Comment on Yes, yes they are

• cecinestpasunecommunication@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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.

  source

  • deepvertic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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.

    source

    • cecinestpasunecommunication@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      You’re right, only stupid people are nice and good.

      source

      • deepvertic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        You do not seem very interested in having an honest discussion about this. That’s fine. Have a nice day anyway 😅

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Your ability to contrive bullshit and keep buying that 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’.

    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.

    source

    • cecinestpasunecommunication@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Outliers disprove the trend, its true. I’m glad I used absolute terms with no nuance and didn’t acknowledge this literally first thing in my comment.

      source

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Outliers disprove the trend, its true.

        They define it’s limits and illustrate it’s flaws.

        But what I see most commonly referred to as “intelligence” tends to be phrased as “common wisdom”. You cannot simultaneously be “smart” and “wrong”. Therefore, placidly regurgitating the correct answers somehow signify more intelligence than painstakingly carving out another view.

        I’m glad I used absolute terms with no nuance

        Well, that’s sort of the joke, isn’t it?

        source

        • -> View More Comments