From: nuzz604 (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Nov 10 2005 - 21:53:13 MST
> In fact, as Michael Shermer points out,
> intelligent people can be among the most intractable because they can
> defend erroneous beliefs with such alacrity.
I know that my IQ is not nearly as high as Langan's. I have no intention of
measuring my IQ and would rather not know what it is. I do not claim to be
a genius, and I do not believe that I am less intelligent than most people.
I know that I am smart enough to think about and produce ideas. Better
knowledge produces better ideas, and knowledge will only increase in time.
I am not talking about knowledge that doesn't deviate from the accepted
norm, but knowledge that is true and accurate. But I have had similar
problems with some of my ideas (Erroneous beliefs). I have little
experience with knowing if these ideas that I think about are good or bad,
and I lack the knowledge to produce consistent meaningful ideas. Lack of
knowledge does allow a person to produce more ideas which vary greatly from
the accepted norm. This may allow good ideas to be produced (As many famous
people have done in the past), but all I have gotten out of this is
overconfidence and then embarassment.
For example, if I say that morality is in part determined by intelligence, I
risk enduring relentless persecution by ever-rightous self-proclaimed
geniuses. I don't -know- that my idea is correct, but I have a good reason
in my mind for considering the possibility. I could be lacking the one
piece of knowledge that proves the idea wrong, but I do not believe this
piece of knowledge exists, because these ideas are no more than philosophy
until experiments commence and hard facts can be collected (not possible
today with our current tools).
On the other hand, the 'norm' ideas could be incorrect, and before I can
accept the outcome of myself agreeing to this norm and to the norm's
supporters, I must either prove the unprovable, persuade the norm's
supporters to agree with my ideas, or yield myself to the philosophical
norm. Both parties believe in their ideas, and both parties have just cause
to believe these ideas. It is this confusion that has vexed me recently.
If the Singularity were not so important to the survival of myself and
everyone on this planet, I would withdraw myself from this type of community
for these reasons. At this point, I refuse to rapidly read stacks of books
which contain information that cannot reasonably be veried to be true. If I
assumed that all the read information was true, I would have no problem
reading stacks and stacks of books as quickly as some others on this list
have done. I am not a blind follower, but I must devote myself to the
Singularity. I hope to make some sense out of this mess I got myself into.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:53 MDT