Why Smart People Believe Stupid Things.

[Maxmars]

Thought there was a great video right here about 'delusion' and the fact that 'smart' people are just as liable to be affected by it as 'stupid' ones.

Genuinely thought provoking stuff.

• Academic studies on ideological bias get brought up as well as 'fashionably irrational beliefs' (FIBs) and palpable 'woke' absurdities.

[Video: https://youtu.be/5Peima-Uw7w]

It's a pretty short watch and gets better towards the end so would appreciate any comments on it (for or against).

OK, because you always submit such thought-provoking material, I am compelled to expose my opinion...

My first observation, sequentially speaking, is about the "Orthogonality thesis" which seems to me to be the product of reducing reason to a mathematical function... namely, humans acting as a 'differential' evaluator of presumed facts.  Like a machine, our minds 'calculate' what seem evident from the set of facts or data we adopt as relevant to judgment.  But, I have to point out, that humans are intuitive (not calculating) and not restricted to proscribed logical models of interpretation. 

I think humans feel truth as a response to harmony and predictability, not the resolution of formulae, as a machine's focused restrictions would necessarily demand.

The author embarks on a diatribe about the nature and function of truth as it pertains to human endeavor.  Immediately highlighting the 'personal goal' aspect of the existence of truth... in other words, if it suits a human, a human will 'believe' certain truths, and mangle other truth, irrespective of objective reality.  So in this conceptualization, humans are not reliable as a source of actual truth, only its effect to themselves introspectively.

The author's inspiration comes from a particular perspective imposed by a thinker who casts a difficult aspersion on human cognitive behavior. 

It takes the form of embedding an irrefutable aspect of humans seeking truth.  He states that humans will believe whatever suits them in terms of validating or elevating their social position, their acceptance within a community.  Proposing that this 'causes' the adoption of 'popular' or 'en vogue' precepts or biases... and that the more intelligent the human is, the more robustly they can 'justify or support' their chosen socially-expressed thought path or belief.  In other words, the better rationalizer is necessarily the more intelligent person... even if they are wrong.  Being right or wrong is not determined by intelligence.

But consider those who have attempted to promote a truth that no one believed... there are many examples... and now consider the likelihood that someone promoting a truth that no one will accept is damning their social position... is that "self-destructive?"  (Or, for example, was Galileo just a narcissist looking for attention?)

He segues into the 'training' that most people undergo... directly in many case, but subliminally in others, that as long as you can argue well... you don't 'have' to be right.  Citing law, politics, and "media" as prime examples... but I have to point out again, that in all those examples, it is almost never the case that "all" facts are disclosed or included in an arguments' end result... only the subset offered for consideration.

In the perfect world of "theory" we might be inclined to assume that all things are equal... that all data is known, and that everyone receives and understands the information equally well... but here at DI and other places, we can see that is hardly ever the case.

I don't want to give the impression that I reject the author and his words... in fact, many of them are sound observations, and useful for any person to consider carefully, assuming they are keen to discover and learn about their own judgments... But at least to me, it all boils down to what the person doing the thinking a) wants, and b) is willing to let go of.

In the act of acknowledging that 'what I believe' can be skewed by 'what I want' and cemented by 'what I won't let go of' it is important to understand that 'classic' reasoning is not the whole picture when it comes to bias.  That intelligence, to myself, is only one aspect of 'belief;' and not it's totality, as it is in most persuasive 'social' reality.

The question of the video is "Why do smart people believe stupid things?"  But this video doesn't really explain why... only how. 

If we were to isolate the examples the author includes towards the explanation of his ideas, we might be inclined to say "He thinks this or that is stupid." but that would be premature and perhaps prejudicial, yet the opportunity to characterize the work is there nevertheless.

Bias is as bias does.  Intelligence alone cannot destroy it.  It takes heart; which ironically is what might have caused the bias in the first place.


Thanks for bringing this up... I love many of these 'After Skool' videos generally...  They are almost always worth the time it takes to experience them.