Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think an element of intelligence is the ability to listen to and process viewpoints other than your own....to make sense of information that is out there in the world and come to your own conclusions about what you 'think.' Sometimes you even have to admit you were wrong about something!
I know too many people who simpy regurgitate what they hear in the media. They will not read, listen, watch anything that does not conform to the beliefs held in their bubble. Moreover, they hold people of opposing viewpoints with a level of contempt that I don't think is deserved (I mean, unless the opposing view is simply out there in the stratosphere....in which case 'intelligence' would tell you that's not something you'd want to consider). They also generally hang a label on those with opposing views....racist, homophobe, left wing whackaloon, SJW.....you know....
I think this is a different dynamic (maybe?) than when we are young, in school, and learning the basics (although I suppose everything can be questioned to some degree).
It's tiring to think for yourself, but the older I get the more I value this path.
The Anti-Occam's Razorist
Most people, when presented with a mystery, will start with the simplest explanation and then move on to more complicated explanations if the simplest are not sufficient. Anti-Occam's Razorist always start with the most complicated and then move (begrudgingly) to simpler explanations if the most complicated is not sufficient.
Eg: They think they left their wallet on the table, but it is not there:
- Most people think "I must have left it somewhere else. Only if that doesn't explain it I'll move to a more complicated explanation."
- Anti-Occam's Razorist think "A still alive Elvis broke in and stole it. Only if that doesn't explain it will I move to a simpler explanation."
There are a few posters in the "Unexplained Mysteries and Paranormal" forum who would fit that, and some others dotted around.
Anti-Occam's Razorist can still get to the truth if they check their beliefs against evidence - it is just less efficient that using Occam's Razor. However if the Anti-Occam Razorists also have confirmation bias (that a lot of everyone has), there is a danger they will get stuck in the far fetched explanation.
Anti-expertists
One key difference between humans and animals, is that we can store and communicate knowledge over the world and over time. A 2021 monkey cannot gain any knowledge from a 1700 monkey. I can read Newton and directly gain knowledge from a 1700 man. Further I can read a review of Newton, and so get a second level abstraction of Newton's knowledge. This allows humans to build on knowledge that we didn't derive from he first person, but rather through communication from others.
The problem is then who do we trust to gain knowledge from? Most people would trust subject matter experts, who we trust because we in turn trust the selection process for them and the education system they went through.
The anti-expertists do not trust experts, because they either don't trust the selection process or the education system. The problem here is they miss out on the benefits that humans have as described in the first para of this section - a person can gain a lot more knowledge learning from experts and then building further, than trying to build everything up themselves. Hence these people end up with less knowledge than those who do lean on experts where required.
You will find many on this forum who fall in that category.
The Anti-Occam's Razorist anti-expertists
These people are both the above, nothing more to be said.
The politics before knowledgists
These people use a system of epistemology where political affiliation (or indeed values) come first, and then knowledge is only that which is consistent with the political position.
They think something like this:
"What is the factual knowledge about global warming? Well my politics and values say that I should be free to drive a diesel car as long as I want to, therefore diesel cars can't be harmful to the environment. I'll now go find something somewhere on the internet to back up this position."
You can see people on this forum with this type of posts for many different topics, as long as the topic has political undertones.
These groups used to be different, but the advent of social media has allowed the groups to find each other and mingle under the banner of "Against the mainstream."
We all live in our insulated worlds, content in large part that we have the "answer", scoffing at those who fail to agree with us. Threads like this that boast of superior intelligence ignore the influence of luck when it comes to success. This is especially true for those who are highly educated, and thus more deserving of respect and even adulation, at least in their own estimation.
I didn't have the options that some here enjoyed, having had to work since I was eight, having had to buy my own clothes, and having to live in a horribly abusive family atmosphere. I was lucky to have the ability to engage in critical thinking however. This allowed me to think my way out of threatening situations and to use reason to escape, whereas someone not born with that innate ability may not have survived. That didn't make me a better person, it just was.
Being young, I also made bad choices, some of which were due to laziness, and some influenced by luck. I was plucked from elementary school by McGraw Hill to help them develop their scholastic tests, having been tested as off the scale for intelligence. I soon became bored however and was simply amused by the consternation of those who interfaced with me and who tried to cajole me into performing like their pet seal, dangling toys and money as an incentive, all of which I treated with disdain. As a result I was returned to the general population.
Then again, excelling had always been too easy, and my continued laziness along with the psychological impediment of being raised in an insane household made me retreat into my own comfortable world, where I could always take solace in the fact that I saw things more clearly than others, even if I didn't have their advantages. I now believe that my resentment at having to work while others played colored my perceptions of life in general.
I never studied or did homework yet continued to ace every test and receive high grades. I accepted this with aplomb, not appreciating that I had a gift that could have been exploited. I was so introverted that I was considered an oddball, but again I was comfortable with my isolation.
I worked full time through middle school and high school in order to have something to my name. I experimented with Junior college for a year but the influence of female companionship lead me in other directions and I abandoned the more difficult path toward higher education in favor of fun and a raging libido. That I couldn't afford to put myself through college was simply an excuse.
I prospered in every job in my career, rising to the top quickly in every field of endeavor, and found it laughably easy to do so. I never attained a degree but, as an example of my achievements, which included my own inventions and technical discoveries, was asked by megacorp to come back to train their engineers as a contractor. By that time my priorities had changed however, so I politely declined.
I began training in martial arts in my early 20's, which is perhaps one of the only good decisions I ever made, other than marrying my wife. With training and the introduction to an eastern philosophy came humility. I learned that I was, and am, truly nothing special. Anyone can be beat at any thing, which is a lesson that is hopefully bestowed with age. Unless it's not.
Those who brag on anonymous threads of their brilliance and of their ability to discern "the truth" don't always give credit to the fortunate circumstance of their birth into a supportive family, or of the accident of genetics that gifted them the ability to engage in critical thinking.
I find myself in a sea of ignorance, and always have, as do many here, yearning for intelligent conversation but realizing that not everyone shares my passion for discovery. That being said, I have little patience for uninformed hubris, which grates on my nerves due to the arrogance of certainty by those who should be more inquisitive, more open to challenges to their assumptions, and less convinced of their own superiority.
I guess that says I have more work to do on my ego.
I agree with what you're saying here. And I definitely paused a little when I went to write about my selection process for information that I choose to accept and inform myself with, because I thought, "Does this sound like I'm trying to bloviate about how smart I think I am?" I grew up with relatives who scorned high minded others as "they think they're better than us" and was often told not to "toot my own horn" because "nobody likes a know it all."
But as an adult, I have to consider this whole picture, and seek a balance.
There is an unhealthy extreme to erasure of the self and the ego. Especially for a woman, I think. If one raises a girl this way, where disappointment is expressed abundantly for every failure, and scorn for every success, and pride never allowed for anything, you end up with a young woman who accepts an abusive relationship and lets someone else grind her into the dirt. Who expects other people to choose to behave well, after all, I am not better than anyone else, so they COULD do right if they chose....and when they don't, I am let down. It must be my lack of worth, that made them choose to treat me badly...after all, they could have done as I would have done, because I am no better than anybody.
Well? Sometimes that isn't true, is it?
But the other and is an inflated ego, and one that is stubbornly blind to the fact that luck and chance play a role in our lives. Many things that are out of our own control, along with our choices (often made blind and unable to see where they would lead) got us to the place where we are. So one must embrace some humility in the face of all that, as you say, at least to be grateful for one's advantages. And never to take them for granted.
I've found that in so many things, trying to be healthy...mentally, emotionally, spiritually...is about seeking a balance. I've enjoyed some eastern philosophy, too. But I cannot accept that there is nobility in suffering, nor that it is inevitable or that it is the essence of existence. Life will give us many things, many chances to experience suffering but also many chances to experience joy. Things that push us down, things that lift us up. We get to choose what to place value and weight on, in our thoughts, words, and actions.
But at the end of the day, I saw some value in speaking to my information selection processes here, because of discussions I've had with others, beloved family members and strangers alike. We live in a world where our information environment is definitely pushing people this way and that, trying to garner our support for various things. I can't be blind to the harm involved when it turns us against each other.
Because in all of it, I desperately do not want to see us lose our KINDNESS. If there is a higher purpose to our existence, I feel that surely it is related to kindness. And kindness really does get lost when people prioritize bias confirming shouty propaganda over carefully considered, properly vetted, intelligently researched information. We are not going to always get it right, we're not perfect, but damn...we should try, don't you think?
I've become far more discerning about my sources. For me, that's become the standard.
A favorite expert of mine is a historian who writes daily letters, does video talks twice a week, and a podcast. She cites her sources, if she is speaking about a subject, I have high confidence that she has RESEARCHED it at the expert level. She isn't going to talk about a piece of legislation without reading the entire thing. I feel that informed selection of one's trusted sources is important.
Not really a secret, no, and you are correct. I was not wanting to throw the thread into a tangent or start people off debating the merits of her position. It's not why we're here, to talk about her specifically.
I was just explaining the standards I've tried to set in terms of whose opinion I place weight on, and why.
Even if someone holds very different views from me or is part of a group that opposes where I presently stand, if they have the credentials and speak with good sense from a highly informed place, are willing to cite sources, etc then I am going to listen.
Like a lot of conservatives CLAIM (but don't always do, since they watch Fox News) I really do not pay any attention to the "Mainstream Media." I mean, I might see a local interest story about someone getting shot and think, "Oh heck is that near the house of this person that I know?" or I might take momentary note of the weather forecast. But cable news from any of the big networks? No.
Also a big no to publications large and small that are non stop with the outrage and those that use weasel words to try and "suggest" a conclusion that is premature or not supported by evidence. And I definitely see plenty of that online that is meant to cater to the left or the right, pushing people to more extreme positions because they know that it will keep folks interested in what they are trying to keep your eyeballs on.
There is more than a war on intelligence going on in America. There is an information war that is meant to push us to a civil war. I've been saying for many years that the "end game" is to fracture this country into multiple smaller nations with less global power. I get why some other countries might want that to happen. But no matter even now, how much people think that we've got irreconcilable differences with whatever "the other side" might be to any one of us...I don't think that this is best for us, as individuals or as a nation.
So no matter what your priorities or what you think, I believe that above all, it's important to be kind, to remember that almost all of the people around you actually are decent people just trying to live decent lives, and that those with whom you disagree are not an enemy. And I think that rising above the "war on intelligence" such as it is, is really defying the will of those who want us to hate each other.
At least, that is how it's playing out here in the States.
Please indulge me, who is here to save us all then? The lowly educated rubes who see through it all and see it for what it actually is? The 'Q' brigade? Flat earthers? Anti-vaxxers? Other conspiracy theory wonks? I've read a fair share of cynical thoughts on who's trustworthy and who isn't, but I haven't seen a single post that addresses a solution or who is at the forefront of bringing all this corruption down.
You complain about other people, but you really have a very black and white, arrogant attitude. If someone doesn't agree with "the educated" then you've got a litany of different names to call people rather than actually listenting.
As far as bringing all the corruption down. Well, we need God for that. That doesn't mean God does it all, but we do it in partnership with God. And that's not the same thing as religion. It will be a variety of different actions by people with true faith in God that bring the corruption down. But first we have to be hungy for God.
More like A-B students will be expected to just be quiet and keep everything running and efficient. While the C-D-F students get to think they're in charge and given titles to satisfy their egos.
That's sort of the model they've got going on in most Red States already.
Come to blue state California. It's run by the liberal "A" students. And it's a mess. There's a reason why liberals like Joe Rogan have left for a red state. Blue states are smart but often lack common sense. Liberal Bill Maher said the same thing in the last half of this video:
I'll leave you with a chilling excerpt from a book written by a man you've probably heard of:
“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...
The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”
― Carl Sagan,
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark[/quote]
Carl Sagan got it right. I just think there are too many people who see "the other" as responsible for the degradation and not people who are of their own political persuasion.
I completely disagree with that assessment. That's the narrative being driven home by radical right wingers who view universities as "indoctrination camps". I graduated college in the last 15 years, and my experience was not that at all. Of course, when you're surrounded by young, progressive thinking people, it might feel like you're an outcast if you have conservative views. But I spent plenty of time in various conservative groups on campus, and never had issues with other students or professors. It's not to say there weren't some radical ones out there--that's everywhere. But the general vibe was that we all fit in and we could all share our viewpoints equally without severe criticism or alienation. One of my friends had a pretty high profile on campus; professors knew him well and he was well-respected. He was in various leadership positions in the campus' conservative student groups. After he left college, he actually came out as gay. But he's still a conservative.
Conservative/liberal or otherwise, if you're expecting not to have your views challenged on campus, then you're in the wrong place. Being challenged and then having to think about why you believe something and then explain that to others, THAT is developing critical thinking skills. A lot of people view that when their views are challenged, that it's castigation; they're just plain wrong. Those people need a safe space, not a college campus.
It isn't just the radical right saying this. There are lots of people on campus who don't want their views challenged and many of them are liberals. Even moderate to liberal professors like Jordan Peterson, Camille Paglia, Jonathan Haidt, Bret Weinsten, and others have spoken out on this. Haidt has done the most research and conluded universities used to tilt liberal but says they are now dominated by the leftist thinking. He says universities must choose betwee "Truth" or "Social Justice".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
