in a city the government is the good guy.
Red states are In rural areas you have land and you are more self reliant. Your house your own infrastructure, you will wait public transit just won't work so you need your own car. The government is seen as a force that taxes your income for services you don't use and maker of rules that restrict your freedom. So you are more apt to favor conservatives.
In college the more conservative students are more apt to hit the books and study, while the liberal ones will party more. However the liberal students are less career minded and will more likely go directly into higher education.
So are liberal or conservatives smarter? Probably not much of a difference, in terms of smarts. But more into life choices.
Re: (Score:3)
Red states are In rural areas you have land and you are more self reliant.
Actually Red states are higher recipients of Federal aid than Blue states.
Re:Liberals = More Educated = More Cognitive Error (Score:4, Informative)
I was skeptical, and looked up some data. It seems this is indeed correct.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-spending-received-dollar-taxes-paid-state-2005 [taxfoundation.org]
Quite interesting.
Re: (Score:3)
In college the more conservative students are more apt to hit the books and study, while the liberal ones will party more. However the liberal students are less career minded and will more likely go directly into higher education.
Complete and utter horse-shit. When I was in school, it was the more liberal students who kept long hours in the library and hit the books, whilst the more conservative-leaning tended to join social fraternities and stay drunk. Associates of mine, regardless of whether they went to state schools or private institutions, will back me up. Your post seemed somewhat insightful until that last paragraph, with which your entire argument ran off the rails.
Re: (Score:2)
You really can't extrapolate the legislature's education level to the rest of the country... If that was possible then 90 something percent of us would be lawyers.
-nB