"The fact is that humans can be highly rational in one area while extremely irrational in another."

Really? How do you know that? Why shouldn't it be true that someone who is deeply wrong about one thing would not also be wrong about another? Your counter argument is a common fallacy. I am referring to studies in which a population is tested for whatever it is the study is looking for. You, like so many others these days, counter by saying: "I knew this one guy, he wasn't like that so your study must be wrong." You are correct that global warming is true regardless of the politics of the person. However the reverse is not true. The politics one has are strong indicators of how likely it is one holds beliefs that are not true.

There is in fact what is called the "smart idiot" effect. Conservatives who are better educated tend to be MORE wrong than their less educated base because they have more resources to bring to bear in rationalizing their fears. This is all about fear you know. Certain people react very fearfully to change. Like changing ideas about marriage for example. They then marshal their intellectual abilities to defend their emotional priors. The fact they can do so eloquently changes nothing.

--

"Moreover, by other metrics, conservatives have more science knowledge than liberals on average."

So in responding to scientific studies that show differences between how authoritarians and liberals process data you cite... what? a blog? I am guessing that the blog you consider most relevant is that of Razib Kahn.

Razib poses the question "are conservatives more scientifically literate than liberals?" Well that is a different question isn't it? Furthermore the questions in his database search do not test for scientific literacy. They test for conformity. Which I am more than willing to admit conservatives would perform better at. If I repeat the social norm that astrology is unscientific do I have "more science knowledge" than someone who does not? Or am I simply aping the values of my tribe and signaling I am a beta male in good standing?

Liberals would predictably adopt scientific ideas outside the norm because they are interested in them and it is exciting to explore the new or odd for it's own rewards. Just as for a conservative it is comforting to reaffirm consensus beliefs. Both personalities are rewarded for their behavior. One for seeking out the new, the other for conformity to authority. Both are necessary for any healthy society. However, conservative personalities have a greater need for epistemic closure and are therefore more susceptible to a self validating reality bubble.

Which is what we see today on the right in the US.

--

"In fact, the GSS data strongly suggests that in general the most stupid, ignorant people are actually the political moderates."

As Razib himself says "The Audacious Epigone did not control for background variables."

--

"You seem to be asserting that "Person X who says A will be extremely unlikely to have anything useful to say." And asserting that "If Person Y thinks that Person X has interesting things to say about B despite X's declaration of A, that makes the person Y even less likely to have useful things to say?""

Because the acolyte is always less than the master.

I prefer to cut Gordian knots rather than spend my days trying to untie them. So if it is true that Moldbug is a royalist and admires the fascist dictator Generalissimo Franco (who is still dead) then he is low on my stack of "people I should give a shit about". Any followers even less so because they can't even be original about who's boots they should lick.

Ezra Pound was a great poet and likewise a fascist and admirer of Spain's Franco. But poetry is art and while I might be able to set aside my political opinions to make room for Pound I would not consider anything he said outside of that to be of great value. There have been many artists who held political views I find repugnant and there have been many of history's monsters who created artifacts of great beauty. The Samurai lords of feudal Japan created works of great beauty by night and literally hacked their peasants into bits by day. But art is one thing about which it is impossible to have "wrong" opinions about.

I have to have a filter. If I do not have one I will spend all my time pursuing false trails and diving into rabbit holes that go nowhere. So... in my first reply in this thread I clicked on the first link to Molbug's pretentious twaddle on how he was going to teach people "true" economic theory. It was very kind of him in my view to make it clear from the beginning that he had no interest at all in economics as a science. So... someone who makes a thought error that bad, who thinks you can dictate what is true about economics, how likely is it that such a person would make the same thinking error in other disciplines? I think the odds are quite good. I did read a bit more before I closed the tab and he does seem to have a way with words. So.... there's that... I guess.

If one wishes to understand a topic my advice is to go to any University bookstore and get an undergraduate textbook and read it. The odds are it is likely to be... wait for it... less wrong than some crank on the internet who thinks the academic world is conspiring against him. PLOP! Into the dustbin of history they go.

In economics that book will be Principles of Economics by N. Gregory Mankiw. It WON'T be some crackpot libertarian theory or the latest dribblings from the Austrian school. Why? Because Utopian systems are not about describing what is (and therefore they cannot be about what could be). They are about creating a bubble to insulate oneself from the big bad world. Yes yes it is harsh, reality is truly frightening. It may well be that we have set into motion events that will lead to our extinction. When I was young it was the threat of nuclear war. Today it is the possibility of a global extinction event due to climate change. Perhaps tomorrow it will be a killer asteroid. But denial and retreat are not solutions.