6 ms·

I could believe in a connection between vegetarianism and intelligence. I can think of three traits that would lead to both: Willingness to consider ideas tha

I could believe in a connection between vegetarianism and intelligence. I can think of three traits that would lead to both: Willingness to consider ideas that at first appear wrong. Without this, our knowledge would never contain the counterintuitive. If we limit ourselves to what's intuitive, then we severely limit our intelligence. The connection to vegetarianism is that our culture teaches us that animals are objects that we can use as we wish, so vegetarianism at first appears wrong to us because of our social upbringing. A sense of duty toward the truth. Gandhi was like this: he was very driven toward the truth and very accepting of the outcome. As a result, he was always performing many "experiments" and continually learning. A sense of duty toward (and lack of fear of) the truth will expose you to many new experiences and allow you to incorporate new information, which can increase your intelligence. The link to vegetarianism is this: many meat-eaters I know are not meat-eaters because they sat down one day and made an intelligent, intentional decision to start (or continue) to eat meat, they either have not yet been exposed to different ways of thinking about animals or they have been exposed but they avoid the issue. A desire for a consistent world view. There is an inconsistency in our culture in the way we treat some animals (pets) and other animals (factory-farmed livestock). Michael Vick's dog cruelty is punished but the same animal cruelty is condoned for the sake of food. There is a logical contradiction here which takes some intelligence to notice. This, I think, is one of the real reasons why there can be a link between intelligence and vegetarianism: there are less philosophical contradictions in a vegetarian's position. If you put a meat-eater and a vegetarian head-to-head in a philosophical debate, my money would go on the vegetarian.

otakucode 17y ago
Do you think the near impossibility of a vegetarian diet for infants and young children is a weakness of an argument toward vegetarianism? It would certainly be possible for adults to convert to purely vegetarian diets, but such a diet means almost certain, and very unpleasant, death for infants and small children who need large quantities of the building blocks of bone and meat in order to form their own bones and meat. I'm not an enemy of vegetarianism or anything like that, but your mention of a consistent worldview brought this to mind.
- techiferous 17y ago
  I do know that you have to be very careful about infants and veganism, but for adults, less so. About the consistency in worldview, that's something that I as a vegan have to struggle with. The truth is that I cannot completely eliminate animal usage from my lifestyle as long as I live in human society. It's either direct (I eat animal-based products or I buy leather) or indirect (I board a bus that has antifreeze, which is an animal-based product). So each vegetarian/vegan has to draw the line somewhere, and that's a personal choice. I choose to draw the line at avoiding eating animal products and avoiding buying animal products (leather and wool). Edge cases like infants generate some interesting discussion, but I think the real action is in the typical case. For the typical American, it's hard to defend the eating of meat.
  - epochwolf 17y ago
    For the typical American, it's hard to defend the eating of meat. Not to start a fight but, being one of those typical Americans (and a decently smart one), I don't have a problem defending the eating of meat. My reasoning is quite simple but I know many people won't agree with me. I don't see animals as being worthy of the same treatment as humans. Not that I can condone putting animals through unnecessary suffering. But, I define unnecessary suffering is anything beyond what commonly happens to animals in nature. I think veal fattening pen are unethical. Holding animals in tightly enclosed spaces for their entire lives is unethical. Killing a cow with an ax isn't provided you're killing the cow for an ethical reason such as using the animal for food or soap. If you don't use the animal you kill it's no different than burning a forest without a purpose.
    - techiferous 17y ago
      "Not to start a fight but," I really welcome these honest and sincere comments of yours and find them refreshing. I actually agree with most of what you're saying here. I take things a little further than you, but not much. Let me explain: "I don't see animals as being worthy of the same treatment as humans." -- I agree with this. In some ways animals are similar to humans, but in other ways they are different. "I define unnecessary suffering is anything beyond what commonly happens to animals in nature." -- I personally don't quite agree with this, but concede that this can easily be defended philosophically. "I think veal fattening pen are unethical. Holding animals in tightly enclosed spaces for their entire lives is unethical." -- Me too. Note that more than 99% of meat is from factory-farmed animals, so to eat meat is to vote with your dollars for this sort of abusive animal treatment. (Reference: http://www.farmforward.com/farming-forward/factory-farming http://www.farmforward.com/farming-forward/factory-farming) "Killing a cow with an ax isn't provided you're killing the cow for an ethical reason such as using the animal for food or soap." -- I'll concede this point, but I must point out that the majority of suffering and death that we put animals through is for unnecessary reasons. Case in point: I've been a vegan for five years and it has not interfered with my ability to live an enjoyable, productive life. Note that the typical American eats too much meat (from a health standpoint) and as a result is dying earlier. So for most of the meat consumption in the U.S., the act of eating meat harms both the animal and the consumer of the meat. (Cutting meat completely from your diet will reduce your cancer and heart disease risk.)
kls 17y ago
--I could believe in a connection between vegetarianism and intelligence That is because intelligence is measured in the eye of the beholder and the intelligence that the author was measuring was an intelligence that coincides with a cross section of people who tend to hold this belief in the social circle. The article is so obviously subjective to the results the author wants based on the intelligence he is looking for. For example I could argue that artistic expression is a sign of intelligence, i would be right and if i weighted my measures with that measure, I can guarantee you I could come back and correlate a high prevalence of vegetarianism to that measure.
- gaius 17y ago
  intelligence is measured in the eye of the beholder and the intelligence that the author was measuring was an intelligence that coincides with a cross section of people who tend to hold this belief in the social circle Exactly. It's like ESR's assertion that "a good hacker is someone who is just like me".
  - techiferous 17y ago
    Agreed. You have to be careful to remove bias. For example, if I set up a scientific study that compares the intelligence of vegetarians to meat-eaters I may find vegetarians scoring higher on intelligence than meat-eaters but that wouldn't necessarily prove the points that I speculated about above. That's because meat is subsidized, so people in poverty would have a harder time being vegetarian, and I would think that poverty is correlated with education level which would be correlated with intelligence. (See http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm07autumn/health_pork.html http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm07autumn/health_pork.html)
blintson 17y ago
I am a meat-eater who's made an intelligent, intentional decision to eat meat. I sometimes hunt deer and turkey, and I've caught and gutted fish. I've seen slaughterhouses where cows and chickens are killed, and animal cruelty doesn't bother me at all. Not that I'm not worried about antibiotic abuse and such breeding disease, I mean that I don't care at all about the animals' welfare.
- Locke1689 17y ago
  I'm not sure that's an intelligent or rational decision to eat meat. The statement that you don't care about animal welfare or animal cruelty is simply a statement with no rational foundation. For example, you would probably disagree with human cruelty, so why agree with animal cruelty? There's a rational argument to be made why you don't care, but simply stating that you don't care isn't really an argument at all.
  - techiferous 17y ago
    But there's one thing I admire about blintson's position: It was intentional. He actually thought about it and made a decision. For too many people, meat-eating is a mindless default. You raise a good point, though. Unless blinston also doesn't care about human welfare, it leaves the question unanswered as to why he would care about humans and not animals.
- brl 17y ago
  > animal cruelty doesn't bother me at all. Are you perhaps, a psychopath? Do you think we should get rid of the laws that prevent people from gratuitously torturing animals?
  - techiferous 17y ago
    I really doubt he's a psychopath. According to Wikipedia, psychopaths "they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse". In other words, they do whatever the heck they want, social norms be damned. Many meat-eaters that I know are meat-eaters because they are very much attuned to social norms. They intuitively know that breaking from the common belief that animals are objects could threaten their socialization, which can add to their reluctance to entertain vegetarian ideas. But I'm glad that you brought up the concept of psychopathy, because anyone who reads up on factory farming would realize that people who do that to animals are not mentally healthy. It's like the 99% of us who aren't psychopaths have delegated the messy work of factory farming to the 1% of us that are psychopaths.
cmars232 17y ago
I disagree. I think it takes intelligence to accept and realize the ambiguity, complexity and downright contradictions that are endemic to our existence.
- techiferous 17y ago
  I agree. Everything has edge cases, no matter what your position. The world doesn't neatly fit into our tidy little concepts of morality. However, ignore the edge cases and there isn't so much ambiguity. Take the average American sitting down to a meal--why does he choose to eat beef? Typically it is out of habit or to please the palate. In the typical case, this act is harmful to the health of this person. This act also ends the life of a sentient being whose brain is developed enough to experience pain, emotions, and even develop social relationships. I don't see much ethical gray area here: a desire to please the palate would be trumped by another sentient being's desire to continue living and live free of pain and suffering. Also, I doubt you would consistently hold to this position: "realize the ambiguity, complexity and downright contradictions that are endemic to our existence" if you were on the receiving end of the pain and suffering. If someone kidnapped your daughter and prostituted her out, for example, I doubt that you would find comfort in the fact that life is "ambiguous and complex".
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - cmars232 17y ago
    I'm not an objectivist, I just think intelligence has nothing to do with the choosing. Ultimately one decides animals should exist as a delicious, nutritious source of protein, or those who would harm one's family should painfully cease to. You can arrive at a completely different conclusion, but how is intelligence a factor in the choosing?
    - techiferous 17y ago
      Good point. Intelligence may not be a primary factor in the choosing. One reason why some people are vegetarians and others not is exposure to the information about factory farming. So if you don't know what's going on with animals, you could be highly intelligent and not be a vegetarian. Another reason is you could be intelligent and narcissistic. You may know about animal suffering, but not care. The reason I believe there could be a link (maybe a very small correlation; nothing big) is my own "anecdotal" observations. I've seen how a lack of intelligence can keep people from becoming a vegetarian. Often people don't address the issues in a well-reasoned, objective manner but react based on their emotions/desires ("but I just couldn't give up cheese!") or more often, simply avoiding the topic altogether. I have not once, ever, come across a sound, cogent reason for eating meat (barring edge cases--just talking about the typical case). But I've come across many different sound arguments for avoiding eating meat. The overwhelming truth and well-thought out arguments of vegetarians impresses me. For more context, I wasn't always vegetarian. I was raised with meat at every meal and I would complain if I didn't have meat. It was ultimately the cogency of the argument for vegetarianism that converted me. I would convert back if I came across an argument for eating meat. So after years of hearing poor arguments from the meat-eating side and sound arguments from the vegetarian side, it makes it believable when someone suggests there might be a link between vegetarianism and intelligence. (I'm actually quite impressed that this Hacker News discussion hasn't degenerated. In my experience online discussions about vegetarianism often degenerate into childish snark. Thanks for keeping it real.)

otakucode 17y ago

Do you think the near impossibility of a vegetarian diet for infants and young children is a weakness of an argument toward vegetarianism? It would certainly be possible for adults to convert to purely vegetarian diets, but such a diet means almost certain, and very unpleasant, death for infants and small children who need large quantities of the building blocks of bone and meat in order to form their own bones and meat. I'm not an enemy of vegetarianism or anything like that, but your mention of a consistent worldview brought this to mind.

techiferous 17y ago
I do know that you have to be very careful about infants and veganism, but for adults, less so. About the consistency in worldview, that's something that I as a vegan have to struggle with. The truth is that I cannot completely eliminate animal usage from my lifestyle as long as I live in human society. It's either direct (I eat animal-based products or I buy leather) or indirect (I board a bus that has antifreeze, which is an animal-based product). So each vegetarian/vegan has to draw the line somewhere, and that's a personal choice. I choose to draw the line at avoiding eating animal products and avoiding buying animal products (leather and wool). Edge cases like infants generate some interesting discussion, but I think the real action is in the typical case. For the typical American, it's hard to defend the eating of meat.
- epochwolf 17y ago
  For the typical American, it's hard to defend the eating of meat. Not to start a fight but, being one of those typical Americans (and a decently smart one), I don't have a problem defending the eating of meat. My reasoning is quite simple but I know many people won't agree with me. I don't see animals as being worthy of the same treatment as humans. Not that I can condone putting animals through unnecessary suffering. But, I define unnecessary suffering is anything beyond what commonly happens to animals in nature. I think veal fattening pen are unethical. Holding animals in tightly enclosed spaces for their entire lives is unethical. Killing a cow with an ax isn't provided you're killing the cow for an ethical reason such as using the animal for food or soap. If you don't use the animal you kill it's no different than burning a forest without a purpose.
  - techiferous 17y ago
    "Not to start a fight but," I really welcome these honest and sincere comments of yours and find them refreshing. I actually agree with most of what you're saying here. I take things a little further than you, but not much. Let me explain: "I don't see animals as being worthy of the same treatment as humans." -- I agree with this. In some ways animals are similar to humans, but in other ways they are different. "I define unnecessary suffering is anything beyond what commonly happens to animals in nature." -- I personally don't quite agree with this, but concede that this can easily be defended philosophically. "I think veal fattening pen are unethical. Holding animals in tightly enclosed spaces for their entire lives is unethical." -- Me too. Note that more than 99% of meat is from factory-farmed animals, so to eat meat is to vote with your dollars for this sort of abusive animal treatment. (Reference: http://www.farmforward.com/farming-forward/factory-farming http://www.farmforward.com/farming-forward/factory-farming) "Killing a cow with an ax isn't provided you're killing the cow for an ethical reason such as using the animal for food or soap." -- I'll concede this point, but I must point out that the majority of suffering and death that we put animals through is for unnecessary reasons. Case in point: I've been a vegan for five years and it has not interfered with my ability to live an enjoyable, productive life. Note that the typical American eats too much meat (from a health standpoint) and as a result is dying earlier. So for most of the meat consumption in the U.S., the act of eating meat harms both the animal and the consumer of the meat. (Cutting meat completely from your diet will reduce your cancer and heart disease risk.)

kls 17y ago

--I could believe in a connection between vegetarianism and intelligence That is because intelligence is measured in the eye of the beholder and the intelligence that the author was measuring was an intelligence that coincides with a cross section of people who tend to hold this belief in the social circle. The article is so obviously subjective to the results the author wants based on the intelligence he is looking for. For example I could argue that artistic expression is a sign of intelligence, i would be right and if i weighted my measures with that measure, I can guarantee you I could come back and correlate a high prevalence of vegetarianism to that measure.

gaius 17y ago
intelligence is measured in the eye of the beholder and the intelligence that the author was measuring was an intelligence that coincides with a cross section of people who tend to hold this belief in the social circle Exactly. It's like ESR's assertion that "a good hacker is someone who is just like me".
- techiferous 17y ago
  Agreed. You have to be careful to remove bias. For example, if I set up a scientific study that compares the intelligence of vegetarians to meat-eaters I may find vegetarians scoring higher on intelligence than meat-eaters but that wouldn't necessarily prove the points that I speculated about above. That's because meat is subsidized, so people in poverty would have a harder time being vegetarian, and I would think that poverty is correlated with education level which would be correlated with intelligence. (See http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm07autumn/health_pork.html http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm07autumn/health_pork.html)

blintson 17y ago

I am a meat-eater who's made an intelligent, intentional decision to eat meat. I sometimes hunt deer and turkey, and I've caught and gutted fish. I've seen slaughterhouses where cows and chickens are killed, and animal cruelty doesn't bother me at all. Not that I'm not worried about antibiotic abuse and such breeding disease, I mean that I don't care at all about the animals' welfare.

Locke1689 17y ago
I'm not sure that's an intelligent or rational decision to eat meat. The statement that you don't care about animal welfare or animal cruelty is simply a statement with no rational foundation. For example, you would probably disagree with human cruelty, so why agree with animal cruelty? There's a rational argument to be made why you don't care, but simply stating that you don't care isn't really an argument at all.
- techiferous 17y ago
  But there's one thing I admire about blintson's position: It was intentional. He actually thought about it and made a decision. For too many people, meat-eating is a mindless default. You raise a good point, though. Unless blinston also doesn't care about human welfare, it leaves the question unanswered as to why he would care about humans and not animals.
brl 17y ago
> animal cruelty doesn't bother me at all. Are you perhaps, a psychopath? Do you think we should get rid of the laws that prevent people from gratuitously torturing animals?
- techiferous 17y ago
  I really doubt he's a psychopath. According to Wikipedia, psychopaths "they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse". In other words, they do whatever the heck they want, social norms be damned. Many meat-eaters that I know are meat-eaters because they are very much attuned to social norms. They intuitively know that breaking from the common belief that animals are objects could threaten their socialization, which can add to their reluctance to entertain vegetarian ideas. But I'm glad that you brought up the concept of psychopathy, because anyone who reads up on factory farming would realize that people who do that to animals are not mentally healthy. It's like the 99% of us who aren't psychopaths have delegated the messy work of factory farming to the 1% of us that are psychopaths.

cmars232 17y ago

I disagree. I think it takes intelligence to accept and realize the ambiguity, complexity and downright contradictions that are endemic to our existence.

techiferous 17y ago
I agree. Everything has edge cases, no matter what your position. The world doesn't neatly fit into our tidy little concepts of morality. However, ignore the edge cases and there isn't so much ambiguity. Take the average American sitting down to a meal--why does he choose to eat beef? Typically it is out of habit or to please the palate. In the typical case, this act is harmful to the health of this person. This act also ends the life of a sentient being whose brain is developed enough to experience pain, emotions, and even develop social relationships. I don't see much ethical gray area here: a desire to please the palate would be trumped by another sentient being's desire to continue living and live free of pain and suffering. Also, I doubt you would consistently hold to this position: "realize the ambiguity, complexity and downright contradictions that are endemic to our existence" if you were on the receiving end of the pain and suffering. If someone kidnapped your daughter and prostituted her out, for example, I doubt that you would find comfort in the fact that life is "ambiguous and complex".
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- cmars232 17y ago
  I'm not an objectivist, I just think intelligence has nothing to do with the choosing. Ultimately one decides animals should exist as a delicious, nutritious source of protein, or those who would harm one's family should painfully cease to. You can arrive at a completely different conclusion, but how is intelligence a factor in the choosing?
  - techiferous 17y ago
    Good point. Intelligence may not be a primary factor in the choosing. One reason why some people are vegetarians and others not is exposure to the information about factory farming. So if you don't know what's going on with animals, you could be highly intelligent and not be a vegetarian. Another reason is you could be intelligent and narcissistic. You may know about animal suffering, but not care. The reason I believe there could be a link (maybe a very small correlation; nothing big) is my own "anecdotal" observations. I've seen how a lack of intelligence can keep people from becoming a vegetarian. Often people don't address the issues in a well-reasoned, objective manner but react based on their emotions/desires ("but I just couldn't give up cheese!") or more often, simply avoiding the topic altogether. I have not once, ever, come across a sound, cogent reason for eating meat (barring edge cases--just talking about the typical case). But I've come across many different sound arguments for avoiding eating meat. The overwhelming truth and well-thought out arguments of vegetarians impresses me. For more context, I wasn't always vegetarian. I was raised with meat at every meal and I would complain if I didn't have meat. It was ultimately the cogency of the argument for vegetarianism that converted me. I would convert back if I came across an argument for eating meat. So after years of hearing poor arguments from the meat-eating side and sound arguments from the vegetarian side, it makes it believable when someone suggests there might be a link between vegetarianism and intelligence. (I'm actually quite impressed that this Hacker News discussion hasn't degenerated. In my experience online discussions about vegetarianism often degenerate into childish snark. Thanks for keeping it real.)