If a less intelligent person is presented with correct and only correct arguments, they may have a higher probability of voting in accordance with them. But often in reality they will be presented with “fake” arguments, especially by naughty politicians or religious leaders. For example, arguments like “evolution is only a theory” that are specifically designed to be persuasive without being true. Intelligence is required to tell the difference.
I’m not sure this is correct. I might endorse a statement to the effect that fluid g is necessary in order to learn the more advanced skills of distinguishing sophistry, but very few people, high-g or otherwise, actually learn such a skill.
It is probably possible for a less intelligent person to learn (to some extent) to distinguish sophistry from solid argument. But it is much easier and comes more naturally for a smart person.
The amount of mental determination required to do a task decreases as the task becomes easier; the amount of ability required to perform a task decreases as the determination to succeed increases.
I suspect that it will be easier to persuade people to take a pill that makes them smarter than to persuade them to spend months or years studying critical thinking.
But it is much easier and comes more naturally for a smart person
No, no, no! It’s harder and more difficult for a smart person to learn this, because they’re so much better at producing clever rationalizations to explain away their cognitive dissonance.
The person it’s easiest to fool is yourself, and the more IQ you have, the better you are at coming up with really convincing stupidity. Recognizing valid reasoning and forcing yourself to adhere to the standards that define it requires something IQ doesn’t measure.
“Seems reasonable” is not a valid criterion for judgment.
Your claim is factually incorrect. The ability to tell the difference between sophistry and valid arguments rests on two things: first, awareness of the standards of validity, and second, the capacity to override the convictions that come from our associative thinking and evaluate the situation rationally.
High IQ permits people to come up with very complex and sophisticated rationalizations. It doesn’t help them distinguish rationalization from rationality.
If a less intelligent person is presented with correct and only correct arguments, they may have a higher probability of voting in accordance with them. But often in reality they will be presented with “fake” arguments, especially by naughty politicians or religious leaders. For example, arguments like “evolution is only a theory” that are specifically designed to be persuasive without being true. Intelligence is required to tell the difference.
Intelligence, while useful, isn’t what’s required in that scenario.
Skepticism, curiosity, and intellectual integrity are.
I claim that intelligence—specifically IQ - helps people to tell the difference between sophistry and genuine arguments. This seems reasonable to me.
I’m not sure this is correct. I might endorse a statement to the effect that fluid g is necessary in order to learn the more advanced skills of distinguishing sophistry, but very few people, high-g or otherwise, actually learn such a skill.
It is probably possible for a less intelligent person to learn (to some extent) to distinguish sophistry from solid argument. But it is much easier and comes more naturally for a smart person.
The amount of mental determination required to do a task decreases as the task becomes easier; the amount of ability required to perform a task decreases as the determination to succeed increases.
I suspect that it will be easier to persuade people to take a pill that makes them smarter than to persuade them to spend months or years studying critical thinking.
No, no, no! It’s harder and more difficult for a smart person to learn this, because they’re so much better at producing clever rationalizations to explain away their cognitive dissonance.
The person it’s easiest to fool is yourself, and the more IQ you have, the better you are at coming up with really convincing stupidity. Recognizing valid reasoning and forcing yourself to adhere to the standards that define it requires something IQ doesn’t measure.
“Seems reasonable” is not a valid criterion for judgment.
Your claim is factually incorrect. The ability to tell the difference between sophistry and valid arguments rests on two things: first, awareness of the standards of validity, and second, the capacity to override the convictions that come from our associative thinking and evaluate the situation rationally.
High IQ permits people to come up with very complex and sophisticated rationalizations. It doesn’t help them distinguish rationalization from rationality.