= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
The statistical evidence is that liberalism, especially social liberalism, is positively correlated with intelligence. This does not prove that liberalism is correct; but it does provide some mild evidence in that direction.
Declaration of bias: I am a liberal, I am intelligent, but I'm not a Democrat or Republican.
It's hard to measure liberalism. For example, half the black people say they are conservative and half say they are liberal. But most outsiders would say most black people are liberal (and it's common for 100% of black people in an area to vote for Obama). People judge their liberalism against people like themselves, so it's hard to compare groups.
If you count most black people as liberals, then that intelligence difference between liberals and conservatives might disappear (if it exists, I haven't checked). For example, it's a proven fact that Republicans are smarter than Democrats (because of black people with an average IQ of 85 voting Democrat), although just between white people there is no real difference.
You also need to consider that intelligence comes with biases, even though it also improves your thinking. Intelligent people are biased towards things that benefit intelligent people, eg. complexity, even if they hurt other people.
Intelligent people are biased towards letting people do whatever they want, because intelligent people like themselves will do sensible things when given the choice. They aren't used to stupid people, who do stupid things when allowed to do whatever they want. Intelligent people need freedom, while stupid people need strong inviolable guidelines about acceptable behaviour.
In response to
Reversed Stupidity Is Not Intelligence
Again, I disagree. Cults can't form around anything. They can only form around issues that would make them social or intellectual outcasts. And in a world in which there were poorly hidden aliens, too many intelligent people would be of the opinion that there are poorly hidden aliens, and no such cult could arise.
But the more important point is... IF I start to think that there are poorly hidden aliens, that could be due to one of two reasons: either because I have reasonable evidence for their existence, or because I'm being influenced by some sort of bias.
The existence of cults around the issue shows that those biases exist and are reasonably common, and thus are a more likely reason for my belief than the alternative of actual aliens.
That's a hard question to answer without defining the terms better.
I grew up among a lot of self-identified religious people. Using as my test for the left-side "believe in God" the willingness to arrange at least some superficial aspects of one's life around those beliefs (e.g., where one lives, sends children to school, eats, etc.), and using as my test for the right-side "believe in God" the willingness to die rather than violate what they understood to be God's law, I'd say I'm .95 confident that fewer than five percent of the folks with LH beliefs had RH beliefs, and .75 confident that fewer than 1one percent did.
Yes, but dying is against God's law... so they've cleverly got around that problem.
A single generation of mutation could not create an effect as specific as "die for something". Especially not frequently enough for nineteen of them to emerge closely enough to cooperate.
Everyone is already a mutant. Mutation is a normal part of evolution, and the reason for the diversity in the world. Different people have different sets of mutations. It doesn't have to come from a single generation.
In response to
Are Your Enemies Innately Evil?
"On September 11th, 2001, nineteen Muslim males hijacked four jet airliners in a deliberately suicidal effort to hurt the United States of America. Now why do you suppose they might have done that? Because they saw the USA as a beacon of freedom to the world, but were born with a mutant disposition that made them hate freedom?"
YES! That's exactly what I think. Because I've looked at the evidence, and that's what the evidence says. The United States is renowned as a beacon of freedom. Some people think that's a good thing, some people think that's a bad thing, but they mostly agree it's a beacon of freedom. And a lot of people don't like freedom. And those people clearly have different genes than we do (including personality genes). And people's desire or dislike of freedom tends to relate to personality differences (such as self-control, accepting responsibility for one's own actions, etc).
You must have noticed genetic personality differences between Muslim countries and non-Muslim countries. And those differences were originally caused by mutations.
As I've previously discussed in my comment on your last page, I think your accusations of "correspondence bias" are mistaken and in reality the opposite bias is more of a problem.
In response to
Correspondence Bias
I believe the key point of this article is very wrong.
I urge you to either show some evidence to support your statements, or retract them.
There are huge differences in personality from person to person.
When I kick a vending machine, it IS because I have an angry personality. Even when I kick the vending machine because the bus was late, the train was early, my report is overdue, and now the damned vending machine has eaten my lunch money for the second day in a row... it's still because of my angry personality, and it's a well proven fact that many other people would not do that in the same situation. There are whole countries full of people that would just feel sad, or blame themselves, or just let it go, or get only a little angry inside.
This has been well studied, and almost everyone who's studied it honestly has arrived at the conclusion that people do have different personalities, which account for their behaviour more than the events do, and which are the best predictor of their future behaviour.
So, I'm going to take (or at least emphasise) the opposite position... "We tend to see far too little correspondence between others' actions and personalities, when in reality that's the main cause.... <Genetics rather than environment and all that stuff.>"
In response to
Policy Debates Should Not Appear One-Sided
Nobody chooses their genes or their early environment. The choices they make are determined by those things (and some quantum coin flips). Given what we know of neuroscience how can anyone deserve anything?
"Nobody chooses their genes or their early environment. The choices they make are determined by those things (and some quantum coin flips)."
All true so far... but here comes the huge logical leap...
"Given what we know of neuroscience how can anyone deserve anything?"
What does neuroscience showing the cause of why bad people choose to do bad things, have to do with whether or not bad people deserve bad things to happen to them?
The idea that bad people who choose to do bad things to others deserve bad things to happen to them has never been based on an incorrect view of neuroscience, and neuroscience doesn't change that even slightly.
In response to
Politics is the Mind-Killer
I see politics as unimportant. For most of us, our political opinions have essentially no impact on the world. Their main effect is in our personal lives, our interactions with friends and family. On that basis, one should choose a political position that facilitates such "local" goals. There is little point in trying to be correct and accurate on large-scale political matters, other than as a bias-stretching mental exercise on a par with doing Sudoku.
You couldn't be more wrong. What you should say is that you don't notice the impact your political opinions have on the world, because it happens slowly, because people with radically different political views tend to live in far off countries that you don't think about or in the distant past, and because currently people like you have somewhat sensible political opinions in terms of their short-term consequences (but not at all sensible in terms of their long-term consequences).
Your life would be very different if you lived under a different political regime (Islamism, Communism, Fascism, etc.). And the future of the world will be very different depending on the political views of people like you. It's just hard to see from your point of view.
There are multiple apocalypses headed your way within the next century, and you have limited time to take political action about them. So I'd encourage you to change your mind, and do those bias-stretching mental exercises, to work out a rational political response.
In response to
A Fable of Science and Politics
This story isn't about politics... it's about religion.
Politics is actually quite different, because politics has a proven genetic basis, and actual effects on the world. People don't follow different political "colours" just because they are following a meaningless tradition. People inherit their parents' politics, but largely through genetics. People have different personalities, so they want different things for their countries.
Politics is still a little bit like this article, but it's misleading to portray that as the main factor in politics. Because it isn't.
I think it is the main factor in religion though.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
You've called two different things "Argument Goodness" so you can draw your diagram, but in reality the arguments that the expert heard that led them to their opinion, and the argument that they gave you, are always going to be slightly different.
Also your ability to evaluate the "Argument Goodness" of the argument they gave you is going to be limited, while the expert will probably be better at it.