[lvxferre]

I can relate to most of what he wrote. And I've also noticed the same pattern that he points out in

>Whenever I post of a cognitive bias or logical fallacy, my replies are soon invaded by leftists claiming it explains rightist beliefs, and by rightists claiming it explains leftist beliefs.

where both sides [often correctly] point out the fallacies of the other side, but fail to acknowledge their own.

>Since you’re reading about intelligence right now, you’re likely above average in intelligence, which means that you, whatever you believe, should be extra vigilant against your intellect being commandeered by your animal impulses.

I fucking love this slap on the face of the reader.

______

I feel like there's something else though. Frankly I wouldn't call someone engaging in wishful belief "intelligent" by any measure; intelligence requires the ability to entertain multiple concurrent lines of reasoning, and in plenty of them your belief is wrong. [I can go further on that if anyone wants.] It's the same deal with some basic fallacies (mostly false dichotomy, four terms, and appeal to origins) that are often used to protect those stupid beliefs.

[yetihehe]

> Frankly I wouldn't call someone engaging in wishful belief "intelligent" by any measure; intelligence requires the ability to entertain multiple concurrent lines of reasoning

Not as defined by article author:

> intelligence is nothing more than the effectiveness with which an agent pursues a goal. Rationality is intelligence in pursuit of objective truth, but intelligence can be used to pursue any number of other goals.

So your intelligence definition is more like rationality. I see a lot of arguments going nowhere just because two sides have different definitions of the thing they argue about.

All that said, I agree with you, it is not rational to engage in wishful belief, but it's a kind of energy saving measure, so that you don't constantly overthink "Am I really right about this?".

[lvxferre]

Yup, different definitions; I was going to bring this up but chopped it to avoid the wall of text. (I'm glad that someone caught it up though.)

My definition is roughly "ability to process information and generate useful conclusions as a result". Rationality would be a "side-effect" of intelligence, not part of the definition itself. I think that it's more useful than the def provided by the author because sometimes intelligent people with dumb beliefs will also do dumb shit, that clearly contradicts their goals. Does that mean that they aren't intelligent to begin with? Acc. to the author's definition, yes.

A good example of that would be Steve Jobs. It's hard to claim that Jobs wasn't very intelligent (even if I don't like him); and odds are that "to survive" was one of his goals. Then why the hell would he prefer alternative medicine over actual medical intervention, for something as serious as a cancer? (It's just an example, mind you, we could use others.)

However, once you shift the definition of "intelligence" to the one I'm using, there's no paradox: he was intelligent, sure, it's just that his "processing ability" was not directed towards that specific goal. And sometimes it might've been directed against the goal.

It's like something is diverting that processing ability from the personal goals to something else. Dawkins' memeplexes might be the answer here: the memeplex "alternative medicine" was competing with the goals of the individual, and leeching off his processing ability to its own end, like a parasite of the mind.

So, alternatively, and in addition to what the author said, we get another line of thought: sometimes smart people have dumb beliefs because intelligence does not immunise you against parasitic memes. Perhaps it even makes you more vulnerable, as those memes will be abler to successfully reach you. And then, [this point agreeing with the author], once those parasites are installed, they'll divert your intelligence towards their goals.

[Sorry for the wall of text.]