I think the issue is we don’t really have a measurement for intelligence. Qualitatively, I think you are more intelligent if you have the reasoning capabilities to logic yourself out of reactionary feelings like racism, but it’s really hard to measure that.
I don’t think such moral questions are at all influenced by intelligence, personally. Is there any data on this? I imagine it must be very hard since biological differences exists and it all kinda boils down to value judgments, which cannot be derived directly from scientific research alone.
I realize while arguing this that is is an extremely sensitive and hairy subject to even argue around. I appreciate you entertaining this 😄😄
Morality is influenced by ‘intelligence’ in like every way. Your ability to contrive bullshit and keep buying that bullshit, your willingness to terminate thoughts, your curiosity, and your ability to see why things matter and do shit like extend the scale of the self or take differing perspectives are all directly functions of various cognitive and psychological factors often called ‘intelligence’. Broadly intelligent people who are also pieces of shit are rare. Deeply stupid people who are broadly moral are rare. Even the ways people suck change as they acquire more ‘intelligence’.
No need to be hostile.
I don’t hear any direct counter arguments here other than you don’t agree with my claim. I am simply basing my opinion on the fact that I have not seen any evidence of there being a documented correlation, and also because history is full of very intelligent people being very racist and pro slavery.
Your ability to contrive bullshit and keep buying that bullshit, your willingness to terminate thoughts, your curiosity, and your ability to see why things matter and do shit like extend the scale of the self or take differing perspectives are all directly functions of various cognitive and psychological factors often called ‘intelligence’.
But all of that can still end in a racist worldview, depending on what directions you take your train of thought and what conclusions you find most plausible. That’s the old “FBI Crime Statistics” and “Social Darwinism” / “Bell Curve” gambit. And it works on a large number of proven intellectuals. FFS, James Watson - one of the pioneers of modern genetics - is a frothing racist. Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is a Christian Nationalist. Being “smart” isn’t a panacea for being gullible.
At some point, “intelligent” people are more vulnerable to misinformation than their “dumb” peers, because they have more experience absorbing and applying advanced theories and philosophies without fully grasping how they work. The more advanced you get in any scientific field, the more you’re forced to accept on faith because you recognize you simply don’t have the time or the energy to delve down every academic rabbit hole. The end result is a certain scholastic dogma that people cling to because they simply accept prior generations have done the leg-work.
Present information in the pastiche of academia and you can reliably delude academics and scholars up front. Argue convincingly with the right jargon, present walls of data with citations and graphics, and follow the superficial mannerisms of trustworthy peers. You’ll catch lots of people who have trained themselves to correlate the structure of the presentation as inherently trustworthy.
By contrast, folks who aren’t familiar or experienced with a certain scholarly formulation won’t be fooled simply because they don’t know how to absorb the information or recognize the display as a trustworthy format.
They define it’s limits and illustrate it’s flaws.
But what I see most commonly referred to as “intelligence” tends to be phrased as “common wisdom”. You cannot simultaneously be “smart” and “wrong”. Therefore, placidly regurgitating the correct answers somehow signify more intelligence than painstakingly carving out another view.
It’s obviously not a strict one-to-one relationship but I do think more intelligent people are on average slightly less racist.
I think the issue is we don’t really have a measurement for intelligence. Qualitatively, I think you are more intelligent if you have the reasoning capabilities to logic yourself out of reactionary feelings like racism, but it’s really hard to measure that.
I don’t think such moral questions are at all influenced by intelligence, personally. Is there any data on this? I imagine it must be very hard since biological differences exists and it all kinda boils down to value judgments, which cannot be derived directly from scientific research alone. I realize while arguing this that is is an extremely sensitive and hairy subject to even argue around. I appreciate you entertaining this 😄😄
Morality is influenced by ‘intelligence’ in like every way. Your ability to contrive bullshit and keep buying that bullshit, your willingness to terminate thoughts, your curiosity, and your ability to see why things matter and do shit like extend the scale of the self or take differing perspectives are all directly functions of various cognitive and psychological factors often called ‘intelligence’. Broadly intelligent people who are also pieces of shit are rare. Deeply stupid people who are broadly moral are rare. Even the ways people suck change as they acquire more ‘intelligence’.
Please cut the anti intellectual bullshit.
No need to be hostile. I don’t hear any direct counter arguments here other than you don’t agree with my claim. I am simply basing my opinion on the fact that I have not seen any evidence of there being a documented correlation, and also because history is full of very intelligent people being very racist and pro slavery.
You’re right, only stupid people are nice and good.
You do not seem very interested in having an honest discussion about this. That’s fine. Have a nice day anyway 😅
He’s too smart not to be an insufferable prick.
But all of that can still end in a racist worldview, depending on what directions you take your train of thought and what conclusions you find most plausible. That’s the old “FBI Crime Statistics” and “Social Darwinism” / “Bell Curve” gambit. And it works on a large number of proven intellectuals. FFS, James Watson - one of the pioneers of modern genetics - is a frothing racist. Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is a Christian Nationalist. Being “smart” isn’t a panacea for being gullible.
At some point, “intelligent” people are more vulnerable to misinformation than their “dumb” peers, because they have more experience absorbing and applying advanced theories and philosophies without fully grasping how they work. The more advanced you get in any scientific field, the more you’re forced to accept on faith because you recognize you simply don’t have the time or the energy to delve down every academic rabbit hole. The end result is a certain scholastic dogma that people cling to because they simply accept prior generations have done the leg-work.
Present information in the pastiche of academia and you can reliably delude academics and scholars up front. Argue convincingly with the right jargon, present walls of data with citations and graphics, and follow the superficial mannerisms of trustworthy peers. You’ll catch lots of people who have trained themselves to correlate the structure of the presentation as inherently trustworthy.
By contrast, folks who aren’t familiar or experienced with a certain scholarly formulation won’t be fooled simply because they don’t know how to absorb the information or recognize the display as a trustworthy format.
Outliers disprove the trend, its true. I’m glad I used absolute terms with no nuance and didn’t acknowledge this literally first thing in my comment.
They define it’s limits and illustrate it’s flaws.
But what I see most commonly referred to as “intelligence” tends to be phrased as “common wisdom”. You cannot simultaneously be “smart” and “wrong”. Therefore, placidly regurgitating the correct answers somehow signify more intelligence than painstakingly carving out another view.
Well, that’s sort of the joke, isn’t it?
So glad I didn’t indicate what I meant by the words I used and why they might matter.
You should work on that