I’ve actually had people call me smart for arguing against them quite often. It’s a kind of defense mechanism - ‘you’re only winning the argument because you’re smart, not because you’re right’.
‘you’re only winning the argument because you’re smart, not because you’re right’
I’m pretty sure I’d often end up losing arguments with very smart and debate-happy socialists, libertarians, postmodernists, neoreactionaries, anarchoprimitivists or jesuits if I got into them, but I don’t think that means I should end up agreeing with the world-views of all of them.
Although I think that has more to do with time investment than raw intelligence.
Still I think it’s often overlooked that in a world where you know people are a) biased b)dishonest and c) generally more intelligent than you, doing your own thinking becomes a pretty poor strategy.
I’ve had this happen too and what’s funny is that my apparent “smartness” was simply due to a familiarity with strong counter arguments to their position, and nothing to do with intelligence.
I’ve actually had people call me smart for arguing against them quite often. It’s a kind of defense mechanism - ‘you’re only winning the argument because you’re smart, not because you’re right’.
I’m pretty sure I’d often end up losing arguments with very smart and debate-happy socialists, libertarians, postmodernists, neoreactionaries, anarchoprimitivists or jesuits if I got into them, but I don’t think that means I should end up agreeing with the world-views of all of them.
Very true.
Although I think that has more to do with time investment than raw intelligence. Still I think it’s often overlooked that in a world where you know people are a) biased b)dishonest and c) generally more intelligent than you, doing your own thinking becomes a pretty poor strategy.
I’ve had this happen too and what’s funny is that my apparent “smartness” was simply due to a familiarity with strong counter arguments to their position, and nothing to do with intelligence.