News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Too many people have peed in the pool. Parent comment

Re:Too many people have peed in the pool by toomuchtodo on Monday February 15, 2016 @12:33PM (#11104630)
> Even if you do happen to be smarter than the average bear

> it's still asshole-ish to assume that everyone else just be completely dismissed...

Devil's advocate: If you're above average intelligence, you're smarter than a majority of the populace by definition. Why would you not then dismiss the thoughts and ideas of those less educated?

One person's condescension is another person's logic.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Too many people have peed in the pool by smithkl42 on Monday February 15, 2016 @12:54PM (#11104771)
The obvious answer: because if you're wise, you realize that raw intelligence is a fairly small part of what makes someone worth listening to on a given question. On most questions of morals or politics, I'd rather listen to someone of average intelligence, but with a humble, good and patient character, than an MIT grad who's convinced they know everything.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Too many people have peed in the pool by enraged_camel on Monday February 15, 2016 @01:15PM (#11104918)
Interesting. I'm not sure I can relate, though. I'd rather listen to Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins talk about evolution and atheism than someone of average intelligence.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Too many people have peed in the pool by whatshisface on Monday February 15, 2016 @01:41PM (#11105087)
Intelligence allows you to search through ideas faster. This is worth nothing if you are evaluating them badly.

It doesn't matter if you are the greatest geinus to ever live - if you are looking for a reason to believe what you already want to, being smart just means you find it.

"You can always design a cryptosystem that you yourself cannot break."

Humility and an open mind are probably worth more than intelligence in this way.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Too many people have peed in the pool by smithkl42 on Monday February 15, 2016 @04:25PM (#11106124)
On certain topics, certainly. Listening to me talk about particle physics would do neither of us any good. That's why I constrained my answer to politics and morality (i.e., building the sort of society and becoming the sort of person that tends towards justice). Valuable opinions in those areas have much more to do with what has sometimes been called "practical intelligence", i.e., the ability to sift good ideas from bad using a wide range of personal experiences and a character intentionally shaped in response to those experiences. I suspect raw intelligence generally helps in that process, but it may also hurt, and it's by no means the most important factor.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Too many people have peed in the pool by jimbokun on Monday February 15, 2016 @01:25PM (#11104993)
Because you really just want reinforcement for ideas you already believe?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Too many people have peed in the pool by enraged_camel on Monday February 15, 2016 @02:51PM (#11105468)
I didn't say anything about whether I agree with those ideas or not. Stated simply, I'd rather hear any given argument from someone who is intelligent than someone who isn't. Extraneous factors, such as the arguer's humility or tone of delivery, don't enter the picture for me when evaluating the merit of the idea being argued.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Too many people have peed in the pool by toomuchtodo on Monday February 15, 2016 @01:29PM (#11105016)
Dangerous slope. I want constructive arguments, to be sure, especially with people who hold a different view than my own on different topics.

But your opinion does not carry the same weight as a fact. Quite a few people I've encountered don't understand that.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Too many people have peed in the pool by angersock on Monday February 15, 2016 @01:28PM (#11105010)
Counterpoint: it was pretty common knowledge for the majority of the 19th and 20th centuries that women were categorically inferior and unreliable, that blacks were shiftless and dangerous, and that homosexuals were mentally ill.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Too many people have peed in the pool by LanguageGamer on Monday February 15, 2016 @12:44PM (#11104714)
One of the best things a person can do with their intelligence is try and understand the perspective of other people.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Too many people have peed in the pool by JackFr on Monday February 15, 2016 @12:43PM (#11104703)
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1999-15054-002

Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Too many people have peed in the pool by mwfunk on Monday February 15, 2016 @08:37PM (#11107371)
That person's logic is narcissism, not insight. I get that they think they're being logical, but really they're just lacking self-awareness. They're not revealing themselves to be smart people making rational choices, they're revealing themselves to be conceited people who aren't as smart as they think they are.

Put another way: someone who believes the stated Devil's Advocate position is by definition someone who doesn't understand the nature of intelligence, doesn't understand themselves, and doesn't understand other people. They might be making logical choices based on those misunderstandings, but correct logic based on false axioms is just as wrong as incorrect logic based on true axioms.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Too many people have peed in the pool by im3w1l on Monday February 15, 2016 @12:44PM (#11104715)
Because you live a different life than they do, they have experiences you don't and they know things you wont.

Doesn't mean you should uncritically accept their ideas, but it does mean you should at least give them some weight.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Too many people have peed in the pool by rictic on Monday February 15, 2016 @01:00PM (#11104811)
Because your brain is going to lead you into thinking that your ingroup are the smart minority and your outgroups and people that you don't understand are the simple minded majority.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Too many people have peed in the pool by GhotiFish on Monday February 15, 2016 @12:41PM (#11104694)
because people don't exist on a continuum of smart and dumb.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Too many people have peed in the pool by toomuchtodo on Monday February 15, 2016 @12:44PM (#11104713)
I'm surprised to hear that, considering the story on HN the other day about how educated woman don't marry down. It seems a non-insignificant number of people want to partner with and befriend those of the same or higher intelligence.

Anecdotally, I gravitate towards above average intelligence people for friendships and romantic relationships.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/07/06/has-being-si...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Too many people have peed in the pool by chris_wot on Monday February 15, 2016 @12:54PM (#11104774)
Percieved same or higher intelligence.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Too many people have peed in the pool by toomuchtodo on Monday February 15, 2016 @01:13PM (#11104901)
Whether its perceived or not, thats how its playing out on a macro scale.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Too many people have peed in the pool by chris_wot on Monday February 15, 2016 @01:42PM (#11105091)
Really? Care to back that up with actual evidence?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Too many people have peed in the pool by tormeh on Tuesday February 16, 2016 @01:31PM (#11112024)
Goddammit. Seriously. It's well-known that all kinds of intelligence are correlated, at least at the lower end. There is such a thing as a benchmark of the brain that gives a one-dimensional result that tells us a something significant about that person. You're just being touchy-feely superstitious (which is way better than the scared-of-different kind of superstitious, but still).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Too many people have peed in the pool by chris_wot on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @05:23PM (#11121986)
Then I'm sure you'll find it very easy to provide the study that confirms your claims.

You are the first person I've ever heard that called asking for evidence "superstitious". You might want to look up the definition of that word. Goddammit indeed.

Try not to get too touchy-feely in your reply, just give me the studies you are referring to.

[ Parent | on HN ]