in a day it will be the one year anniversary of THE BLUEFUTURE, this shit is fun. I has changed from the outlet for sharing the interesting things I find online to a place where I can rant, forget what I wrote soon after I wrote it, then get in trouble for it months later when someone forgets that I wrote it before I knew them.
I'm figuring out something stupid for the anniversary.
While it is consistent with the prediction
of the Hypothesis,
the conclusion in my
previous post that liberals are on
average more intelligent than
conservatives may not resonate with
most people’s daily observations and
experiences. If they are more
intelligent, why are liberals – especially those
in Hollywood and academia –
so much more likely than conservatives
to say and do stupid things and hold incredulous
beliefs and ideas that stretch
credibility?
Bruce G. Charlton, Professor of Theoretical Medicine
at the University of Buckingham and Editor in
Chief of Medical Hypotheses, may have an explanation.
In his editorial in the December 2009 issue of
Medical Hypotheses, Charlton suggests that liberals
and other int
elligent people may be “clever sillies,”
who incorrectly apply abstract logical reasoning
to social and interpersonal domains. As I explain
in an earlier post, general intelligence –
the ability to think and reason –
likely evolved as a domain-specific evolved psychological
mechanism to solve evolutionarily novel problems,
whereas, for all evolutionarily familiar problems,
there are other dedicated evolved psychological
mechanisms. Everyone – intelligent or not –
is evolutionarily equipped with the ability
to solve such evolutionarily familiar problems
in the social and interpersonal domains as
mating, parenting, social exchange, and personal
relationships, with the other evolved
psychological mechanisms.
Charlton suggests that the totality of all
the other evolved psychological mechanisms
(except for general intelligence) represents
what we normally call “common sense.”
Everyone has common sense.
Intelligent people, however, have a tendency
to overapply their analytical and
logical reasoning abilities derived from their
general intelligence incorrectly to such
evolutionarily familiar domains and as a result
get things wrong. In other words, liberals
and other intelligent
people lack common sense, because their
general intelligence overrides it. They think
in situations where they are supposed to feel.
In evolutionarily familiar domains such as
interpersonal relationships, feeling
usually leads to correct solutions whereas thinking does not.
I personally dislike Charlton’s term “clever sillies”
– I don’t like the British usage of both words:
“clever” and “silly.” But otherwise I completely agree
with his analysis substantively. As Charlton points out,
common sense is eminently evolutionarily familiar.
Our ancestors could not have survived
a single day in their hostile environment full of predators
and enemies if they did not possess functional
common sense. That’s why it has become integral
part of evolved human nature in the form of evolved
psychological mechanisms in the social and
interpersonal domains. Because common sense is
evolutionarily familiar and thus natural, the Hypothesis
would predict that more intelligent people may be
less likely to resort to it. They may be more likely to
resort to evolutionarily
novel, non-common sensical, stupid ideas to solve
problems in the evolutionarily familiar domains.
This, incidentally, is the reason I never use words like
“smart” and “clever” as synonyms for “intelligent.”
Similarly, I never use words like “dumb” and “stupid”
as synonyms for “unintelligent.” “Intelligent” has a
specific scientific meaning – possessing higher levels
of general intelligence – whereas “smart” and “stupid”
have more to do with common sense than intelligence.
From my perspective, more intelligent people like
liberals are more likely to be “stupid” (lacking common sense),
whereas less intelligent people like conservatives
are more likely to be “smart.”
Once again, Matt Stone and Trey Parker –
the co-creators of South Park– get it perfectly.
In the
episode “Go God Go XII,” the Wise One
(the elderly leader of atheist otters) says,
with reference to Richard Dawkins:
of the Hypothesis,
the conclusion in my
previous post that liberals are on
average more intelligent than
conservatives may not resonate with
most people’s daily observations and
experiences. If they are more
intelligent, why are liberals – especially those
in Hollywood and academia –
so much more likely than conservatives
to say and do stupid things and hold incredulous
beliefs and ideas that stretch
credibility?
Bruce G. Charlton, Professor of Theoretical Medicine
at the University of Buckingham and Editor in
Chief of Medical Hypotheses, may have an explanation.
In his editorial in the December 2009 issue of
Medical Hypotheses, Charlton suggests that liberals
and other int
elligent people may be “clever sillies,”
who incorrectly apply abstract logical reasoning
to social and interpersonal domains. As I explain
in an earlier post, general intelligence –
the ability to think and reason –
likely evolved as a domain-specific evolved psychological
mechanism to solve evolutionarily novel problems,
whereas, for all evolutionarily familiar problems,
there are other dedicated evolved psychological
mechanisms. Everyone – intelligent or not –
is evolutionarily equipped with the ability
to solve such evolutionarily familiar problems
in the social and interpersonal domains as
mating, parenting, social exchange, and personal
relationships, with the other evolved
psychological mechanisms.
Charlton suggests that the totality of all
the other evolved psychological mechanisms
(except for general intelligence) represents
what we normally call “common sense.”
Everyone has common sense.
Intelligent people, however, have a tendency
to overapply their analytical and
logical reasoning abilities derived from their
general intelligence incorrectly to such
evolutionarily familiar domains and as a result
get things wrong. In other words, liberals
and other intelligent
people lack common sense, because their
general intelligence overrides it. They think
in situations where they are supposed to feel.
In evolutionarily familiar domains such as
interpersonal relationships, feeling
usually leads to correct solutions whereas thinking does not.
I personally dislike Charlton’s term “clever sillies”
– I don’t like the British usage of both words:
“clever” and “silly.” But otherwise I completely agree
with his analysis substantively. As Charlton points out,
common sense is eminently evolutionarily familiar.
Our ancestors could not have survived
a single day in their hostile environment full of predators
and enemies if they did not possess functional
common sense. That’s why it has become integral
part of evolved human nature in the form of evolved
psychological mechanisms in the social and
interpersonal domains. Because common sense is
evolutionarily familiar and thus natural, the Hypothesis
would predict that more intelligent people may be
less likely to resort to it. They may be more likely to
resort to evolutionarily
novel, non-common sensical, stupid ideas to solve
problems in the evolutionarily familiar domains.
This, incidentally, is the reason I never use words like
“smart” and “clever” as synonyms for “intelligent.”
Similarly, I never use words like “dumb” and “stupid”
as synonyms for “unintelligent.” “Intelligent” has a
specific scientific meaning – possessing higher levels
of general intelligence – whereas “smart” and “stupid”
have more to do with common sense than intelligence.
From my perspective, more intelligent people like
liberals are more likely to be “stupid” (lacking common sense),
whereas less intelligent people like conservatives
are more likely to be “smart.”
Once again, Matt Stone and Trey Parker –
the co-creators of South Park– get it perfectly.
In the
episode “Go God Go XII,” the Wise One
(the elderly leader of atheist otters) says,
with reference to Richard Dawkins:
“Perhaps the Great Dawkins wasn’t so wise.
Oh, he was intelligent, but some of the
most intelligent otters that I’ve ever known
were completely lacking in common sense.”