I’m not saying the apparent object level claim (ie intelligence implies benevolence) is wrong. Just that it does in fact require further examination. Whereas here it looks like an invisible background assumption.
Did my phrasing not make it clear that this is what I meant, or did you interpret me as I intended and still think it sounds condescending?
I’m not saying the apparent object level claim (ie intelligence implies benevolence) is wrong. Just that it does in fact require further examination. Whereas here it looks like an invisible background assumption.
Did my phrasing not make it clear that this is what I meant, or did you interpret me as I intended and still think it sounds condescending?
Ah, that makes more sense. I did indeed misinterpret it sorry.
No need to apologize. It’s clear in hindsight that I made a poor choice of words.
I think few would claim that. We can point to smart-but-evil folk to demonstrate otherwise. The more defensible idea is that there’s a correlation.