William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 26,854
I think it does. You need to know things about the topic in order to have skepticism about it. Smart people make the best skeptics.
Howard Cosell tells us that pine needles are nutritious.
He also tells us that Twinkies smell like pine needles.
Are we supposed to conclude that Twinkies are nutritious?
(Because that conclusion can not be drawn from those premises.)
More than it takes to accept everything you are told at face value.
But it's not intelligent to doubt everything.
But it's not intelligent to doubt everything.
I think it does. You need to know things about the topic in order to have skepticism about it. Smart people make the best skeptics.
I think it does. You need to know things about the topic in order to have skepticism about it. Smart people make the best skeptics.
Yeah, that's the thing, innit?Well...
Depending on the definition of intelligence I guess.
What's your definition of 'best'?I think it does. You need to know things about the topic in order to have skepticism about it. Smart people make the best skeptics.
And your definition of 'smart'? Knowing a lot of things isn't necessarily an indicator of being intelligent.What's your definition of 'best'?
But it doesn't. They are separate skills. And while intelligence is innate, skepticism is learned.If 'intelligence' means 'critical thinking', then, yes.
Since the OP uses it interchangebly with 'intelligence' I'll go by the dictionary definition, which is:-arthwollipot said:And your definition of 'smart'?
IQ tests are very good at measuring certain mental faculties, he says, including logic, abstract reasoning, learning ability and working-memory capacity - how much information you can hold in mind.
But the tests fall down when it comes to measuring those abilities crucial to making good judgements in real-life situations. That's because they are unable to assess things such as a person's ability to critically weigh up information, or whether an individual can override the intuitive cognitive biases that can lead us astray...
In a study of 360 Pittsburgh residents aged between 18 and 88, her team found that, regardless of differences in intelligence, those who displayed better rational-thinking skills suffered significantly fewer negative events in their lives...
Andrew Parker, now with the Rand Corporation in Pittsburgh, and Baruch Fischhoff at Carnegie Mellon found a similar association among adolescents. Those who scored higher on a test of decision-making competence drank less, took fewer drugs and engaged in less risky behaviour overall... This suggests that rational thinking may be more important than intelligence for positive life experiences, Fischhoff says.
Here's the flip-side to this statement:
I worked as a salesman in a high-end toy store for 14 years. I found my sales-manipulation skills worked better on educated people than on "Joe Sixpack". Smart people are often easier to deceive than less-smart people because, because they often don't have good BS filters. Less-than-smart people usually have over-developed BS filters that require creativity to manipulate.
Where you are right, in your perception of the slower set, is that these over-developed BS filters take the place of reason, and knowledge. This leaves them immune to facts. Their information must travel through a narrow path of "trusted" sources, and this path does not extend into deep or serious thinking skills.
But the fact is that smart-people can be manipulated into believing crazy things with the right buzzwords, presented in the right format, by sources who appeal to their intellectual egos. A prime example of this is Robert Kennedy Jr. A highly educated man who is deep in the woo. In the same way the less-smart people are obtuse to reason, his ego and intellect blind him from basic, big-picture facts.
IMO, a good skeptic frequently questions their own intelligence more than anything else.
Here's the flip-side to this statement:
I worked as a salesman in a high-end toy store for 14 years. I found my sales-manipulation skills worked better on educated people than on "Joe Sixpack". Smart people are often easier to deceive than less-smart people because, because they often don't have good BS filters. Less-than-smart people usually have over-developed BS filters that require creativity to manipulate.
Where you are right, in your perception of the slower set, is that these over-developed BS filters take the place of reason, and knowledge. This leaves them immune to facts. Their information must travel through a narrow path of "trusted" sources, and this path does not extend into deep or serious thinking skills.
But the fact is that smart-people can be manipulated into believing crazy things with the right buzzwords, presented in the right format, by sources who appeal to their intellectual egos. A prime example of this is Robert Kennedy Jr. A highly educated man who is deep in the woo. In the same way the less-smart people are obtuse to reason, his ego and intellect blind him from basic, big-picture facts.
IMO, a good skeptic frequently questions their own intelligence more than anything else.
That's Asimov's 2nd level.And your definition of 'smart'? Knowing a lot of things isn't necessarily an indicator of being intelligent.
The question in the OP is ridiculously ambiguous.
And your definition of 'smart'? Knowing a lot of things isn't necessarily an indicator of being intelligent.
The question in the OP is ridiculously ambiguous.
Knowing them, and understanding them, is.
Whilst I broadly agree with the point you are making, we should be careful about making sweeping generalisations. It could just be that the relatively uneducated person who left school at sixteen, has less disposable income to spend on 'luxury' goods, whereas the seemingly 'smart' (read = educated) person might just not care if the toy you are flogging turns out to have a one-day novelty value for the kids as what is worth $1 to the poor, is a cent to the richer person.
In addition, there is the concept of empathy, which may or may not be related to being easily manipulated. It is possible that some people bought the toys you were offering because they felt sorry for you and your obvious sales pitch. I once made the mistake of equating gullibility with class (read = education level; well-spokeness; well-dressed/heeled) so I was pleasantly disabused of this notion when I once went around local pubs to raise money for striking journalists (NUJ). The sheer number of ordinary 'common people' who put their hands in their pocket with nary a murmur or a second thought, was truly touching, especially when one assumes that these were people hwo had struggles with bills, housing and employment, etc. I was diffidently expecting people to tell me to '**** off and tell those lazy bastards to get back to work!' so moral learned: kindness and empathy is not correlated with wealth, intelligence or level of education.
...snip.. and that a lot of people simply don't have their radar tuned in to being blatantly scammed, and that lack of critical thinking was what was keeping our kids in college.
I used to provide construction reports for low-rent litigations. Never ceased to amaze me how transparent the ruses were, both with very smart and successful customers getting fleeced, and the adversary's expert transparently lying. I mean, the smell of the bull **** was choking.
There was one binding arbitration where our adversary gave detailed testimony about a structural foundation crack 3/4" wide. That's serious. The engineer he hired as an expert provided pictures which, sure enough, showed a monster wide gap (the pics were admitted into evidence on the fly and were not previously disclosed during discovery. All parties agreed to allow them in anyway). I was panicking, trying to figure out how I had missed this. By comparing two different pictures, I was able to show (using their own submissions) that the engineer staged the lighting to create a long shadow that appeard to be a wide gap. The arbitrator agreed and my client won on that point, with the adversary's expert's opinions rejected rather harshly.
I joked with the attorney afterwards about how they could have thought such a slapstick vaudeville routine would have worked. He said the brazenness was what fools everyone (and he reminded me that I was initially questioning my own findings when I saw the pics), and that a lot of people simply don't have their radar tuned in to being blatantly scammed, and that lack of critical thinking was what was keeping our kids in college.
Randi used to say that the frauds managed to fool scientist during the 60s and 70s because scientists were not used to their experiments lying to them.
I don't think you have to be particularly "smart", whatever that means, to be a skeptic.
But it's not intelligent to doubt everything.
Well...
(snip)
This will show the age of what I'm remembering, it's my best recollection of a bit of critical thinking from a very young girl that came out of the program.
I hope I'm remembering the details correctly.
I assumed at the time, that the girl must be responding to advertising for Twinkies, and it was many years later that I found out what Twinkies are.
(And Howard Cosell was a famous sports journalist at the time, so I'm guessing he was hired to advertise Twinkies.)
(snip)
Yeah René Descartes, what a doofus.
Whilst I broadly agree with the point you are making, we should be careful about making sweeping generalisations. It could just be that the relatively uneducated person who left school at sixteen, has less disposable income to spend on 'luxury' goods, whereas the seemingly 'smart' (read = educated) person might just not care if the toy you are flogging turns out to have a one-day novelty value for the kids as what is worth $1 to the poor, is a cent to the richer person.
In addition, there is the concept of empathy, which may or may not be related to being easily manipulated. It is possible that some people bought the toys you were offering because they felt sorry for you and your obvious sales pitch. I once made the mistake of equating gullibility with class (read = education level; well-spokeness; well-dressed/heeled) so I was pleasantly disabused of this notion when I once went around local pubs to raise money for striking journalists (NUJ). The sheer number of ordinary 'common people' who put their hands in their pocket with nary a murmur or a second thought, was truly touching, especially when one assumes that these were people hwo had struggles with bills, housing and employment, etc. I was diffidently expecting people to tell me to '**** off and tell those lazy bastards to get back to work!' so moral learned: kindness and empathy is not correlated with wealth, intelligence or level of education.
No it isn't. That's just knowledge.Knowing them, and understanding them, is.
The difference does seem to be that higher education leads to more curiosity, more questions, more seeking, deeper play.And here you are making sweeping generalizations.
At the time I lived and worked in Carmel, California. Education does not always equal wealth. Two of my wealthiest customers, Steve Jobs, and Lindsey Buckingham, were college dropouts. My "educated" customers (doctors, lawyers, architects) tended to be the ones who were less likely to waste money, and tended to buy thoughtful toys such as puzzles, board games, and stuff from the science table.
A witch!!! BURN!!I ran the hobby department. I sold LGB garden railroad items which started at $150 and ran up to $1500. Nobody needs a huge model train. Nobody bought one because they felt sorry for me. They bought them because they were (at the time) the best, and most unique model railroad option. It was like selling Ferraris.
I should also point out that at this time, I attended monthly UFO meetings at the local metaphysical bookstore. There were between 12 and 20 people attending these meetings, I was one of three who did not have a college education. Members ran the range from comptrollers, real estate agents, insurance claims adjusters, artists, and office workers. I was eventually asked to leave because I had the nerve to ask for some kind of physical evidence.