Comment on Yes, yes they are
deepvertic@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I don’t disagree with the sentiment, however this is a strawman argument. I don’t see intelligence inversely correlated with racism either.
I don’t see intelligence inversely correlated with racism either.
I do. Racism is in direct conflict with Empathy and Empathy can be biologically explained by Mirror Neurons, which influences how learning works. At least the Learning by Example type of education.
Is empathy a form of intelligence?
I think I explained what I thought well enough. Both Empathy and “Learning by Example” are tied to Mirror Neurons. In short, assholes tend to be very dumb. At least in my experience.
thank you for the explanation
I don’t see intelligence inversely correlated with racism either.
Increasingly byzantine rationalizations for why you’re an asshole used to be the centerpiece of conservative intellectualism. You could get a PhD in racism if you worked hard enough. The SCOTUS and the appellate courts are packed with people who can tie an argument in knots to justify some new level of human misery.
It’s a product of lazy thinking.
Instead of evaluating people on an individual basis it’s categorizing them based on some physical trait. That has nothing to do with their behavior or personality.
This is why bigotry is the game of the lazy thinkers.
Lazy thinkers are not intelligent because to foster intelligence one must delve into things. Consider things. Contemplate how things work.
Not just accept crude rules because it’s easy.
This trait is called. Need for cognition. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need_for_cognition
It’s highly correlated with intelligence.
Oh, you’ve never been outside?
porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
It’s obviously not a strict one-to-one relationship but I do think more intelligent people are on average slightly less racist.
Donkter@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I think the issue is we don’t really have a measurement for intelligence. Qualitatively, I think you are more intelligent if you have the reasoning capabilities to logic yourself out of reactionary feelings like racism, but it’s really hard to measure that.
deepvertic@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I don’t think such moral questions are at all influenced by intelligence, personally. Is there any data on this? I imagine it must be very hard since biological differences exists and it all kinda boils down to value judgments, which cannot be derived directly from scientific research alone. I realize while arguing this that is is an extremely sensitive and hairy subject to even argue around. I appreciate you entertaining this 😄😄
cecinestpasunecommunication@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
Morality is influenced by ‘intelligence’ in like every way. Your ability to contrive bullshit, your willingness to terminate thoughts, your curiosity, and your ability to see why things matter and do shit like extend the scale of the self or take differing perspectives are all directly functions of various cognitive and psychological factors often called ‘intelligence’. Broadly intelligent people who are also pieces of shit are rare. Deeply stupid people who are broadly moral are rare.
Please cut the anti intellectual bullshit.
deepvertic@lemmy.world 2 months ago
No need to be hostile. I don’t hear any direct counter arguments here other than you don’t agree with my claim. I am simply basing my opinion on the fact that I have not seen any evidence of there being a documented correlation, and also because history is full of very intelligent people being very racist and pro slavery.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 months ago
But all of that can still end in a racist worldview, depending on what directions you take your train of thought and what conclusions you find most plausible.
At some point, “intelligent” people are more vulnerable to misinformation than their “dumb” peers, because they have more experience absorbing and applying advanced theories and philosophies without fully grasping how they work. The more advanced you get in any scientific field, the more you’re forced to accept on faith because you recognize you simply don’t have the time or the energy to delve down every academic rabbit hole. The end result is a certain scholastic dogma that people cling to because they simply accept prior generations have done the leg-work.
Present information in the pastiche of academia and you can reliably delude academics and scholars up front. Argue convincingly with the right jargon, present walls of data with citations and graphics, and follow the superficial mannerisms of trustworthy peers. You’ll catch lots of people who have trained themselves to correlate the structure of the presentation as inherently trustworthy.
By contrast, folks who aren’t familiar or experienced with a certain scholarly formulation won’t be fooled simply because they don’t know how to absorb the information or recognize the display as a trustworthy format.