Sociopath Community

You're still conflating two different claims.

"Does intelligence make someone better at reasoning?" can reasonably be answered "yes, intelligence can improve reasoning ability." I never disputed that. The qualification is that intelligence doesn't guarantee good reasoning, because reasoning also depends on things like biases, epistemic habits, reflection, and willingness to revise beliefs. That's exactly what Gemini's answer was saying.

Your argument keeps jumping from "these are bad reasoning habits" to "therefore anyone who exhibits them is unintelligent," and then from there to "I know you exhibit them because you disagree with me." That's circular. You haven't demonstrated that I have motivated reasoning or that I'm ignoring my biases. You're simply asserting it whenever I disagree with your conclusions.

The "100%" claim is especially revealing. You can't know that I would never reach the same conclusion as you simply because you've decided that I have motivated reasoning. That's not an argument, it's a presupposition about my psychology.

And Type 2 thinking doesn't guarantee a refined or correct answer either. Deliberating longer can improve reasoning, but it can also produce a more elaborate rationalization of a mistaken premise. Self-reflection is useful, but the mere act of reflecting doesn't guarantee that the reflection is accurate. Likewise, imagining an omniscient observer doesn't somehow provide access to that observer's answer. You still have to establish your premises and reasoning.

The "God" example also doesn't demonstrate what you think it does. An atheist can practice humility and self-reflection without pretending there is an omniscient being watching them. Humility comes from recognizing that your own reasoning can be wrong, not from inventing a supernatural observer.

And you're again treating disagreement as evidence of pathology. "You argue with me about things" doesn't establish "you don't want the truth." Sometimes I argue because I think your conclusion is unsupported. That's literally what disagreement is.

Your Bill example demonstrates the problem perfectly. You say Bill is an Epstein Island regular, I disagree (at least with him being more special than the ones you support), and your response is that I have "no clue" and therefore have low intelligence. That's not evidence of motivated reasoning on my part. It's just you declaring that disagreement with your interpretation is itself evidence of low intelligence.

The same applies to your fiction and Sleeping Princess examples. The fact that I criticize something you wrote or question an interpretation doesn't demonstrate a cognitive defect. If your argument is good, explain why it's good. "You keep arguing with me, therefore you're biased" is not a substitute for that.

And the "you don't agree with anyone who said yes, I'm the one you want to argue with" framing is still misleading. You were the person disagreeing with my qualification, and you're now emphasizing that other people said yes so that my continued disagreement looks irrational. That's a way of framing the social situation, not evidence that my reasoning is bad.

The irony is that you're doing exactly what you claim intelligent people should avoid. You've taken a psychological trait you dislike, attributed it to me, and then interpreted everything I do through that assumption. If I disagree, that's motivated reasoning. If I keep questioning, that's argumentativeness. If I use AI, that's validation seeking. If other people agree with me, apparently I'm still the one being unreasonable.

That's not demonstrating that I'm biased. It's constructing a framework where disagreement with you automatically becomes evidence that I'm biased.

Dragoonback said: 

You're still conflating two different claims.

False. Because...." motivated reasoning, ignoring biases, and a lack of reflection are not intelligent. They are signs of low cognitive reflection and poor critical thinking."

"Does intelligence make someone better at reasoning?" can reasonably be answered "yes, intelligence can improve reasoning ability." I never disputed that. The qualification is that intelligence doesn't guarantee good reasoning, because reasoning also depends on things like biases, epistemic habits, reflection, and willingness to revise beliefs. That's exactly what Gemini's answer was saying.

The answer is yes. It makes them "better at reasoning". I'm not arguing it makes someone perfect.  That's just you squirming around reaching for some other thing to argue after getting schooled

Here's what you should do instead of endless arguing. 

Take my text, and get GPT's opinion. Then maybe check yourself. 

You're still changing the claim after the fact.

I never said intelligence doesn't improve reasoning ability. I said that intelligence doesn't guarantee good reasoning, because intelligence and good reasoning aren't identical things. Your own Gemini quotation explicitly acknowledges that smart people can still engage in motivated reasoning, ignore biases, and fail to reflect.

Saying "those behaviors aren't intelligent" doesn't answer the point. Nobody is claiming that motivated reasoning is itself a form of intelligence. The question is whether an intelligent person can engage in motivated reasoning. Gemini explicitly says they can. So your argument is essentially: "Smart people don't reason badly because reasoning badly isn't intelligent." That's circular.

And "better at reasoning" is not synonymous with "more likely to agree with Spatial." If you want to argue that higher intelligence statistically improves reasoning performance under particular conditions, that's a defensible claim. If you're arguing that disagreement with your conclusions demonstrates that someone is unintelligent or motivated by bias, you've moved far beyond that claim.

As for "get GPT's opinion and check yourself," I already did. The response you quoted from Gemini is the result. It explicitly distinguished intelligence from good reasoning habits. You simply don't like the qualification and keep trying to turn it into evidence that I'm "squirming."

If you think GPT's answer is wrong, explain specifically which part is wrong and why. Telling me to ask AI again until I reach your preferred answer isn't an argument.

Dragoonback said: 

I've been thinking about how people sometimes interpret social attention as evidence that the traits they associate with themselves are inherently desirable.

For example, someone might receive a lot of interest from others and conclude that people are attracted to their intelligence, confidence, toughness, unusual personality, etc. But the actual reason could be something much simpler, such as being attentive, responsive, validating, or making the other person feel understood. I also think people can unintentionally structure interactions around hierarchy without realizing it. Judging other people, being exceptionally agreeable, presenting oneself as unusually vulnerable, or emphasizing one's moral or intellectual qualities can look very different on the surface, but they can all become ways of establishing a particular position relative to someone else.

There's also an interesting distinction between cognitive ability and the ability to apply reasoning impartially. Someone can have high reasoning ability while still being prone to fallacies, especially when a conclusion becomes connected to their identity or status. They may understand what an ad hominem or other fallacy is in the abstract, but become unwilling to recognize it when they are the one committing it. At that point, intelligence can potentially become useful for rationalization rather than correction. Instead of examining whether an argument is wrong, the person can generate increasingly elaborate reasons why the criticism itself should be dismissed. The issue isn't necessarily that they lack the cognitive capacity to understand the criticism. They may simply be interrupting the reasoning process when it threatens a conclusion they are invested in.

This makes me think there's an important difference between being good at producing arguments and being good at detecting flaws in your own arguments. Metacognition, intellectual humility, and willingness to revise beliefs seem relevant here. A person can have a high ceiling for reasoning while regularly performing below that ceiling because they are unwilling to apply the same standards to themselves that they apply to others. It seems useful to separate the questions "Why are people interested in me?" and "What does their interest prove about me?" The first might have a fairly ordinary explanation, while the second can become an elaborate story about superiority, uniqueness, morality, or status.

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.

 Clearly you have low iq since you question iq

Golden_Eagle said: 

This subject isn't about me though. 

Said the narcissist unironically. 

Dragoonback said: 

Turncoat said: 

The guy would spend days in his room by himself, working, while his wife delivered food under the door. Without that space he'd likely have lost what he's otherwise found. Schizophrenia runs in Einstein's bloodline, he could have gone off the rails like his son did. 

That shows that Einstein benefited from having the space to work in that particular situation, but it still doesn't establish the stronger counterfactual that without it he would've “lost what he found.” That's speculation about an exceptional historical figure.

So you really think him in unstable circumstances would have had the same outcome? 

The schizophrenia point is even more speculative. The fact that Einstein's son had schizophrenia doesn't establish that Einstein himself was destined to develop it, or that his secluded working environment prevented that from happening.

His son had it and he doesn't behave neurotypically. This shit's genetic. 

Even when I was being diagnosed they welcomed interviewing my father to look for correlations. 

You're chaining together a family-history observation with a hypothetical medical outcome and then using that hypothetical to support a claim about his optimal environment.

So you mean to try to convince me that Einstein was neurotypical? 

This is an uphill battle, he has shown clear signs of disorder that he was lucky enough to have be cushioned by how his life went. His son by comparison had different battles and was likely further along the spectrum. 

My original point was simply that the right environment can help someone develop their existing strengths without implying that everyone has some extraordinary “hidden genius” waiting to be unlocked. Using Einstein as an example makes it especially easy to slide into that exceptionalist narrative.

I never said everyone, if anything I've claimed disordered people are the geniuses. 

Jada said: 

Daniel Kahneman said:

Steve is very shy and withdrawn, invariably helpful but with little interest in people or in the world of reality. A meek and tidy soul, he has a need for order and structure, and a passion for detail.

Is Steve more likely to be a librarian or a farmer?

...So, anyone interested in giving their answer and how they approach the problem? AI has the right domain knowledge, including the book's content, so itll obviously know the right answer, but curious about people's thoughts. Its a uniquely human question given that it deals with heuristic/cognitive biases.

It can't even do basic math, it's just a parrot of human behavior without any intrinsic meaning behind it. 

Jada said: 

Daniel Kahneman said:

Steve is very shy and withdrawn, invariably helpful but with little interest in people or in the world of reality. A meek and tidy soul, he has a need for order and structure, and a passion for detail.

Is Steve more likely to be a librarian or a farmer?

 

This is heavily built on the politics they live in. It takes a successful society to have Librarians, it takes survival to create Farmers. 

Odds lean in favor of the Farmer. 

Theholyspirit said: 

 Clearly you have low iq since you question iq

I don't question the existence of IQ. I question the dangerous idea that IQ has inherent properties beyond what it actually measures, such as making someone inherently more rational, correct, or intellectually superior. Treating an IQ score as a substitute for examining someone's reasoning can itself lead to the death of critical thinking and promote backwards, hierarchical thinking.

Turncoat said: 

So you really think him in unstable circumstances would have had the same outcome? His son had it and he doesn't behave neurotypically. This shit's genetic. 

Even when I was being diagnosed they welcomed interviewing my father to look for correlations. 

So you mean to try to convince me that Einstein was neurotypical? 

This is an uphill battle, he has shown clear signs of disorder that he was lucky enough to have be cushioned by how his life went. His son by comparison had different battles and was likely further along the spectrum. 

I never said everyone, if anything I've claimed disordered people are the geniuses. 

Nobody is saying Einstein was neurotypical. The point is that you can't work backwards from his behavior and his son's schizophrenia to confidently diagnose him or infer what would've happened to him under different circumstances.

Yes, psychiatric conditions and some traits have genetic components. That doesn't mean "his son had schizophrenia, therefore Einstein had a disorder that his secluded environment prevented from worsening." That's several unsupported steps chained together.

And I never said you claimed everyone was a hidden genius. My point was that Einstein is a particularly bad example for establishing a general principle because he's an extreme historical outlier. His unusual circumstances may have benefited his particular work, but that doesn't establish that isolation generally unlocks genius or that people with disorders are inherently more intellectually capable.

You can argue that accommodating someone's particular traits can allow them to work more effectively without turning a speculative diagnosis of Einstein into evidence for the broader claim.

Turncoat said:

It can't even do basic math, it's just a parrot of human behavior without any intrinsic meaning behind it.

 There is no intrinsic meaning behind human behavior either. I mean you are the one that specified intrinsic.