I understand the basic yes/no answer. That's not what I've been disputing. The disagreement is over what you're inferring from that answer.
If your position is simply "higher intelligence can improve reasoning ability, while intelligent people can still reason badly," then we're not far apart. But you keep using my disagreement with you as evidence that I'm exhibiting low intelligence, motivated reasoning, or a lack of humility. That's the part that doesn't follow.
You just said a highly intelligent person can deliberately engage in motivated reasoning for the sake of winning. Fine. Then motivated reasoning can't itself tell you whether someone is intelligent. You still have to establish that the person is actually reasoning incorrectly and that their reasoning is motivated. You can't simply declare both because they disagreed with you.
Likewise, saying "a highly intelligent person will eventually self-reflect" is another unsupported universal. Intelligence can provide the capacity for reflection, but it doesn't guarantee that someone will use it, any more than having a high IQ guarantees honesty, humility, or willingness to revise a belief.
And your composure example actually supports my distinction. If intelligence can coexist with bad composure, bias, motivated reasoning, and poor judgment, then intelligence clearly isn't synonymous with good reasoning. It can be a contributing factor or a cognitive resource, but the outcome still depends on how those abilities are used.
As for GPT, you were the one who told me to "take my text, and get GPT's opinion." I did. You then complained that I didn't quote it to you properly. That's a pretty easy problem to solve: address the actual argument rather than getting hung up on whether I used AI to help formulate it.
And I'm still not sure what you mean by "squirming." You've repeatedly described disagreement with you as squirming, arguing, lacking intelligence, lacking humility, and wanting to win. None of those labels establish that your conclusion is correct. They're just increasingly elaborate descriptions of the person disagreeing with you.
