Sociopath Community

Dragoonback said: 

 

Likewise, being intelligent doesn't necessarily mean someone is good at reasoning in every interpersonal situation. Intelligence can help someone construct an argument, but it doesn't guarantee that they will actually use that ability to examine themselves.

 I find you fail at that.

Intelligence has many shades. There's low intelligence and high intelligence. 

There are people who can construct "a claim" and examine themselves. It doesn't require a great deal of intelligence to do this. 

Constructing arguments isn't associated with higher intelligence. Higher intelligence is associated with positivity, sound judgement. Basically higher intelligence is unified with good.  

Spatial Mind said: 

I find you fail at that. Intelligence has many shades. There's low intelligence and high intelligence. 

There are people who can construct "a claim" and examine themselves. It doesn't require a great deal of intelligence to do this. 

Constructing arguments isn't associated with higher intelligence. Higher intelligence is associated with positivity, sound judgement. Basically higher intelligence is unified with good.  

"I find you fail at that" is an ad hominem. It judges me instead of addressing the argument.

"Intelligence has many shades" also seems inconsistent with reducing it to "low intelligence and high intelligence." Intelligence isn't binary. Cognitive abilities vary continuously and unevenly.

I also don't understand the quotation marks around "a claim." I use "claim" neutrally, including for things I say myself. A claim is simply a proposition being asserted that can be examined for evidence.

I never said constructing arguments or examining yourself requires high intelligence. My point is that cognitive ability, reasoning, metacognition, and willingness to correct yourself are different things. Self-examination does require some cognitive ability because it involves analyzing your own reasoning, recognizing inconsistencies, considering alternatives, and evaluating evidence. But having that ability doesn't mean someone will use it, especially when they're invested in defending a conclusion.

Intelligence doesn't equal logical consistency, accuracy, good judgment, positivity, morality, or some undefined "good." Those aren't properties that automatically come with intelligence.

"Higher intelligence is associated with positivity, sound judgement" is also an unsupported assertion. Even if a correlation existed, that wouldn't establish that intelligence is "unified with good." "Good" itself isn't sufficiently defined here to establish such a relationship. For example, saying climate change is "pop science for the sake of taxes" doesn't refute the evidence for climate change. It attacks the alleged motives behind the claims instead of addressing their evidence, which is a genetic fallacy.

That's the distinction I'm making. Someone can have high cognitive ability while still using ad hominems, genetic fallacies, motivated reasoning, or refusing to examine their own errors. If we're discussing reasoning, then examine the premises, evidence, inferences, and conclusions. The intelligence of the person making an argument doesn't make the argument correct.

Dragoonback said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

 I find you fail at that. Intelligence has many shades. There's low intelligence and high intelligence. 

There are people who can construct "a claim" and examine themselves. It doesn't require a great deal of intelligence to do this. 

Constructing arguments isn't associated with higher intelligence. Higher intelligence is associated with positivity, sound judgement. Basically higher intelligence is unified with good.  

I think you're conflating several different things here. I agree that someone doesn't need high intelligence to examine their own arguments, and I wasn't claiming that constructing arguments is itself proof of high intelligence.

What I figured was too obvious to mention.Those who don't examine themselves while making arguments... That is the way of low intelligence. Quite low, as a general intelligence does have the capacity to contemplate. 

Intelligence itself doesn't mean the person is bright, while their level of intelligence will determine that. With that there is no separating intelligence with the ability to reason, but rather a lack of intelligence would contribute to lack of reasoning ability. 

In short both a genius and a moron both have intelligence. The difference is the moron is slow to check themselves while charging forward in argument. 

This is one reason why higher intelligence is associated with good. Those with low intelligence are the ones who live lives filled with calamity and are stuck learning the hard way even in old age. They just aren't bright. 

When you do dumb shit, dumb shit happens. Dumb shit is bad. High intelligence cannot coexist with bad. 

The highest intelligence would be "The Ultimate Consciousness" This level of consciousness is not even real to anyone far from it, but we can know it by intuition. For example an ultimate consciousness will have so much awareness it will feel what it does to others. This demands doing no harm. Couldn't get into a scrap or inflict pain on others because the awareness is maxed out. At that level, the Golden Rule isn't simply a practice, it's a requirement as refraining from self harm is demanded.  

Some call good bad and bad good while claiming high intelligence and suggesting what's good and bad to be social constructs and personal truths. That isn't so, cause what's good is associated with function and bad being dysfunction.  

My point is that cognitive ability, reasoning quality, metacognition, and willingness to revise beliefs aren't identical traits. Someone can have high general cognitive ability while still being prone to motivated reasoning or fallacies when a conclusion is tied to their identity or status.

This I concur. There are intellectuals that are so by education, they'll wave around a paper while never being an actual pioneer of their craft. 

Intelligence of various levels tend to stumble when fueled by cynical skepticism. Leading with doubt is the opposite from an open book and willingness to leave an open channel to what's unknown.   

I'm also not sure what evidence supports the claim that higher intelligence is "unified with good" or inherently associated with positive judgment. Intelligence can help someone reason more effectively, but it doesn't logically follow that it makes them more moral, less defensive, or less prone to rationalization. Those are additional psychological traits.

A chronic need for evidence should never equate to doubt. I mean, it does for many but that's closed channelling, which even in science doesn't work out too well. 

Science must be willing to disprove itself without a fuss. Huxley agnosticism should then imply doubts can lead to "never discovering"

Personally I think this won't make sense if you don't want it to.

In fact, if intelligence/

/high intelligence/

/simply guaranteed sound judgment, intelligent people would presumably be unusually resistant to motivated reasoning and self-serving rationalization. That's an empirical claim that would need evidence rather than something that follows from the definition of intelligence.

It doesn't require evidence for the highly intelligent, because they are are observers of the self. Settling for consensus between proven intellectuals should be sufficient to claim if it's true of false. Intuition, and trust would be the only way, and the likelihood of the conclusion being correctly sound, by intuition, is very high in this trust. 

For a lower intelligence, they'll never agree with the higher intelligence in this regard considering proof and evidence is more profoundly required for their own cognitive function. To them I say, you will be the first to know, and inner knowing IS proof. Unless they got that mental illness that leaves them confused and unable to trust their own senses.  

So I'm not really arguing that intelligence has no relationship to good reasoning. I'm arguing against treating intelligence as a package deal that automatically includes good judgment, self-examination, and virtuous behavior.

 Okay.

I think very intelligent people still learn, and still have things to learn less intelligent people already know. This type of stuff is very detailed and not what matters most, and what matters the most are the basics.

Intelligence and knowledge are 2 different things, but they are resident toward one another. 

I reckon one end of the intelligence spectrum is more sustiple to FAFO, while the other end of it, has a package deal considerably, dare I say, good. 

Spatial Mind said: 

What I figured was too obvious to mention.Those who don't examine themselves while making arguments... That is the way of low intelligence. Quite low, as a general intelligence does have the capacity to contemplate. 

Intelligence itself doesn't mean the person is bright, while their level of intelligence will determine that. With that there is no separating intelligence with the ability to reason, but rather a lack of intelligence would contribute to lack of reasoning ability. 

In short both a genius and a moron both have intelligence. The difference is the moron is slow to check themselves while charging forward in argument. 

This is one reason why higher intelligence is associated with good. Those with low intelligence are the ones who live lives filled with calamity and are stuck learning the hard way even in old age. They just aren't bright. 

When you do dumb shit, dumb shit happens. Dumb shit is bad. High intelligence cannot coexist with bad. 

The highest intelligence would be "The Ultimate Consciousness" This level of consciousness is not even real to anyone far from it, but we can know it by intuition. For example an ultimate consciousness will have so much awareness it will feel what it does to others. This demands doing no harm. Couldn't get into a scrap or inflict pain on others because the awareness is maxed out. At that level, the Golden Rule isn't simply a practice, it's a requirement as refraining from self harm is demanded.  

Some call good bad and bad good while claiming high intelligence and suggesting what's good and bad to be social constructs and personal truths. That isn't so, cause what's good is associated with function and bad being dysfunction.  

This I concur. There are intellectuals that are so by education, they'll wave around a paper while never being an actual pioneer of their craft. 

Intelligence of various levels tend to stumble when fueled by cynical skepticism. Leading with doubt is the opposite from an open book and willingness to leave an open channel to what's unknown.   

A chronic need for evidence should never equate to doubt. I mean, it does for many but that's closed channelling, which even in science doesn't work out too well. 

Science must be willing to disprove itself without a fuss. Huxley agnosticism should then imply doubts can lead to "never discovering"

Personally I think this won't make sense if you don't want it to. /high intelligence/ 

It doesn't require evidence for the highly intelligent, because they are are observers of the self. Settling for consensus between proven intellectuals should be sufficient to claim if it's true of false. Intuition, and trust would be the only way, and the likelihood of the conclusion being correctly sound, by intuition, is very high in this trust. 

For a lower intelligence, they'll never agree with the higher intelligence in this regard considering proof and evidence is more profoundly required for their own cognitive function. To them I say, you will be the first to know, and inner knowing IS proof. Unless they got that mental illness that leaves them confused and unable to trust their own senses.  Okay. I think very intelligent people still learn, and still have things to learn less intelligent people already know. This type of stuff is very detailed and not what matters most, and what matters the most are the basics. Intelligence and knowledge are 2 different things, but they are resident toward one another. I reckon one end of the intelligence spectrum is more sustiple to FAFO, while the other end of it, has a package deal considerably, dare I say, good. 

Changing "intelligence" to "high intelligence" doesn't correct my point. It changes the claim. High cognitive ability does not inherently produce good judgment, correctness, self-awareness, or good behavior. A highly intelligent brain is still an imperfect biological system capable of biases, motivated reasoning, bad assumptions, and fallacies. If someone assumes "I'm intelligent, therefore I'm correct," that assumption can itself become a source of bias.

Your use of "dysfunction" also needs an objective standard. If a highly intelligent person can commit fallacies, insult people, or fantasize about meeting someone to mock them, then intelligence clearly doesn't eliminate dysfunction. If those behaviors don't count as dysfunction when you do them, then you're applying the concept selectively.

"When you do dumb shit, dumb shit happens. Dumb shit is bad" doesn't establish a causal relationship. If "dumb" means something that produces bad outcomes, then the statement is circular. If it means low intelligence, you still need to show that intelligence caused the outcome. Bad decisions aren't proof of low intelligence.

The point about intellectuals being "so by education" also misses how intellectual development works. Cognitive capacity needs information, language, education, practice, and feedback. Someone with high potential who is deprived of those resources throughout development isn't going to magically acquire the knowledge required to become an intellectual. Education gives cognitive ability something to operate on. Being an intellectual also doesn't require pioneering an entire field. Analysis, criticism, synthesis, teaching, and extending existing knowledge all qualify.

This is also why equality of opportunity and education matter. They give people access to the material and conditions required to develop whatever intellectual capacity they have.

The "Ultimate Consciousness" is another unsupported assumption. The brain is a biological organ, and individual consciousness depends on the functioning of the nervous system. Nothing you've presented establishes a separate universal consciousness. If you claim that one exists, the evidence has to come from somewhere. Consciousness itself doesn't demonstrate a cosmic consciousness.

Calling a "need for evidence" chronic doesn't change that. Asking for evidence is an epistemic standard, not a psychological condition. Scientific skepticism means testing claims and being willing to revise conclusions. It doesn't mean treating unsupported claims as equally credible.

Evolution and anthropogenic climate change are good examples. They remain open to revision in principle, but their extensive supporting evidence means rejecting them without comparable evidence isn't equivalent to scientific skepticism. Science being falsifiable doesn't make every alternative equally plausible.

You've also previously called my skepticism "bitchy skepticism," "demonic possession," and similar things. That conflicts with your current claim that doubt is a legitimate part of science. If skepticism is legitimate, then demanding evidence for your claims isn't a defect.

The issue is whether confidence corresponds to evidence. High intelligence doesn't guarantee that it does.

Dragoonback said: 

Changing "intelligence" to "high intelligence" doesn't correct my point.

It does cause even dumb asses have intelligence. 

There's intelligent, and very intelligent. There's also not very intelligent.

When you say intelligence, you generalize it in the ways of low intelligence. 

Pure logic can recognize and compensate where you think it'd be blind. 

.

.

.

That one line I quoted is all I was able to read. And it's not that I'm an ignorant person, I'm moving forward. Everytime you start to write something, it always contains the words "doesn't" or "does not" or some dismissive statement. The type of shit that generates mental disorders in children, and makes men like me cringe. That, and I'm no chaser, doesn't really matter to me what you think. 

Intelligence is a spectrum. And maybe, it isn't finite in terms of moronic and brilliance. 

Spatial Mind said: 

It does cause even dumb asses have intelligence. There's intelligent, and very intelligent. There's also not very intelligent.

When you say intelligence, you generalize it in the ways of low intelligence. 

Pure logic can recognize and compensate where you think it'd be blind. 

That one line I quoted is all I was able to read. And it's not that I'm an ignorant person, I'm moving forward. Everytime you start to write something, it always contains the words "doesn't" or "does not" or some dismissive statement. The type of shit that generates mental disorders in children, and makes men like me cringe. That, and I'm no chaser, doesn't really matter to me what you think. Intelligence is a spectrum. And maybe, it isn't finite in terms of moronic and brilliance. 

I know intelligence is a spectrum. That's actually why I don't think changing "intelligence" to "high intelligence" corrects anything.

"Intelligent," "very intelligent," and "not very intelligent" are relative descriptions, not discrete categories. Likewise, "moronic" and "brilliance" aren't objective endpoints of intelligence. Repeatedly calling things "moronic" doesn't make the reasoning more accurate. It just replaces analysis with a label.

There also isn't really such a thing as "pure logic" that operates independently of everything else. Logic can show whether a conclusion follows from premises, but it can't guarantee that the premises are true or that the person has interpreted the evidence correctly. Recognizing and correcting one's own errors requires more than logical processing. It requires accurate information, examination of assumptions, and willingness to revise them.

And I don't use "intelligence" as a synonym for low intelligence. I'm referring to the cognitive capacity itself, which can vary in degree. My point is that having more of that capacity doesn't automatically make someone correct or better at reasoning in every situation.

As for the "doesn't" and "does not," those are simply words used to state that a conclusion doesn't follow. If something is logically incorrect, saying so isn't a psychological condition or an argument against the person making it.

I also don't think dismissing what I write because you don't like the wording demonstrates better reasoning. If the argument is wrong, identifying the specific error would be more useful than objecting to the word "doesn't."