Bias and bad reasoning are attributed to a lower intelligence/lesser awareness. Heuristics is type 1 quick thinking making it prone to error. For such reasons I often say "probably" or "maybe" when uncertain. When I do that I notice some dive in to argue anyway. Lower intelligence. I did not grade all of Steve's characteristics. ( Legga's homosexual affairs partner when cheating on his wife lol) just the ones I disapprove of which is 2.
Distancing oneself from reality being my biggest gripe. Not something a scientific mind should admire. While you were swinging away at everyone, Legga sucked your dick and scrammed. You won't engage with him cause you're not here for that, you just want to argue.
I know a guy very well. Excellent memory. Quite good at jeopardy and history. Amazing freestyle rapper. Masterpieces never to be heard again. Seems smart but he's not. Lacks basic skills for reasoning. I'm the one he respects the most so he's more chill when I'm around. He studies the 48 laws of power and I see everytime he tries to pull that shit on me. In the process people cut him off because he choose to assume a leadership role or implement the 48 laws and it ends up backfiring. He doesn't think people can see what he's up to. I doubt he can see when others even try to pull his strings.
He's banned from taking his Father to the hospital, cause last time he whined about his precious time and how his Father who was getting his heart checked should be grateful. His girlfriend is the one who took them. He later called me seeking validation asking what I would've done. I said I'd just shut the fuck up. He said that's what his GF said. The error is selfishness. The constant need for order, which is one of Steve's attributes. Uncaring for reality makes people out of sync. The way of a malignant narcissist.
“Without intelligence we couldn't reason” doesn't answer whether greater intelligence makes someone better at reasoning. That's the distinction Jada was explaining. Intelligence can provide greater cognitive capacity without making someone immune to heuristics, bias, motivated reasoning, or bad assumptions.
You also seem to be treating “bias and bad reasoning” as though they are inherently products of lower intelligence. That's exactly the claim that needs examination, not something you can simply assume. Your habit of saying “probably” or “maybe” when uncertain doesn't establish that people who continue arguing with you are lower intelligence either. That's circular if disagreement itself becomes evidence of inferior reasoning.
You've also again added characteristics to Steve that aren't in the example. Being shy, orderly, detail-oriented, and uninterested in social activity doesn't establish that he is detached from reality, incapable of adapting, or destined to have a “meltdown.” You're selecting the traits you personally dislike and extrapolating far beyond what the hypothetical actually says.
The “malignant narcissist” comment is an even bigger leap. Nothing in the description establishes narcissism, much less malignant narcissism. You're taking a vague hypothetical, filtering it through your own dislike of orderliness and withdrawal, and then projecting an entire psychological profile onto it. That's itself a good example of the kind of heuristic and judgmental reasoning the thread is discussing.
Your story about the person you know doesn't establish your broader claim either. Someone can be intelligent in memory, history, improvisation, or other domains while having poor reasoning in particular situations. That actually supports the distinction between cognitive ability and reasoning quality rather than proving that intelligence automatically produces good reasoning.
And “selfishness” doesn't explain anything by itself. Everyone is an individual organism with their own interests and priorities. Prioritizing those interests is not inherently a reasoning defect. Yet you regularly praise wealth, status, hierarchy, and self-assertion while criticizing people as “selfish” when they refuse to participate in the social games or obligations you value. That makes “selfishness” look less like an objective problem and more like a label you apply when someone else's interests conflict with your expectations.
And “swinging away at everyone” is another example of you conflating disagreement with violence. I'm criticizing arguments in writing, not attacking anyone. You repeatedly frame conflict through violence, punishment, retaliation, predators, and people being taught through suffering, so it isn't surprising that you interpret ordinary disagreement through that same framework. But disagreement is not an act of violence simply because you conceptualize conflict that way.
The repeated sexual comments don't establish anything about intelligence or reasoning either. You're dragging Jada into sexual jokes instead of addressing his actual contribution about heuristics, which is another substitution of personal attacks for an argument.
