You're conflating intelligence, reasoning ability, and epistemic habits as though they're the same thing. Gemini's point was pretty straightforward: intelligence can provide better cognitive tools for reasoning, but it doesn't guarantee that those tools will be used objectively.
The question asked was "Does intelligence make someone better at reasoning."
The short answer is "yes" which is the first things Gemini said.
Your own quoted point literally says that IQ does not measure open-mindedness or the ability to overcome personal biases, yet you immediately dismiss those factors as merely "lower intelligence."
Correct. That doesn't dispel the fact intelligence makes us better at reasoning.
The section you're referring to is the "Why Intelligence isn't enough" which are.....
-Motivated reasoning.
- Ignoring biases.
- Lack of reflection.
Gemini are these intelligent.
"No, motivated reasoning, ignoring biases, and a lack of reflection are not intelligent. They are signs of low cognitive reflection and poor critical thinking. Smart people can still fall into these traps, but the habits themselves block truth and lead to bad choices."
- Gemini
And I'll quote myself: Notice the section "Why Intelligence is Not enough" and the points are based on foul play and lack of self awareness which are resident to lower intelligence.
"Diving deep enough" into AI doesn't guarantee that I'll arrive at your conclusion either. Depth of analysis and quality of reasoning aren't synonymous. Someone can spend hours constructing an elaborate argument from a biased premise and simply end up with a more elaborate justification for that bias. If I keep questioning an AI's answer instead of accepting it, that isn't evidence that I don't want the right answer. It can be precisely because I want to know whether the answer actually survives scrutiny.
That's because you have motivated reasoning, ignoring your own biases, and lack of reflection. No you wouldn't reach the same conclusion as me. 100%
And your "someone with the capacity to ask themselves 'Is this what God would think' WILL achieve what makes a good reasoner" is an absurdly strong claim. Being capable of asking a question doesn't guarantee that your premises are correct, that your interpretation is correct, or that you'll reach a correct conclusion. The question itself doesn't magically produce good reasoning.
No, but what ends up happening is self reflection and when we do that we expand our perspectives. Questioning things is type 2. The slower thinking with a more refined answer.
For this, an atheist would have to express humility within themselves as though they;re being monitored by an all knowing observer that knows the answer.
You're also doing something else that is telling: you repeatedly frame argumentation itself as a negative trait.
It is when it's all you do. And it is. So many times I watched you spiral off into the wrong direction. Doesn't matter if evidence is presented, your bias keeps you in the dark.
Being argumentative doesn't mean wanting to win more than wanting the right answer. Someone can argue because they think a proposition hasn't been adequately established.
Ah. Political correctness.
If you don't like a presentation, I don't think arguing is the best thing to do just because you don't understand something. For example Nate said Bill is an Epstein Island regular, my sentiment is yes he is, then here you come swinging because you have no clue about what either of us are saying. Low intelligence.
Your "you were told yes the first time, and told yes by others, but you still persist" framing is especially misleading because you're emphasizing that other people agreed with me while conveniently leaving out that you disagreed with me.
No. I'm framing the answer to your question is yes, and it is. You do not agree with anyone who said yes. I'm the one you want to argue with though.
That makes it sound like I'm pointlessly arguing with everyone despite being given the answer, when what actually happened is that I disagreed with you while some other people agreed with me. You're turning disagreement into a character flaw while making yourself disappear from the disagreement.
No. just me. You've been arguing with me every day. You tremble in your bed wanting your revenge it seems.
And saying I'm "not an intellectual" because I argue with people I disagree with is just another personal judgment in place of an argument. If your position is actually stronger, you should be able to demonstrate that through the reasoning itself rather than portraying the person questioning it as irrational, argumentative, or obsessed with winning.
I think I've done that countless times, even in this very post.
Ironically, the more you keep trying to frame disagreement as evidence of someone's bad character, the more you're demonstrating why intelligence and good reasoning aren't synonymous. Having the cognitive capacity to construct an argument doesn't mean you're immune to motivated reasoning or biased framing.
Disagreement is one thing, but this is something else. It's Motivated reasoning, ignoring biases and lack of self reflection. "Everything Spatial says is conservative bias" is incorrect.
I make a work of fiction and you want to argue. We're talking about Sleeping Princess and you want to argue, and you never even seen it. I say she's not good between Delora and her Father with detail, and again, you want to argue.
When I say things like you're easy to read, or you're in a glass box, or when I say I'm not even trying to offend you. I'm dead serious.
