4 ms·

We all lie. We are all hypocritical. There seems to be a threshold upon which someone is deemed a lier, hypocrite or simple minded. That we all do something d

We all lie. We are all hypocritical. There seems to be a threshold upon which someone is deemed a lier, hypocrite or simple minded. That we all do something doesn't mean that we all do it to the same degree. For some reason when talking about intelligence, people are uncomfortable with some being better endowed than others. I've noted that the people who are most uncomfortable with this reality are many times hyper aware of the difference in physical endowment between different individuals.

bumby 7y ago
I may be missing your connection here but I wasn't referring to "rational" as a proxy for intelligence. What i was referring to was the fact that our decisions originate in our emotional centers of our brain without our conscious awareness only to be justified after the fact by our "rational" mind
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  Sort of. We have system one and system two thinking. We all have system one. Some people have system two to a greater or lesser extent. It's a lot more complicated than 'decisions originate in our emotional centers... only justified... by our rational mind' Yes, to a degree that happens, but it's more than that or people wouldn't think or deliberate points in highly analytical manners. Your post sounds like someone who reads Dan Ariely. Personally, I prefer more nuanced authors such as Kahneman.
  - bumby 7y ago
    I'm not familiar with Ariely. I'll have to look into his writing. I do know some of Kahneman's work has been questioned due to reproducability issues. I was actually drawing from Kahneman's (layman's) book. Specifically, he says, "System 1 is the hero of this book. I describe System 1 as effortlessly originating impressions and feelings that are the main sources of the explicit and deliberate choices of System 2." Granted, there's more nuance than the space in a forum response can provide but I've always liked his elephant and rider analogy. The rider (System 2) thinks they are the one directing their movement (and they do to some extent at least) but the bulk of the control is really the elephant (System 1)
    - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
      Someone said: > Unfortunately, most people are simple minded and are unable to separate their emotions from reason To which you answered: > Psychology seems to point out that we all make emotional decisions first and then rationalize them You are saying 'we all make emotional decisions first and then rationalize them'. No we don't do it all equally. Yes, system one is active in all of us. It's emotional. System two, the 'rational' part, is activated on effort and really only for people above a certain intelligence level. People who are, for example, below 70 in IQ just can't think at a level of abstraction necessary to understand that there is a system one and system two. They are mostly dealing almost exclusively in system one. Some people manage to deal in system 2 much more. Generally, the smarter, the more they deal with that. I'm taking issue with saying 'we all' do it this way. Because that is clearly not true, given how some people solve problems using system 2 and others can't, they are simple minded. It's a tough pill to swallow, but it's there.
      - bumby 7y ago
        >really only for people above a certain intelligence level What are you basing the claim that System 2 is only open to people above a certain intelligence threshold level on? That is certainly not one of the takeaways I had from Kahnemans work > Some people manage to deal in system 2 much more. Generally, the smarter, the more they deal with that. I think if you re-read Kahneman, you'll see he is actually in disagreement with this. He even states that he is unable to effectively guard against his System 1 biases. This is coming from a Nobel laureate at the forefront of the field. He certainly qualifies to be in the "smarter" category of humans and if anyone should be able to thwart System 1, I'd think it would be him. > I'm taking issue with saying 'we all' do it this way. The fact that we all do this is precisely the point of Kahneman's work that I relied on to make the claim. I wouldn't be surprised if there's degrees to the extent that it happens, but it's interesting to me that you think that degree hinges on someone's IQ. Is there any data to back up this hypothesis? It seems like there's a conflation of ideas here. I don't disagree that people have differing abilities of analytical ability. But this does not necessarily mean that higher levels of analytical ability negate the claim from Kahneman that our decisions are rooted in our emotional centers. This two points are not mutually exclusive. There appears to be at least some study into this: "One psychologist, Keith Stanovich, draws a distinction between two parts of System 2. One deals with slow and effortful thinking and demanding computation. Some people are better than others in this task, they are the individuals work cell [sic] in intelligence tests and are able to switch quickly and efficiently from one task to another. Yet such high intelligence does not make people immune to biases. Another ability is involved, what that psychologist labelled rationality and what Kahneman terms being engaged, which is distinct from intelligence as such." The argument you're making comes across as, "Yeah, of course those people are irrational and biased. But smart people are different." In my opinion, this is exactly the wrong take-away from Kahneman's work and it potentially opens one up to being even more biased. It reminds me of a conversation with magicians where they felt like scientists and PhDs are actually easier to fool because they were smart enough to rationalize any justification for an illusion (and believe it wholeheartedly) simply because they weren't as self-aware of their own fallibility. So if you were willing to modify the stance that "smart people are above these biases" to "smart are more likely to erroneously think they are above these biases" that might be closer to the mark although I have no idea if studies have confirmed that.
bumby 7y ago
> people are uncomfortable with some being better endowed than others I've always wondered if this was because intelligence is almost considered a species-defining trait. It's often looked at as the "great equalizer" in achievement. It's a tough pill to swallow to acknowledge those differences in attainment may be, at least in part, due to unassailable differences in ability.

bumby 7y ago

I may be missing your connection here but I wasn't referring to "rational" as a proxy for intelligence. What i was referring to was the fact that our decisions originate in our emotional centers of our brain without our conscious awareness only to be justified after the fact by our "rational" mind

4ntonius8lock 7y ago
Sort of. We have system one and system two thinking. We all have system one. Some people have system two to a greater or lesser extent. It's a lot more complicated than 'decisions originate in our emotional centers... only justified... by our rational mind' Yes, to a degree that happens, but it's more than that or people wouldn't think or deliberate points in highly analytical manners. Your post sounds like someone who reads Dan Ariely. Personally, I prefer more nuanced authors such as Kahneman.
- bumby 7y ago
  I'm not familiar with Ariely. I'll have to look into his writing. I do know some of Kahneman's work has been questioned due to reproducability issues. I was actually drawing from Kahneman's (layman's) book. Specifically, he says, "System 1 is the hero of this book. I describe System 1 as effortlessly originating impressions and feelings that are the main sources of the explicit and deliberate choices of System 2." Granted, there's more nuance than the space in a forum response can provide but I've always liked his elephant and rider analogy. The rider (System 2) thinks they are the one directing their movement (and they do to some extent at least) but the bulk of the control is really the elephant (System 1)
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
    Someone said: > Unfortunately, most people are simple minded and are unable to separate their emotions from reason To which you answered: > Psychology seems to point out that we all make emotional decisions first and then rationalize them You are saying 'we all make emotional decisions first and then rationalize them'. No we don't do it all equally. Yes, system one is active in all of us. It's emotional. System two, the 'rational' part, is activated on effort and really only for people above a certain intelligence level. People who are, for example, below 70 in IQ just can't think at a level of abstraction necessary to understand that there is a system one and system two. They are mostly dealing almost exclusively in system one. Some people manage to deal in system 2 much more. Generally, the smarter, the more they deal with that. I'm taking issue with saying 'we all' do it this way. Because that is clearly not true, given how some people solve problems using system 2 and others can't, they are simple minded. It's a tough pill to swallow, but it's there.
    - bumby 7y ago
      >really only for people above a certain intelligence level What are you basing the claim that System 2 is only open to people above a certain intelligence threshold level on? That is certainly not one of the takeaways I had from Kahnemans work > Some people manage to deal in system 2 much more. Generally, the smarter, the more they deal with that. I think if you re-read Kahneman, you'll see he is actually in disagreement with this. He even states that he is unable to effectively guard against his System 1 biases. This is coming from a Nobel laureate at the forefront of the field. He certainly qualifies to be in the "smarter" category of humans and if anyone should be able to thwart System 1, I'd think it would be him. > I'm taking issue with saying 'we all' do it this way. The fact that we all do this is precisely the point of Kahneman's work that I relied on to make the claim. I wouldn't be surprised if there's degrees to the extent that it happens, but it's interesting to me that you think that degree hinges on someone's IQ. Is there any data to back up this hypothesis? It seems like there's a conflation of ideas here. I don't disagree that people have differing abilities of analytical ability. But this does not necessarily mean that higher levels of analytical ability negate the claim from Kahneman that our decisions are rooted in our emotional centers. This two points are not mutually exclusive. There appears to be at least some study into this: "One psychologist, Keith Stanovich, draws a distinction between two parts of System 2. One deals with slow and effortful thinking and demanding computation. Some people are better than others in this task, they are the individuals work cell [sic] in intelligence tests and are able to switch quickly and efficiently from one task to another. Yet such high intelligence does not make people immune to biases. Another ability is involved, what that psychologist labelled rationality and what Kahneman terms being engaged, which is distinct from intelligence as such." The argument you're making comes across as, "Yeah, of course those people are irrational and biased. But smart people are different." In my opinion, this is exactly the wrong take-away from Kahneman's work and it potentially opens one up to being even more biased. It reminds me of a conversation with magicians where they felt like scientists and PhDs are actually easier to fool because they were smart enough to rationalize any justification for an illusion (and believe it wholeheartedly) simply because they weren't as self-aware of their own fallibility. So if you were willing to modify the stance that "smart people are above these biases" to "smart are more likely to erroneously think they are above these biases" that might be closer to the mark although I have no idea if studies have confirmed that.

bumby 7y ago

> people are uncomfortable with some being better endowed than others I've always wondered if this was because intelligence is almost considered a species-defining trait. It's often looked at as the "great equalizer" in achievement. It's a tough pill to swallow to acknowledge those differences in attainment may be, at least in part, due to unassailable differences in ability.