Studies linking common traits related to interaction with authorities with respect to beliefs.
High correlation of extraversion with conformist thinking
Relevance of both of the above to tendencies toward prioritising epistemic rationality.
Game theoretic incentives for adopting certain signalling strategies based off various social niches.
IQ: relevant.
Big Five: even more relevant. Openness to experience in particular. Extraversion is relevant via the previous mentioned conformist tendencies.
It’s about personality. Personality is overwhelmingly dominated by genetic factors.
Have you seen the children of engineers and scientists? Seriously, how is this not obvious?
Epistemic rationality is basically a mental defect. Sure, maybe not in existential terms. But certainly in the “He who dies with the most toys wins (and probably got laid more)” sense. Thinking rationally just isn’t much of a recipe for conventional success. Vulnerability to overemphasising abstract thought over primate political thought is rather closely related to tendencies towards Asperger’s. And even at the sub-diagnostic level nerds that breed are more likely to produce offspring that are diagnosable. Somewhere along that spectrum there is a maximum likelyhood of catching rationalism.
Rational thinking is nerdy. Nerdiness is heritable.
If you could on the children of engineers/scientists thing, that’d be interesting. I don’t know how useful it’d be because I imagine it’d boil down to them being much nerdier than the children of equivalently intelligent groups, such as lawyers, Arts professors or journalists.
This would make a staggeringly excellent paper/thesis and if one were really ambitious one could also include accountants and teachers, who could be further divided by subject.
The easiest way for a current student to do this would be to try and get data on the adult children of all permanent tenured staff at their university.
I know. That’s what I was trying to avoid doing. But you could take it up. ;)
Your other ideas sound interesting too. But more in the “good subject for a PhD thesis” than good subject for a post. That would be a lot of work to acquire the data, analyse it suitably and write up all the various implications. Come to think of it it would be in the top 10 broad research areas that I’d be interested in following up. (And I would perhaps even have an ethical obligation to follow that research up with a covert ‘evil mastermind’ type eugenics program.)
For my part I am not sure how confident I could be of differences between, say, lawyer’s children and engineer’s children, after controlling for intelligence. Probably some but it’d take a whole lot of data to find significance. Journalists? Who knows. They could even be more susceptible to rationality than engineers for all I know. Potentially contrarian truth seeking is not out of place in a journalist.
I’m more comfortable with making estimates based on the groups that imply serious differences in personality. For example, marketers, ‘Desperate Housewives’ type socialites and human resources middle managers, all after controlling for IQ. Certain kinds of biased thinking are a competitive advantage in those environments.
Couldn’t you just briefly explain your reasoning?
I like the way you asked a question there.
Studies linking common traits related to interaction with authorities with respect to beliefs.
High correlation of extraversion with conformist thinking
Relevance of both of the above to tendencies toward prioritising epistemic rationality.
Game theoretic incentives for adopting certain signalling strategies based off various social niches.
IQ: relevant.
Big Five: even more relevant. Openness to experience in particular. Extraversion is relevant via the previous mentioned conformist tendencies.
It’s about personality. Personality is overwhelmingly dominated by genetic factors.
Have you seen the children of engineers and scientists? Seriously, how is this not obvious?
Epistemic rationality is basically a mental defect. Sure, maybe not in existential terms. But certainly in the “He who dies with the most toys wins (and probably got laid more)” sense. Thinking rationally just isn’t much of a recipe for conventional success. Vulnerability to overemphasising abstract thought over primate political thought is rather closely related to tendencies towards Asperger’s. And even at the sub-diagnostic level nerds that breed are more likely to produce offspring that are diagnosable. Somewhere along that spectrum there is a maximum likelyhood of catching rationalism.
Rational thinking is nerdy. Nerdiness is heritable.
This has the makings of an excellent post.
If you could on the children of engineers/scientists thing, that’d be interesting. I don’t know how useful it’d be because I imagine it’d boil down to them being much nerdier than the children of equivalently intelligent groups, such as lawyers, Arts professors or journalists.
This would make a staggeringly excellent paper/thesis and if one were really ambitious one could also include accountants and teachers, who could be further divided by subject.
The easiest way for a current student to do this would be to try and get data on the adult children of all permanent tenured staff at their university.
I know. That’s what I was trying to avoid doing. But you could take it up. ;)
Your other ideas sound interesting too. But more in the “good subject for a PhD thesis” than good subject for a post. That would be a lot of work to acquire the data, analyse it suitably and write up all the various implications. Come to think of it it would be in the top 10 broad research areas that I’d be interested in following up. (And I would perhaps even have an ethical obligation to follow that research up with a covert ‘evil mastermind’ type eugenics program.)
For my part I am not sure how confident I could be of differences between, say, lawyer’s children and engineer’s children, after controlling for intelligence. Probably some but it’d take a whole lot of data to find significance. Journalists? Who knows. They could even be more susceptible to rationality than engineers for all I know. Potentially contrarian truth seeking is not out of place in a journalist.
I’m more comfortable with making estimates based on the groups that imply serious differences in personality. For example, marketers, ‘Desperate Housewives’ type socialites and human resources middle managers, all after controlling for IQ. Certain kinds of biased thinking are a competitive advantage in those environments.
Thanks :)
NOW: Time to dogpile you with definitional quibbles!