Skeptics Are Smarter - Well, Almost. But Not Better.
Obviously, the natural response is "no" because nearly all of us have humility and want to stress that skeptics don't think they're better than non-skeptics.
I'm a skeptic to the bone.
Some skeptics do have an attitude of superiority - just like real people do sometimes. Even Mr. Randi has an ego just a bit too big for his britches sometimes, I can't blame him in some of his exasperating encounters with human stupidity, but that's just human nature and we all do it sometimes, but most of the time, he does have a valid point.
However, in my opinion, skeptics do have a higher intelligence potential in general.
The reason I have this opinion is that the nature of skepticism is such that a skeptic is much less likely to simply believe something on invalid grounds than a non-skeptic would be. He does research and learns something in the process.
I'm especially skeptical regarding religions, having had relatives who preferred faith healing over modern medicine and died as a direct of their misguided faith in something proven time and time again to be worthless. So, as a result of those observations, I consider religion a mental cancer or disease - sometimes benign, as in a little old lady who attends church every Sunday and gives to the poor, or malignant - like a terrorist who murders in the name of God - or someone who goes to church rather than a doctor to treat a serious disease - but nevertheless a mental illness in either case - just not destructive in all cases.
As a devout, dues paying, card carrying skeptic, when in doubt, I do in-depth research. Doing that research generally educates me to some extent by teaching me some new things I may not have realised before, that as a non-skeptic, I would not have been inclined to discover otherwise.
Consequently, a true skeptic should be at least a little smarter than the 'average' non-skeptic simply because he wants to be more sure of himself and have a sensible, logical foundation to support his beliefs.
If a non-skeptic believed some nonsense about magnets curing cancer and other horrible diseases, how could he qualify as smarter than a well-researched skeptic who has acquired the knowledge to know better simply because he took the time to see what real science has found out about it from experiments?
Some people are skeptical of science to the point of being just plain silly about it. If a scientist says it, then they doubt it just for that reason alone.
The biggest difference between skeptics and non-skeptics that I can see, seems to be the gullibility factor. It's harder to fool a true skeptic than a non-skeptic - or at least it should be. Otherwise, how could you tell the difference?
Also, we must not forget that we are not skeptics simply because we refuse to believe in something that sounds far-fetched. It's not that simple. We are skeptics because we usually have a good reason supporting our conclusions, but we can be fallible. A skeptic must support his conclusions on rational grounds, not just reject something for no reason other than just plain mistrust. Even some seemingly wild ideas do turn out to be true sometimes, so we must keep that in mind unless we have conclusive facts to the contrary.
A closed mind is sometimes a good thing - when you are absolutely correct in your judgement - but proving it is another matter. However, there is a big difference between believing you are right without evidence as opposed to knowing you are right and have the evidence to prove it. A mind should remain open until verifiable facts justify closing it to further arguments - just like in a court of law, there is a certain point where it's time for a verdict to be passed down.
So, without attempting to be smug, pompous or arrogant about it, I believe that skeptics are just a bit more intellectual than non-skeptics because they tend to look more carefully at something before accepting it. But that doesn't mean that they are extremely more intelligent, just more self conscious as to why they believe something and want to be more sure of themselves and have some facts to stand on before committing to any belief. Nothing wrong with that - just don't let it go to your head because, skeptic or not, we are not infallible and even the best stumble once in a while. For example, even Albert Einstein has been firmly proven wrong on some of his scientific conclusions, but that doesn't invalidate the rest of his work - It just proves the old adage that nobody's perfect. Even skeptics - GASP !!
