And then I had to find that my naive theory of intelligence didn't hold water: intelligent people were just as prone as less intelligent people to believing in obviously absurd superstitions. Only their superstitions would be much more complex, elaborate, rich, and far reaching than an inferior mind's superstitions.
Intelligent people more often (though not always) prefer to hold beliefs supported by argument. But they're also more capable of constructing arguments to support their absurd beliefs, if they're so inclined.
I do think that you're overstating Jeff's arguments here, though. In particular, I think that your statement that Jeff "concludes that the ways a value system grounded on happiness differ from my intuitions are problems with my intutions" is a misleading quote. The full sentence is, "But when happiness comes so close to fitting I have to consider that it may be right and the ways a value system grounded on happiness differ from my intuitions are problems with my intutions," and that "I have to consider that it
( ... )
Homeostasis of InsanityfareAugust 25 2020, 19:58:38 UTC
Just like there is a homeostasis of risk, there may be a homeostasis of insanity: people have a finite capital of sanity (i.e. ability to functionally model reality), and as people are more rational and successful on various topics, it only gives them more leeway to venture into further topics, until they rise to their level of incompetence (as per the Peter Principle). Thus, except for a few under-appreciated super-competent people whose life was too short to reach this level, everyone will reach their level of insanity. Morons will reach it quickly, on mundane topics. Geniuses will reach it eventually, on topics so elaborate that most can't even fathom, yet can still often sense that reason has left the room.
The original link to Larry Grathwohl's testimony on the Weather Underground leaders (Obama's mentor and his accomplices) discussing the logistics of slaughtering 10% of the population (from the 1982 documentary "No place to hide") was censored for "violating YouTube's policy on hate speech". So I replaced it with a new link to the same video (or something equivalent).
Comments 4
Intelligent people more often (though not always) prefer to hold beliefs supported by argument. But they're also more capable of constructing arguments to support their absurd beliefs, if they're so inclined.
I do think that you're overstating Jeff's arguments here, though. In particular, I think that your statement that Jeff "concludes that the ways a value system grounded on happiness differ from my intuitions are problems with my intutions" is a misleading quote. The full sentence is, "But when happiness comes so close to fitting I have to consider that it may be right and the ways a value system grounded on happiness differ from my intuitions are problems with my intutions," and that "I have to consider that it ( ... )
Reply
http://lesswrong.com/lw/dsw/the_criminal_stupidity_of_intelligent_people/
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment