Let’s say I describe a person as ‘fighty’. There are two different things I could mean by that:
This person is good at fighting. Perhaps they are large and strong...or skilled at martial arts...or carry weapons...or some combination thereof.
This person is prone to fighting. They tend to resolve problems by fighting. When they dislike something a person has done, they will start a fight.
The first of these I think is...pretty much morally neutral?
The second of these I think is fairly clearly morally bad.
These things are definitely correlated with one another. People who are good at fighting are probably also more prone to fighting (since when you expect to win a fight you might be more likely to start one). And people who are prone to fighting are probably also better at it (since when you fight a lot you get good at it).
But they’re clearly not the same thing. My friend’s Chihuahua is highly prone to fighting, but not very good at it. And a retired Marine veteran might be very good at fighting but not very prone to it.
When we are talking about fighting, though, we recognize these two as different things. We can describe someone as ‘violent’, which pretty much means #2. We can call someone ‘a gentle giant’ to imply #1 but not #2. And so on.
When we discuss intelligence, these two different things get muddled together:
This person is good at thinking. They are naturally intelligent, and find problems easier to solve than other people do.
This person is prone to thinking. When confronted with a problem, they attempt to solve it by thinking. They do not simply take a gut reaction and insist on it in defiance of reason.
Sadly we don’t really have different words for #1 and #2 here. We use ‘smart’ and ‘stupid’ to refer to both of them. And this is something of a problem because, while the two are again correlated, they are not the same thing, and the correct response to the two is different.
Being ‘stupid’ in sense #1 is...I mostly agree with the pro-stupidity people here? Being smart is better than being stupid, but holding natural stupidity against people who cannot help it is a bad thing to do.
Being ‘stupid’ in sense #2 I think is bad, and I think can legitimately be held against people.
And...to be frank, I feel like most stupidity in our current world is of type #2? I remember going to high school. If you consider these two sets of people:
People who failed high school math because they were genuinely not intelligent enough to do it.
People who failed high school math because they put no effort into it.
I think it’s reasonably clear that group #2 is orders of magnitude larger.
Let’s say I describe a person as ‘fighty’. There are two different things I could mean by that:
This person is good at fighting. Perhaps they are large and strong...or skilled at martial arts...or carry weapons...or some combination thereof.
This person is prone to fighting. They tend to resolve problems by fighting. When they dislike something a person has done, they will start a fight.
The first of these I think is...pretty much morally neutral?
The second of these I think is fairly clearly morally bad.
These things are definitely correlated with one another. People who are good at fighting are probably also more prone to fighting (since when you expect to win a fight you might be more likely to start one). And people who are prone to fighting are probably also better at it (since when you fight a lot you get good at it).
But they’re clearly not the same thing. My friend’s Chihuahua is highly prone to fighting, but not very good at it. And a retired Marine veteran might be very good at fighting but not very prone to it.
When we are talking about fighting, though, we recognize these two as different things. We can describe someone as ‘violent’, which pretty much means #2. We can call someone ‘a gentle giant’ to imply #1 but not #2. And so on.
When we discuss intelligence, these two different things get muddled together:
This person is good at thinking. They are naturally intelligent, and find problems easier to solve than other people do.
This person is prone to thinking. When confronted with a problem, they attempt to solve it by thinking. They do not simply take a gut reaction and insist on it in defiance of reason.
Sadly we don’t really have different words for #1 and #2 here. We use ‘smart’ and ‘stupid’ to refer to both of them. And this is something of a problem because, while the two are again correlated, they are not the same thing, and the correct response to the two is different.
Being ‘stupid’ in sense #1 is...I mostly agree with the pro-stupidity people here? Being smart is better than being stupid, but holding natural stupidity against people who cannot help it is a bad thing to do.
Being ‘stupid’ in sense #2 I think is bad, and I think can legitimately be held against people.
And...to be frank, I feel like most stupidity in our current world is of type #2? I remember going to high school. If you consider these two sets of people:
People who failed high school math because they were genuinely not intelligent enough to do it.
People who failed high school math because they put no effort into it.
I think it’s reasonably clear that group #2 is orders of magnitude larger.