The author argues that high IQ people solve problems by using abstract reasoning instead of evolved common sense. Moreover, general intelligence is mainly useful for solving evolutionarily novel problems, and can actually be a hindrance for problems which were a regular part of the evolutionary environment (for example, social situations). Hence, when facing problems where humans have evolved behavioral responses, smart people who apply abstract reasoning and override common sense often end up doing silly things.
Unfortunately, it’s by Bruce Charlton. I’ve noticed that whenever this hypothesis comes up, it seems to be solely used as a political cudgel to attack liberals—which means I trust the paper as far as I can throw it.
(Why is the ‘clever silly’ idea always used to attack things like diversity, and not equally abstract and historically unprecedented shibboleths of the right like untrammeled free markets?)
I also don’t understand why politics isn’t considered evolutionarily novel. There is a difference between 1) social organization of a small tribe and 2) management of a polity containing large institutions and thousands to millions of people.
As far as I can tell, no one considers tribal political affiliation desirable.
I would recommend skipping the section on political correctness. I do think the first two sections give a good lesson on how a little reason can be a dangerous thing.
This article seems relevant: “Clever sillies: Why high IQ people tend to be deficient in common sense.”
The author argues that high IQ people solve problems by using abstract reasoning instead of evolved common sense. Moreover, general intelligence is mainly useful for solving evolutionarily novel problems, and can actually be a hindrance for problems which were a regular part of the evolutionary environment (for example, social situations). Hence, when facing problems where humans have evolved behavioral responses, smart people who apply abstract reasoning and override common sense often end up doing silly things.
Unfortunately, it’s by Bruce Charlton. I’ve noticed that whenever this hypothesis comes up, it seems to be solely used as a political cudgel to attack liberals—which means I trust the paper as far as I can throw it.
(Why is the ‘clever silly’ idea always used to attack things like diversity, and not equally abstract and historically unprecedented shibboleths of the right like untrammeled free markets?)
I also don’t understand why politics isn’t considered evolutionarily novel. There is a difference between 1) social organization of a small tribe and 2) management of a polity containing large institutions and thousands to millions of people.
As far as I can tell, no one considers tribal political affiliation desirable.
I would recommend skipping the section on political correctness. I do think the first two sections give a good lesson on how a little reason can be a dangerous thing.
Looks like he got hoist by his own petard.