It seems to me that a lot of “smart” people are capable of applying their intelligence in some spheres, but not others.
Is this too obvious to be worth mentioning? I say it is not too obvious, for many bloggers have said of Overcoming Bias: “It is impossible, no one can completely eliminate bias.” I don’t care if the one is a professional economist, it is clear that they have not yet grokked the Quantitative Way as it applies to everyday life and matters like personal self-improvement. That which I cannot eliminate may be well worth reducing.
It also seems to me that this view is shared by other people. Can anyone point me to an article that does a good job arguing for it?
Tangential point: in deciding how smart I think someone is, for me, a lot of it has to do with how low they’re capable of stooping. (I know this is just me saying “this is how I define a word”, which is a pretty useless thing to say… but at the same time maybe there’s something deeper that I’m trying to articulate that I haven’t been able to spell out precisely with the above statement, but that maybe people could understand via some sort of empathetic inference?)
Well, since I’m on LW the first article to come to mind was Outside the Laboratory, although that’s not really arguing for the proposition per se.
As for the stooping thing, I’m not entirely sure what you mean, but the first thing that came to mind was that maybe you have a rule out rather than rule in criteria for judging intelligence? As in: someone can say a bunch of smart things, but at best that just earns them provisional smart status. On the other hand if they say one sufficiently dumb thing that’s enough to rule them out as being truly intelligent.
It seems to me that a lot of “smart” people are capable of applying their intelligence in some spheres, but not others.
What is your exact claim? That people don’t have the ability to apply their intelligence if they chose to do so or that they simple don’t choose to apply their intelligence?
What to you mean with intelligence? If it’s something like rational thinking, many people use different standards in different domains. A person who on the one hand believes that placebo-blind trials are necessary to establish causation can still believe that it’s possible to analyse causation of single events in history and learn from that history.
What is your exact claim? That people don’t have the ability to apply their intelligence if they chose to do so or that they simple don’t choose to apply their intelligence?
Good question/point.
One claim I’m definitely making is that people don’t choose to do so. As to the question of whether or not they have the ability… I’m not sure. People really do seem as if they don’t have the ability, if only for reasons of close-mindedness (rather than lack of aptitude). But if you put a gun to their head and asked them what their true beliefs are… I’m not sure what they’d say.
What to you mean with intelligence?
I mean that I judge people to be stupid based on how low they’re capable of stooping. Ie. how stupid they’re capable of being. Really, “my definition” of stupid is a bit more involved, but that’s mostly it.
As for different standards in different domains, I agree, but I don’t think that peoples stupidity can be explained by that. I think they’re actually being stupid. Outside the Laboratory sort of explains what I mean.
If you are smart but use the wrong heuristic for a given problem the results can look stupid even if you apply that heuristic very well.
When it comes to the scientists who has different standards for religious claims I think different standards for different domains are a good explanation. The person doesn’t use the laboratory standards when the don’t wear their lab coat.
But that isn’t always bad. It very hard to have normal small talk in the scientific mindset. Small talk usually works much better when you don’t overthink and don’t inhabit yourself.
There nothing stupid about treating arguments as soldiers. It’s more a matter of having goals that aren’t about uncovering the truth.
It seems to me that a lot of “smart” people are capable of applying their intelligence in some spheres, but not others.
It also seems to me that this view is shared by other people. Can anyone point me to an article that does a good job arguing for it?
Tangential point: in deciding how smart I think someone is, for me, a lot of it has to do with how low they’re capable of stooping. (I know this is just me saying “this is how I define a word”, which is a pretty useless thing to say… but at the same time maybe there’s something deeper that I’m trying to articulate that I haven’t been able to spell out precisely with the above statement, but that maybe people could understand via some sort of empathetic inference?)
Well, since I’m on LW the first article to come to mind was Outside the Laboratory, although that’s not really arguing for the proposition per se.
As for the stooping thing, I’m not entirely sure what you mean, but the first thing that came to mind was that maybe you have a rule out rather than rule in criteria for judging intelligence? As in: someone can say a bunch of smart things, but at best that just earns them provisional smart status. On the other hand if they say one sufficiently dumb thing that’s enough to rule them out as being truly intelligent.
I thought Outside the Laboratory was a good discussion of “smart” people not applying their intelligence outside their sphere, thanks!
What is your exact claim? That people don’t have the ability to apply their intelligence if they chose to do so or that they simple don’t choose to apply their intelligence?
What to you mean with intelligence? If it’s something like rational thinking, many people use different standards in different domains. A person who on the one hand believes that placebo-blind trials are necessary to establish causation can still believe that it’s possible to analyse causation of single events in history and learn from that history.
Hansons Don’t be a rationalist might be interesting.
Good question/point.
One claim I’m definitely making is that people don’t choose to do so. As to the question of whether or not they have the ability… I’m not sure. People really do seem as if they don’t have the ability, if only for reasons of close-mindedness (rather than lack of aptitude). But if you put a gun to their head and asked them what their true beliefs are… I’m not sure what they’d say.
I mean that I judge people to be stupid based on how low they’re capable of stooping. Ie. how stupid they’re capable of being. Really, “my definition” of stupid is a bit more involved, but that’s mostly it.
As for different standards in different domains, I agree, but I don’t think that peoples stupidity can be explained by that. I think they’re actually being stupid. Outside the Laboratory sort of explains what I mean.
If you are smart but use the wrong heuristic for a given problem the results can look stupid even if you apply that heuristic very well.
When it comes to the scientists who has different standards for religious claims I think different standards for different domains are a good explanation. The person doesn’t use the laboratory standards when the don’t wear their lab coat.
But that isn’t always bad. It very hard to have normal small talk in the scientific mindset. Small talk usually works much better when you don’t overthink and don’t inhabit yourself.
There nothing stupid about treating arguments as soldiers. It’s more a matter of having goals that aren’t about uncovering the truth.