The relevance of this to rationality, as I see it, is that to the extent that human conversation is not optimised for efficient exchange of information and problem solving, social conversation is a sub-optimal means of obtaining help from other people.
It may be true that conversation could have been better optimized to problem-solving, but that doesn’t imply that it is not the optimal method of gathering information in many cases. That said, you’re right about the fact that it is often suboptimal to get help from friends (vs internet or books), but I think this has more to do with the source than the medium of communication. If you were surrounded by people knowledgeable in the topics you are interested in, it wouldn’t be the best choice to read books only instead of simply asking them about things (although combining the methods usually brings better results). Conversation can get quite efficient in solving things in such an environment, the problem is rather that such environments are rare (so reading internet forums is eventually still better).
I’ll tell you what prompted me to write this piece: I should imagine that I’ve spent more time around fairly low-IQ people than most here. And I can’t help but notice that their conversations can seem to fall short of the rationality of which they are capable, even given that they aren’t the smartest folks (no disrespect intended, merely facts).
For example at a football match (typical working class social event in the UK), I can just see social chatter (grooming) being treated as serious analysis. People will discuss tactics and so forth for minutes on end without thinking precisely once—talking in circles, in an entirely superficial way—and yet there is nothing to betray that they recognise this themselves. I can join in, but being somewhat acutely aware of rationality and precise thinking, I have to consciously enter into “grooming” mode. The failure to do so may be the origin of common rationalist stereotypes (e.g. Spock) who often violate grooming norms in conversation for the sake of intellectual precision.
Admittedly, perhaps when the subject of conversation is more serious the brain recognises this and switches modes—but that isn’t the impression I’ve formed. Obviously that isn’t a compelling argument, but I think that maybe readers will draw upon their own experiences and find they agree with this analysis.
My article could have expressed what I was trying to say a little better. Basically, I think that people below a critical point in intelligence aren’t even subconsciously aware of this fact about their conversations. Therefore, they dumb themselves down by doing most of their thinking in the context of social conversation, which doesn’t encourage precision even when there is a problem under discussion that requires precise thinking.
By reading books and talking to knowledgeable people outside of a grooming context (e.g. on an impersonal kind of internet forum, or with some kind of professional) they are more likely to make full use of the precise, pedantic thinking that is the hallmark of rationality, within the bounds of the intelligence that they possess.
This is a different consideration, beyond the question of whether books and other information sources actually contain more relevant knowledge than friends have to offer. And the problem is probably greater when it comes to analysis and interpretation—the exchange of mere facts seems more compatible with grooming chatter than does, for example, discussion of whether it’s a good idea to get married (anything that involves long and complex chains of reasoning).
My article could have expressed what I was trying to say a little better. Basically, I think that people below a critical point in intelligence aren’t even subconsciously aware of this fact about their conversations.
I don’t know that intelligence is directly correlated to that. Socialization may have more to do with it—though individuals of higher intelligence may be less likely to so socialized as ‘nerd’ culture is more heavily geared towards instrumental problem-solving. I’ve seen very intelligent people who seemed to be entirely ignorant of the fact that all their conversations were achieving was essentially verbal grooming. Even in more ‘intelligent’ groups—I used to ‘head’ the local H+/transhumanist meetups in my area before they fell apart—the tendency towards ‘circle-jerk’ grooming-through-mindless-agreement becomes evident.
As to whether these individuals are aware of what they’re doing—I don’t know.
That being said; the habit of using speech as a social lubricant and tool to demonstrate commonality / mutual-identification rather than for any specifically productive end is ubiquitous, absolutely. And in writing this I am struck by a wide category of individuals I know—such as one young woman who is currently pursuing an accelerated 4-year course for a double-major; with a masters in Mechanical Engineering (and I forget the minor) who has routinely engaged in this sort of speech-patterns while apparently seeking problem-resolution. I stumble with her in communication very frequently as a result; I attempt to engage in real problem-solving and am met with disinterest or just confusion. (One such recurring topic; what she should do with herself upon the diagnosed-to-be-imminent death of her fiance.)
The point, if I even have one at all here, is that I do not believe this phenomenon is strictly inversely-correlated to intelligence, but rather to some other factor.
It may be true that conversation could have been better optimized to problem-solving, but that doesn’t imply that it is not the optimal method of gathering information in many cases. That said, you’re right about the fact that it is often suboptimal to get help from friends (vs internet or books), but I think this has more to do with the source than the medium of communication. If you were surrounded by people knowledgeable in the topics you are interested in, it wouldn’t be the best choice to read books only instead of simply asking them about things (although combining the methods usually brings better results). Conversation can get quite efficient in solving things in such an environment, the problem is rather that such environments are rare (so reading internet forums is eventually still better).
I’ll tell you what prompted me to write this piece: I should imagine that I’ve spent more time around fairly low-IQ people than most here. And I can’t help but notice that their conversations can seem to fall short of the rationality of which they are capable, even given that they aren’t the smartest folks (no disrespect intended, merely facts).
For example at a football match (typical working class social event in the UK), I can just see social chatter (grooming) being treated as serious analysis. People will discuss tactics and so forth for minutes on end without thinking precisely once—talking in circles, in an entirely superficial way—and yet there is nothing to betray that they recognise this themselves. I can join in, but being somewhat acutely aware of rationality and precise thinking, I have to consciously enter into “grooming” mode. The failure to do so may be the origin of common rationalist stereotypes (e.g. Spock) who often violate grooming norms in conversation for the sake of intellectual precision.
Admittedly, perhaps when the subject of conversation is more serious the brain recognises this and switches modes—but that isn’t the impression I’ve formed. Obviously that isn’t a compelling argument, but I think that maybe readers will draw upon their own experiences and find they agree with this analysis.
My article could have expressed what I was trying to say a little better. Basically, I think that people below a critical point in intelligence aren’t even subconsciously aware of this fact about their conversations. Therefore, they dumb themselves down by doing most of their thinking in the context of social conversation, which doesn’t encourage precision even when there is a problem under discussion that requires precise thinking.
By reading books and talking to knowledgeable people outside of a grooming context (e.g. on an impersonal kind of internet forum, or with some kind of professional) they are more likely to make full use of the precise, pedantic thinking that is the hallmark of rationality, within the bounds of the intelligence that they possess.
This is a different consideration, beyond the question of whether books and other information sources actually contain more relevant knowledge than friends have to offer. And the problem is probably greater when it comes to analysis and interpretation—the exchange of mere facts seems more compatible with grooming chatter than does, for example, discussion of whether it’s a good idea to get married (anything that involves long and complex chains of reasoning).
This sounds like that episode of the IT Crowd in which the computer guys learn to talk football (starting about 1:10).
In America, at least, this kind of talk is sometimes called shooting the shit
I don’t know that intelligence is directly correlated to that. Socialization may have more to do with it—though individuals of higher intelligence may be less likely to so socialized as ‘nerd’ culture is more heavily geared towards instrumental problem-solving. I’ve seen very intelligent people who seemed to be entirely ignorant of the fact that all their conversations were achieving was essentially verbal grooming. Even in more ‘intelligent’ groups—I used to ‘head’ the local H+/transhumanist meetups in my area before they fell apart—the tendency towards ‘circle-jerk’ grooming-through-mindless-agreement becomes evident.
As to whether these individuals are aware of what they’re doing—I don’t know.
That being said; the habit of using speech as a social lubricant and tool to demonstrate commonality / mutual-identification rather than for any specifically productive end is ubiquitous, absolutely. And in writing this I am struck by a wide category of individuals I know—such as one young woman who is currently pursuing an accelerated 4-year course for a double-major; with a masters in Mechanical Engineering (and I forget the minor) who has routinely engaged in this sort of speech-patterns while apparently seeking problem-resolution. I stumble with her in communication very frequently as a result; I attempt to engage in real problem-solving and am met with disinterest or just confusion. (One such recurring topic; what she should do with herself upon the diagnosed-to-be-imminent death of her fiance.)
The point, if I even have one at all here, is that I do not believe this phenomenon is strictly inversely-correlated to intelligence, but rather to some other factor.