Intelligence and Certainty of Knowledge

[Dre89]

This is going to be hard to word but I'll do my best. Basically I'm wondering if it is an evolutionary trait to have uncertainty of knowledge, and/or if the currently most evolved form of thinking is to simply admit we cannot know certain things.

For clarification, I'm talking about non-empirical issues. Things like morality, purpose, God/explanation of the universe etc. Basically the big questions that divide everyone.

If you look at animals, they have a lot of certainty. They have a way of life, and pretty much never change it or question it. It never crosses their minds that they are doing things the wrong way.

If you look at less intelligent humans, they tend to imitate animals moreso than other humans. Simple-mindedness, narrow-mindedness, ignorance, irrationality are all properties of unintelligence. Generally, these type of people are less likely to entertain the idea that they're beliefs are wrong, and they often hold their beliefs for poorer reasons (eg. they were raised with them).

Also, their lesser minds consider less factors when deciding these beliefs, meaning that they acknowledge less areas where they can go wrong. However, the more factors you consider, or the more complex your reasoning becomes, the more things you have to be correct on. Intelligent people are more likely to realise that their beliefs are wrong because they're intelligent enough to realise it.

The most intelligent piece of philosophy I ever did was when I first started my degree. I said to myself 'thousands and thousands of people throuthout history have contemplated these questions at the same depth as you have, do you really think that out of all those people you're going to be the one with the correct answers to all the big questions?'.

As I develop as a philosopher I start to consider more and more factors in my philosophy, but I acknowledge that means there is more areas I could be wrong on. I'm starting to wonder if the most evolved form of thinking is to consider so many factors in your thinking that you consider it too improbable that you're right on all of them and that it's pointless to believe you'll attain the answers to the big questions in life.

What do you guys think? It sounds a bit like a blog but I am actually arguing the point (although I am only pondering it) that perhaps the highest level of thinking is to realise how limited our thinking is.

 

[GwJ]

I think I agree with you. Knowledge at its most basic form is the basis for our behaviors. I'm not talking about book-knowledge, I'm talking about the kind of knowledge you acquire cognitively.

And so, the first level of thinking is acquiring knowledge.

The second level is questioning what we know.

There's a reason we don't see dogs questioning their beliefs. They don't have the intelligence and mental capacity to perform such functions. It's seems logical to assume that questioning our knowledge, the catalyst for our behaviors, would be of a higher level of thinking.

 

[Dre89]

But some people would say that the greatest sign of intelligence would be to conceive of the most sophisticated beliefs, which are often a result of considering factors that most other people don't. I'm saying that the next level is considering so many factors that you find having those sophisticated beliefs pointless because it's too imporbable that everything you believe is correct.

 

[GwJ]

I'm having a little trouble piecing together what you're saying, it might be the music I'm playing not letting me think clearly. Are you saying that the highest level of thinking is merely conceiving of things we can't know?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Well I think this all assumes that there are such things for us to understand, i.e. purpose, morals, and God. If you take those out of the realm of possibility, everything makes sense and intelligence doesn't become the ability to know that whatever you come up with isn't going to be correct. What the effect that intelligent people are having is the understanding that these man-made things are harder and harder to try and fit into reality. What makes it so hard for us to make that final leap and say they aren't real is because we are those animals that are conditioned into living in such primitive ways. There is no evolutionary purpose for thinking of either of those three examples, they simply are thought of and ingrained in our living because of the unknown (in the case of purpose and God), and the fact that not exhibiting some sort of behavior is impossible, and thus we gather knowledge of preferences and understanding, creating morality.

The only thing evolution is involved in our line of thinking is actually understanding those three things that we made up in the sense that we are making orderly observations and looking for patterns. There is no perfect morality, there is only order and things that follow, we can't help but look for such things and think in that matter, and the earlier we realize that this evolutionary law of order and the concepts we make up are not one in the same thing, and that our cognitive abilities (the former) are not mice in the maze of such concepts looking for THE cheese, the best and perfect cheese.

To put it briefly, it is intelligence that is showing the things that animals and more base humans are simply deluded. Though, of course, anyone who believes in any of those three things will outright disagree with me.

 

[Dre89]

I'm having a little trouble piecing together what you're saying, it might be the music I'm playing not letting me think clearly. Are you saying that the highest level of thinking is merely conceiving of things we can't know?

No I'm proposing that perhaps the highest level of thinking is realising that we can't know many things that people do claim to know. I'm not talking about people who say 'we can't know this' because they haven't pondered it at depth, I'm talking about people who consider too many factors to believe that they could be correct on every one of them.

For example, my thesis is very long and complex, and is a much more intellectually impressive justification of my beliefs than that of a random person off the street. That's because I've considered a lot of more factors and reasoned out a lot more propositions. However, it also means that there is more places I could go wrong.

For example, take the topic of politics. Imagine you have one person who never reads any academic political sources, and just believes what the media tells him. He thinks he knows a lot about politics, and are certain his views are correct. Then you have another person, who isn't blinded by the media, who has read a couple of political sources, but considers himself to not be educated enough in politics to have a valid opinion.

Clearly the second person is more intelligent than the former, because he's actually aware of his limitation and has considered more factors than the first person. He's more intelligent, yet he's the one saying he doesn't know the truth, which is a result of his intelligence.

If you apply this to the big questions in life. You have less intelligent people who don't consider many factors, and are certain their views are correct because of their lack of intelligence. Then you have more intelligent people, whose views considered much more factors, and they are open to being wrong. I'm saying that perhaps the level above this is the person who considers so many factors that they realise they're too limited mentally to be correct in all of their beliefs. They realise how improbable it is to be correct on every little assertion they make.

Holder- But your rejection of these questions is itself a belief with regards to these questions. You would have ignorant people who reject the questions based on ignorance, and intelligent people who reject them based on many factors that they have considered. It's just another type of belief that I'm talking about.

 

[GwJ]

Oh, I get it. You're saying it takes a higher level of intelligence to question the intelligence of others? To say that somebody else's knowledge is wrong would indeed take much intelligence. Hell, as far as we know, we're the only animal that can know that we know anything.

I don't know if it's the highest (Since it's always hard to place something at the absolute top without absolute knowledge), but it's definitely up there.

 

[1048576]

Dumb people are closed minded because they are incapable of processing curcumstances dissimilar to their own.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I think I understand. The intelligent ones can admit when they're wrong and have more to learn on the given subject, and then strive to expand their knowledge on said subject, while the "less intelligent" ones are too stubborn to admit that they could be incorrect in anyway, where the idea of doubt is naught but an impossibility as far as they're concerned and will be oftentimes too adamant on their belief to convince that not only could they be wrong, but that they could have a better understanding on the respective subject(s).

Of course, one could argue that the less intelligent people are "less intelligent" merely because their beliefs stems from how they were raised by their parents. It could be seen as a shallow reason, but we can try to find the source behind such a mindset by tracing the lineage to years past; a mindset and belief that has been passed down as a sort of "culture" for generations.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Holder- But your rejection of these questions is itself a belief with regards to these questions. You would have ignorant people who reject the questions based on ignorance, and intelligent people who reject them based on many factors that they have considered. It's just another type of belief that I'm talking about.

I'm not saying there are no such things as beliefs, if that is what you are saying, I am not entirely sure what you mean. I am simply saying that living under the impression that there is such a thing as a moral right or wrong, a God, or an actual purpose to life is folly. The fact that that is a belief does not change anything.

Of course, one could argue that the less intelligent people are "less intelligent" merely because their beliefs stems from how they were raised by their parents. It could be seen as a shallow reason, but we can try to find the source behind such a mindset by tracing the lineage to years past; a mindset and belief that has been passed down as a sort of "culture" for generations.

That really has nothing to do with intelligence. Intelligence is determined biologically, what we are really talking about is probably more accurately put as wisdom. People can be raised and conditioned to think very poorly, but not because they are stupid, but because of their surroundings essentially determined that for them. I know very intelligent people that lack wisdom, and I know people who aren't very smart possess a lot of wisdom. I myself am not intelligent, but I'd say I understand myself, emotions, and life a lot better than the people who could absorb knowledge at a much better rate than me.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I myself am not intelligent, but I'd say I understand myself, emotions, and life a lot better than the people who could absorb knowledge at a much better rate than me.

I can relate to you in that regard.

Forgive me for citing my own personal opinion on this as I try to be neutral, but I feel intelligence and wisdom cannot be truly measured, as there are too many variables, including what subject they specialize in, and how much of it. Someone can be extremely intelligent in math, but know little to nothing in other fields, yet his/her mind can be seen as brilliant solely on the fact they know so much of what I believe is considered a high priority subject.

Same goes for those who believe in a god to explain things they cannot understand. I'd like to think of the idea as a placeholder for unknown subjects until they find a means to understand it. A good example is the Earth and sun: For centuries, it was believed that the sun revolved around the Earth; that the Earth was the center of the universe, because that was how god made it. Then Copernicus disproved that by discovering that not only did the sun not revolve around the Earth but was the other way around, but also the Earth was anything but the center of the universe. Just a small example, really.

 

[GwJ]

I think a person is intelligent if they can think about whether or not they're intelligent.


This whole "I'm not intelligent." Thing is just,pardon my vernacular, intellectual modesty.

 

[Claire Diviner]

So what it boils down to, from my understanding, is that intelligence is the ability to doubt one's own intellect, correct? Honestly, I wouldn't as far as call that intelligence more than being self-aware of one's own limit. Otherwise, those who fail to acknowledge their own barriers can be seen as ignorant, and it is possible for ignorant people to have intelligent minds.

 

[GofG]

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others" (p. 1127).

This is true of fluffy philosophical stuff too.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I can relate to you in that regard.

I feel for you bud. ^^

Forgive me for citing my own personal opinion on this as I try to be neutral, but I feel intelligence and wisdom cannot be truly measured, as there are too many variables, including what subject they specialize in, and how much of it. Someone can be extremely intelligent in math, but know little to nothing in other fields, yet his/her mind can be seen as brilliant solely on the fact they know so much of what I believe is considered a high priority subject.

It is impossible to measure wisdom at the very least, for what one defines really as wisdom could be entirely different from what someone else might say wisdom is. Though what people generally think of wisdom is understanding and experience in the ways of life, that much we know everyone probably thinks.

Now, knowing a lot in math merely means we can assume he is knowledgable, but not necessarily intelligent. An intelligent person, in the more physical objective sense, is measured by how well someone, when there focus and interest is there, can absorb the information being given to him. The better someone can do this, the easier it is to do more complex things for they can remember all of the steps and bits and pieces. However, I do still agree that intelligence can't likely be measured unless we understand perfectly what makes a human physically more capable of intelligence than another, which I'm not entirely sure we can scan and brain and quite go, "Oh look, this one is smarter than the other."

Oh, and as for math as a high priority subject... pfffft. Why people think those who understand math well as being smart is because it is something very hard to have your interest and focus, and thus hard to even apply your level of intelligence to. People can do well in math simply because they enjoy doing it and there way of thinking goes perfectly with it. I remember in high school people would be surprised that I was failing my senior math class so hard because everyone thought of me as being the smart kid in class, when in reality I couldn't give a crap about what the teacher was saying, and even when I tried to focus on the teacher's words, my intention span didn't want anything to do with it (as it does with most things, but I don't have an attention disorder) and I'd quickly realize I'm not really hearing what she is saying. I am extremely fortunate that the school is poor and full of kids who aren't very intelligent and they let my slide through graduation with such poor results (my math teacher gave me all the answers to pass at the end, and in my science class I straight up failed but the teacher wrote down a passing grade for me. But this is getting off topic.)

Same goes for those who believe in a god to explain things they cannot understand. I'd like to think of the idea as a placeholder for unknown subjects until they find a means to understand it. A good example is the Earth and sun: For centuries, it was believed that the sun revolved around the Earth; that the Earth was the center of the universe, because that was how god made it. Then Copernicus disproved that by discovering that not only did the sun not revolve around the Earth but was the other way around, but also the Earth was anything but the center of the universe. Just a small example, really.

What is interesting is that there is nothing complicated in the world, everything makes sense and is quite simple, but the only time we ever realize that is when we finally understand it. That is the problem we face, everything seems so illogical and incomprehensible, so we try and accept it with a defeatist attitude, and yet, in the future, we will think of these things very simple, just as we do now of things people in the past thought were beyond our capability of understanding.

Edit: I just realized my post is magenta and red. @_@

 

[Claire Diviner]

Oh, and as for math as a high priority subject... pfffft. Why people think those who understand math well as being smart is because it is something very hard to have your interest and focus, and thus hard to even apply your level of intelligence to. People can do well in math simply because they enjoy doing it and there way of thinking goes perfectly with it.

Well, I'm not speaking from personal preference, more than what society as a whole seems to view as a mainstream of sorts. Same goes for the sciences too.

What is interesting is that there is nothing complicated in the world, everything makes sense and is quite simple, but the only time we ever realize that is when we finally understand it. That is the problem we face, everything seems so illogical and incomprehensible, so we try and accept it with a defeatist attitude, and yet, in the future, we will think of these things very simple, just as we do now of things people in the past thought were beyond our capability of understanding.

Pretty much this. It takes a broad mind that is willing to go out of the "comfort zone" to understand how complex and "unfathomable" things work. Take Christopher Columbus, who thought the world wasn't flat, when everyone else believed it to be. He believed he could reach India by circumnavigating the world. Turns out, he not only didn't fall off what was believed to be the edge of the Earth, but he also ended up in America, which he mistook for India, which explains why Native Americans were and still are called "Indians".

 

[GwJ]

So what it boils down to, from my understanding, is that intelligence is the ability to doubt one's own intellect, correct?

Or someone else's.

Honestly, I wouldn't as far as call that intelligence more than being self-aware of one's own limit. Otherwise, those who fail to acknowledge their own barriers can be seen as ignorant, and it is possible for ignorant people to have intelligent minds.

There's more to intellect than knowledge.

 

[Dre89]

Oh, I get it. You're saying it takes a higher level of intelligence to question the intelligence of others? To say that somebody else's knowledge is wrong would indeed take much intelligence. Hell, as far as we know, we're the only animal that can know that we know anything.

I don't know if it's the highest (Since it's always hard to place something at the absolute top without absolute knowledge), but it's definitely up there.

No that's not what I'm saying. Take for example the equation 2+2 and an incredibly complex mathetatical equation.

The first one is easy to answer, the second one isn't. What I'm saying is that stupid people think every question in life is a 2+2, so they come up with simple answers, and aren't open to the idea that they are wrong, because they consider it a simple question.

Intelligent people, due to their intelligence, realise that these questions are the complex equations, and thus do much more throurough working out to get the answer. They're more open to being wrong, because the more lines of working out you have, the more areas you could have gone wrong.

So what I'm saying is that perhaps the highest level of intelligence is realising the equations are just so complex that it's unlikely that all your working out will be correct, so you don't bother attempting to answer the question.

Holder- It's not as simple as you're making it out ot be. Empirical questions are straight forward, non empirical questions aren't. You're just taking an empiricist stance to the non empirical questions, which is why you consider it so simple. Yet this itself is a belief that needs reasoning.

Gofg- 'Fluffy philosophy stuff' is basically just the philosophy that you're not educated enough to understand. For example if I said 'imagine a deity who is self sufficient, but needs to be constantly submerged in a body of water, but can't generate this body of water himself'. Anyone with half a brain would realise this is contradictory, as self suffiency is incompatible with requiring an external agent to for water. This is a basic philosophical proposition that anyone would accept.The 'fluffy stuff' are just the more sophisticated propositions that require more of an education to understand. Just like how in science you would need more of an education to understand quantum mechanics than you would to understand why the heavier object on a sea saw will tip it instead of the lighter one.

 

[GwJ]

Ok, I think I really get it now. But I won't try and restate it, because I always goof that kind of thing up. I think it's a logical thought and makes sense.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Could the "half glass full" and "half glass empty" test be a variable to intelligence? They say people's intellectual potential can be based on that. Also, there was a program I saw on television, I believe it was either 20/20 or Dateline of people with various diseases and syndromes. One man in particular had an oddity in his brain; he can calculate numbers and equations that not only makes mathematicians envious, but can even outperform calculators and most computers, and he has also been able to learn, speak, read, write and understand a new language in as little as a week, and has learned seven languages as a result. Yet, he has Asperger syndrome; a form of autism. Despite his mental disorder, would he still be labeled as highly intelligent? The man goes by the name of Daniel Tammet.

 

[GwJ]

I've heard of the kind of people who are unbelievable at math, Sol. What happened to them is the part of the function that controls math ends up getting controlled by faster-acting brain controls. And so, in the end, math ends up being done at supercomputer status because of that. It's not so much intelligence as it is just as you said - an oddity in the brain.

 

[Claire Diviner]

So say someone has the ability to perform the way Daniel Tammet can, but lacks the mental disorder or any form of brain mutation, would that then qualify them as intelligent rather than a genetic anomaly?

 

[GwJ]

It depends on how you determine someone's intelligence.

 

[Claire Diviner]

So what exactly can determine someone's intelligence? If said super genius can admit there's more to learn? What if said person has the narrow mindset of the non-intelligent ones, but can still learn many things at a lightning pace, be it math, science, physics of any kind, etc., would the person then be considered to lack intelligence for his/her single-mindedness, or would he/she still be considered intelligent based on the learning potential?

 

[GwJ]

I can't say I know an efficient and accurate way to judge one's intelligence.

We always say something like:

"Oh, that person's really good at math. They must be really smart."

"Look at the way that person talks. She must be really intelligent."

"Look at those glasses. They make her look really smart."

"Y'know, what that bank robber did was illegal and immoral, but the way he pulled off the robbery was pure genius."


It seems we're good at judging people's intelligence somewhat, but we don't consciously know how we do it.

 

[ciaza]

isn't there an old saying: "the only real wisdom is knowing you know nothing". i think it's quite possible to know a lot (intelligence), yet not be wise (realising there is a lot you cannot know).

it's important to note that 'intelligence' is vaguely defined, and that there are many theories that try to state what factors do and do not contribute to intelligence. i think some theories like the neo-piaget regards memory to be a factor of intelligence for example. for example howard gardner's theory has multiple factors used to assess intelligence, including musical talent.

i recently read a psych article called Why Smart People Can Be So Foolish. in particular his third point, a false sense of omniscience seems to relate to what you're saying, dre.

- it should be noted the author of that article has his head shoved so far up his own arse he may just not realise he is foolish himself -

sol - i don't think i've encountered any scientific evidence supporting the idea that optimists are more intelligent than pessimists. on the contrary i think i may have read somewhere that pessimist engineer's were better at their jobs that optimist engineers. the logic was that pessimists often had the mentality of: 'oh that bridge probably won't hold, i better check my work again and make improvements'

 

[Claire Diviner]

I don't know is pessimists are more intelligent than optimists. More cautious it seems, but then I suppose that would be a form of wisdom. The real question is if wisdom and intelligence go hand-in-hand, and if so, how can we measure one's wisdom? They say through age and experiences, but by that logic octogenarians and older would be seen as vastly intelligent in the wisdom department, even if they're not knowledgeable in much else. Perhaps there is no definitive way to measure intellect. People who are humbled in that they know they have room for improvements are seen as intelligent, or so I'm getting from this debate, but then wouldn't that make so many people in the world (myself included) intelligent with that kind of mindset, despite not being very proficient in any one subject. or possibly lacking the potential to learn more at a fast rate should they opt to delve deep into a particular subject?

 

[ciaza]

you're right, pessimists tend to be more cautious. one study showed that optimistic people often died younger because they had the mentality of: "oh that mole looks fine, i don't need to check it out! *dies of cancer*. well, nothing that drastic, but you get the point.

and you're sort of hinting at crystallised and fluid intelligence. as a quick run-down, there is generally two parts to general intelligence: fluid intelligence and crystallised intelligence. i'm being very brief to the point of inaccuracy here, but fluid intelligence is your ability to problem solve and think logically. maths is a good example of fluid intelligence, and your mate who can solve really hard maths problems probs has super high fluid intelligence (as most people who have autism do)

crystallised intelligence is more about specific information, like general knowledge or how many words you know. so basically you don't need to be smart in one or multiple subjects to be considered 'intelligent'. it's again all about how intelligence is very, very broadly defined, and is arguably distinct from wisdom.

if any of this doesn't make sense, blame me as it's 3 in the morning

 

[Claire Diviner]

you're right, pessimists tend to be more cautious. one study showed that optimistic people often died younger because they had the mentality of: "oh that mole looks fine, i don't need to check it out! *dies of cancer*. well, nothing that drastic, but you get the point.

and you're sort of hinting at crystallised and fluid intelligence. as a quick run-down, there is generally two parts to general intelligence: fluid intelligence and crystallised intelligence. i'm being very brief to the point of inaccuracy here, but fluid intelligence is your ability to problem solve and think logically. maths is a good example of fluid intelligence, and your mate who can solve really hard maths problems probs has super high fluid intelligence (as most people who have autism do)

crystallised intelligence is more about specific information, like general knowledge or how many words you know. so basically you don't need to be smart in one or multiple subjects to be considered 'intelligent'. it's again all about how intelligence is very, very broadly defined, and is arguably distinct from wisdom.

if any of this doesn't make sense, blame me as it's 3 in the morning

No, I get it. What it boils down to is that there are two different kinds of intelligence, and because of how we view intelligence, it truly is nigh impossible to comprehend or measure. I've been often told by people that I'm a smart person, but goodness knows I don't feel that way. Perhaps it's because of how I view intelligence in the fluid sense, when my intellect might be more crystal-based, as you have put it.

Now if wisdom is distinct from intelligence, then what is wisdom? Does it even have anything to do with intelligence at all, or is it merely a plane containing the individual's experience and what they've learned from it. If that's the case, then wouldn't wisdom be its own category of intellect?