I have been tossing around the idea of not-high-IQ rationalist fiction. Problem is, it’s really hard to write. If they act rationally, people stop identifying the person as unintelligent. You get intelligence creep or an unsatisfying story.
The best route I can see is to make them well-substandard in intelligence. Rationalist!Forrest Gump, say.
ETA: Another problem is that adventures are usually sub-optimal. No one writes about the Amundsen expedition or equivalents (*) - they write about Scott expeditions.
*(except for Le Guin, who managed it because she’s amazing)
If you want to make a character who’s actually both a rationalist and not particularly intelligent, rather than simply being intelligent beyond the expectations of their position, I’d suggest having them know just a few basic heuristics, which are simple if not intuitive to wield.
They might not have the smarts to pick up all the subtle signs to know when someone is trying to con them, for instance, but they’ll be the first person to think to communicate important information to avoid a conflict. And they understand the importance of being able to actually change their mind, so if they’re experiencing doubts about something, their response would be to go to someone they think has good judgment and is likely to be impartial, ask what they think, and then accept that answer, even if it’s not the one they would have been most comfortable with.
When it comes to writing, people are generally taught a set of “rules,” but are told that really good writers can “break” these rules once they really learn what they’re doing. But of course, nobody can really break the fundamental rules of good writing without harming the quality of their work, it’s just that expert writers have a better sense of how the fundamental rules differ from the simpler, easier to understand formulations taught to beginners. A not-very-intelligent rationalist would probably be kind of like a beginning level writer. They know that the point of following the rules is to make good decisions, the way that a beginning writer knows that the point of following the rules is to produce good writing. But they would only be able to explain to a very limited extent why those rules lead to better decisions than their alternatives, and they certainly wouldn’t be able to grasp the deeper rules underlying them, and understand what sort of situations function as exceptions to the more basic incarnations.
That’s certainly a component of it, but there are usually other elements, such as the character using heuristics that are not very good in the first place, rejecting emotions or intangibles, inability to cope with “illogical” behavior from others, and so on.
I have been tossing around the idea of not-high-IQ rationalist fiction. Problem is, it’s really hard to write. If they act rationally, people stop identifying the person as unintelligent.
Don’t show them thinking, show them doing. If you show their thoughts at all, show their conclusions, not their reasons. They think and reason, but you don’t put it on the page. Have them be involved in matters not stereotypically associated with intelligence but which actually have scope for its application: craftsmen rather than scientists, sergeants rather than generals, etc.
In short, have them actually be as intelligent and rational as you like, but omit all the superficial clothing that people mistake for these things, and use the opposite clothing.
All right. How does this work as pro-rationality propaganda? We’re not simply talking about getting rational characters, but getting rationality to appeal to mid- or low-IQ folks.
See your post’s great grandparent… sure, tedious dick-waving is tedious and dick-waving, but if we’re trying to get a point across… maybe I should drop that metaphor.
If we’re trying to cultivate appreciation of rationality, it seems inefficient to beat around the… aargh.
Take 3: It seems inefficient to completely neglect to mention rationality.
That’s why I don’t agree with “don’t show them thinking, show them doing”. Of course, you’d have to show the thinking in ordinary words that a person of normal intelligence who hasn’t had a lot of formal education might use. Proverbs might help; they could be part of the way your rationalist thinks, they could be part of the way /she explains things to others, and they could help your reader to remember it later, if/when they encounter similar situations in their own life. And you wouldn’t call them a rationalist, that’s a ‘big word’. Other people would call them ‘wise’, and they themselves would probably say ‘it’s just common sense’.
Yeah. I expect not-high-IQ rationalist fiction would involve a lot of sitting and thinking and making lists and remembering rationalist sayings, instead of just doing it all in the head on the fly.
Do we have any examples of not-high-IQ rationalists in real life? We could model fiction on how they handle things. Maybe they exist all around us, and are called “Practical.”
Depending on the IQ test, I don’t think your overall score will go down much if you don’t do well on a subsection or two. This is low confidence, and based off one data point though. I have scores ranging from 102 to 136 and my total score somehow comes out to be 141.
What about a protagonist of standard-to-high-IQ but an obvious cognitive defect? (e.g. innumeracy, illiteracy, prosopagnosia, any dissassociative disorder, severe mood disorders).
You’d go pretty far just telling the audience the character was unintelligent, by giving them unintelligent status markers. Give them a blue-collar career, and very low academic achievement, while also coming from a stable family and average opportunity.
It’s been a while since I watched it, but do you think Ben Affleck’s character in Good Will Hunting was rational, but of limited intelligence?
There are scattered examples of this sort of “humble working man, who lives honest and true” throughout fiction.
It’s been a while since I watched it, but do you think Ben Affleck’s character in Good Will Hunting was rational, but of limited intelligence?
Yep, a pretty good example, I think
Look, you’re my best friend so don’t take this the wrong way, but if you’re still living here in 20 years, still working construction, I’ll fuckin’ kill ya. Tomorrow, I’m gonna wake up and I’ll be fifty, and I’ll still be doing this shit. And that’s alright, that’s fine. But you’re sitting on a winning lottery ticket and you’re too scared to cash it in, and that’s bullshit. Cause I’d do fucking anything to have what you got. Hanging around here is a waste of your time.
So far, so normal, you don’t need to be a rationalist to say these sorts of things to make your friend start using their talents.
Every day, I come by your house, and I pick you up. We go out, have a few drinks, a few laughs, it’s great. You know what the best part of my day is? It’s for about ten seconds, from when I pull up at the curb to when I get to your door. Cause I think maybe I’ll get up there and I’ll knock on the door and you won’t be there. No goodbye, no see-ya-later, no nothing. You just left.
Now this is what it looks like when a rationalist actually believes in something. You actively enjoy imagining your friend’s left without a word, a horrible thing for a friend to do—because you knows that your friend starting to use their potential is so important as to drown out even being totally abandoned by them.
Keep in mind that people who apply serious life-changing ideas after reading about them in fiction are the exception rather than the norm. Most people who aren’t exceptionally intellect-oriented need to personally encounter someone who “has something” that they themselves wish they had, and then have some reason to think that they can imitate them in that respect. Fiction just isn’t it, except possibly in some indirect ways. Rationalist communities competing in the “real-world” arena of people living lives that other people want to and can emulate are a radically more effective angle for people who don’t identify strongly with their intellectual characteristics.
Ivan achieves good outcomes despite his lack of overt strategizing. But I’m not sure whether that’s because he’s instrumentally rational in a low-IQ way; or whether it’s because his behavior is virtuous, and his story’s creators want to endorse virtuous behavior. However, I’m also uncertain about how far low-IQ instrumentally rational behavior diverges from folk virtue.
There’s an episode of columbo where he catches a member of a high IQ society who thinks he has committed the perfect murder, whilst remaining very modest about his own intellect.
I have been tossing around the idea of not-high-IQ rationalist fiction. Problem is, it’s really hard to write. If they act rationally, people stop identifying the person as unintelligent. You get intelligence creep or an unsatisfying story.
The best route I can see is to make them well-substandard in intelligence. Rationalist!Forrest Gump, say.
ETA: Another problem is that adventures are usually sub-optimal. No one writes about the Amundsen expedition or equivalents (*) - they write about Scott expeditions.
*(except for Le Guin, who managed it because she’s amazing)
If you want to make a character who’s actually both a rationalist and not particularly intelligent, rather than simply being intelligent beyond the expectations of their position, I’d suggest having them know just a few basic heuristics, which are simple if not intuitive to wield.
They might not have the smarts to pick up all the subtle signs to know when someone is trying to con them, for instance, but they’ll be the first person to think to communicate important information to avoid a conflict. And they understand the importance of being able to actually change their mind, so if they’re experiencing doubts about something, their response would be to go to someone they think has good judgment and is likely to be impartial, ask what they think, and then accept that answer, even if it’s not the one they would have been most comfortable with.
When it comes to writing, people are generally taught a set of “rules,” but are told that really good writers can “break” these rules once they really learn what they’re doing. But of course, nobody can really break the fundamental rules of good writing without harming the quality of their work, it’s just that expert writers have a better sense of how the fundamental rules differ from the simpler, easier to understand formulations taught to beginners. A not-very-intelligent rationalist would probably be kind of like a beginning level writer. They know that the point of following the rules is to make good decisions, the way that a beginning writer knows that the point of following the rules is to produce good writing. But they would only be able to explain to a very limited extent why those rules lead to better decisions than their alternatives, and they certainly wouldn’t be able to grasp the deeper rules underlying them, and understand what sort of situations function as exceptions to the more basic incarnations.
Keep in mind that a Straw Vulcan is what happens when a character like this is put in a situation that is an exception to their rules.
That’s certainly a component of it, but there are usually other elements, such as the character using heuristics that are not very good in the first place, rejecting emotions or intangibles, inability to cope with “illogical” behavior from others, and so on.
Don’t show them thinking, show them doing. If you show their thoughts at all, show their conclusions, not their reasons. They think and reason, but you don’t put it on the page. Have them be involved in matters not stereotypically associated with intelligence but which actually have scope for its application: craftsmen rather than scientists, sergeants rather than generals, etc.
In short, have them actually be as intelligent and rational as you like, but omit all the superficial clothing that people mistake for these things, and use the opposite clothing.
All right. How does this work as pro-rationality propaganda? We’re not simply talking about getting rational characters, but getting rationality to appeal to mid- or low-IQ folks.
“Rationalists should win”, right? You could show an ordinary person solving a problem because s/he doesn’t fall for some bias or other.
If the rationalists win, but normal people don’t realize they’re rationalists, or what made them so...
...then they avoid a lot of tedious ideological dick-waving.
See your post’s great grandparent… sure, tedious dick-waving is tedious and dick-waving, but if we’re trying to get a point across… maybe I should drop that metaphor.
If we’re trying to cultivate appreciation of rationality, it seems inefficient to beat around the… aargh.
Take 3: It seems inefficient to completely neglect to mention rationality.
...and go off to wave their dicks at some other issue :-D
That’s why I don’t agree with “don’t show them thinking, show them doing”. Of course, you’d have to show the thinking in ordinary words that a person of normal intelligence who hasn’t had a lot of formal education might use. Proverbs might help; they could be part of the way your rationalist thinks, they could be part of the way /she explains things to others, and they could help your reader to remember it later, if/when they encounter similar situations in their own life. And you wouldn’t call them a rationalist, that’s a ‘big word’. Other people would call them ‘wise’, and they themselves would probably say ‘it’s just common sense’.
Yeah. I expect not-high-IQ rationalist fiction would involve a lot of sitting and thinking and making lists and remembering rationalist sayings, instead of just doing it all in the head on the fly.
Do we have any examples of not-high-IQ rationalists in real life? We could model fiction on how they handle things. Maybe they exist all around us, and are called “Practical.”
There are probably autistic LW readers who would score relatively low on IQ tests because they would do poorly on some subsections.
Depending on the IQ test, I don’t think your overall score will go down much if you don’t do well on a subsection or two. This is low confidence, and based off one data point though. I have scores ranging from 102 to 136 and my total score somehow comes out to be 141.
What about a protagonist of standard-to-high-IQ but an obvious cognitive defect? (e.g. innumeracy, illiteracy, prosopagnosia, any dissassociative disorder, severe mood disorders).
Well, that could be effective fiction but it doesn’t really help connect to the everyman.
You’d go pretty far just telling the audience the character was unintelligent, by giving them unintelligent status markers. Give them a blue-collar career, and very low academic achievement, while also coming from a stable family and average opportunity.
It’s been a while since I watched it, but do you think Ben Affleck’s character in Good Will Hunting was rational, but of limited intelligence?
There are scattered examples of this sort of “humble working man, who lives honest and true” throughout fiction.
Yep, a pretty good example, I think
So far, so normal, you don’t need to be a rationalist to say these sorts of things to make your friend start using their talents.
Now this is what it looks like when a rationalist actually believes in something. You actively enjoy imagining your friend’s left without a word, a horrible thing for a friend to do—because you knows that your friend starting to use their potential is so important as to drown out even being totally abandoned by them.
strong language
We didn’t see enough of his character to really judge how rational he was. You need to get a good sense of the available information.
Keep in mind that people who apply serious life-changing ideas after reading about them in fiction are the exception rather than the norm. Most people who aren’t exceptionally intellect-oriented need to personally encounter someone who “has something” that they themselves wish they had, and then have some reason to think that they can imitate them in that respect. Fiction just isn’t it, except possibly in some indirect ways. Rationalist communities competing in the “real-world” arena of people living lives that other people want to and can emulate are a radically more effective angle for people who don’t identify strongly with their intellectual characteristics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_the_Fool
Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_of_pooh
Ivan achieves good outcomes despite his lack of overt strategizing. But I’m not sure whether that’s because he’s instrumentally rational in a low-IQ way; or whether it’s because his behavior is virtuous, and his story’s creators want to endorse virtuous behavior. However, I’m also uncertain about how far low-IQ instrumentally rational behavior diverges from folk virtue.
“Virtue” is doing things like cooperate on PD. “Virtue” is sort of folk rationality—if everyone were virtuous outcomes would be pretty good.
Aren’t detective/mystery books and shows an example of middlbrow rationalist fiction?
Possible, if the detective isn’t particularly smart but uses good methods. I’m not aware of any such.
There’s an episode of columbo where he catches a member of a high IQ society who thinks he has committed the perfect murder, whilst remaining very modest about his own intellect.