wu :: forums
        (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        riddles >> general problem-solving / chatting / whatever >> A proposal for reducing ignorance
        
(Message started by: amichail on Jun 12th, 2009, 7:44pm)
Title: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by amichail on Jun 12th, 2009, 7:44pm
The idea is to force everyone to know his/her IQ.  I believe that such a situation would result in less ignorance.

As an example, there are many low IQ people who do not think evolution is true. But if they knew that their IQ is low in unequivocal terms, then they might reconsider their opposition to well-established scientific truths.

There would be no requirement to disclose your IQ (e.g., when applying for a job, participating in a debate, etc.). But you can if you want to and it would be socially acceptable behavior to do so.

Moreover, if someone claims to have a certain IQ, then his/her IQ test results would be made public for anyone to check.
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by towr on Jun 13th, 2009, 4:00am
Ignorance has little or nothing to do with IQ. Ignorance has to do with not knowing things; IQ, or rather intelligence, has to do with reasoning. Giving someone a reference book may solve their ignorance, but it won't make them better thinkers.

And forcing people to know their IQ won't make them try any harder to improve it. People already get grades in school, and they don't generally try any harder for knowing how retarded they are. Quite the contrary, in some cases.
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by amichail on Jun 13th, 2009, 8:24am

on 06/13/09 at 04:00:54, towr wrote:
And forcing people to know their IQ won't make them try any harder to improve it. People already get grades in school, and they don't generally try any harder for knowing how retarded they are. Quite the contrary, in some cases.

The goal would not be to make them try harder.  But rather to make them give up on their quest to spread/support nonsense.
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by towr on Jun 13th, 2009, 2:18pm

on 06/13/09 at 08:24:44, amichail wrote:
The goal would not be to make them try harder.  But rather to make them give up on their quest to spread/support nonsense.
And why do you think it would help any in that respect?
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by amichail on Jun 13th, 2009, 3:06pm

on 06/13/09 at 14:18:23, towr wrote:
And why do you think it would help any in that respect?

This is something that you can check empirically.

Do you know many high IQ people who think that the theory of evolution is wrong?
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by towr on Jun 13th, 2009, 3:32pm

on 06/13/09 at 15:06:21, amichail wrote:
This is something that you can check empirically.
What, IQ? Sure, you can check IQ empirically. But I very much doubt it will make someone "give up on their quest to spread/support nonsense". When have you ever known calling/proving someone an idiot to stop them arguing?

You're just promoting an ad hominem fallacy on a universal scale. You can't convince them by argument, so you attack their intelligence. They should know their place; if they're not smart enough, they should shut up.
As tempting as it sounds, it also sounds very wrong somehow.

And ultimately, it is just not practical. It won't work.


Quote:
Do you know many high IQ people who think that the theory of evolution is wrong?
The discovery institute has quite a few. They have to be intelligent to think up such convoluted theories to support their alternate reality.
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by amichail on Jun 13th, 2009, 4:27pm

on 06/13/09 at 15:32:54, towr wrote:
What, IQ? Sure, you can check IQ empirically. But I very much doubt it will make someone "give up on their quest to spread/support nonsense". When have you ever known calling/proving someone an idiot to stop them arguing?

You can check empirically whether high IQ people tend to be closer to the truth on a whole host of issues.

If this is the case, then low IQ people might be convinced to stop spreading/supporting nonsense.
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by amichail on Jun 13th, 2009, 4:30pm

on 06/13/09 at 15:32:54, towr wrote:
And ultimately, it is just not practical. It won't work.

Free speech by itself also has limits.  Just see what happens in the US.  What I propose adds something on top of free speech that could make it work better.
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by 0.999... on Jun 14th, 2009, 5:05am
And then, of course, we have those "bad test takers".
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by towr on Jun 14th, 2009, 7:22am

on 06/13/09 at 16:27:57, amichail wrote:
You can check empirically whether high IQ people tend to be closer to the truth on a whole host of issues.
Well, get back to me when you've done that.
I think you'll find that many specialists are particularly ignorant about other disciplines. Just look at the people at the discovery institute and other people supporting intelligent design, or look at climate skeptics. Many of them work in fields unrelated to what they air their opinion on.


Quote:
If this is the case, then low IQ people might be convinced to stop spreading/supporting nonsense.
If you're so convinced they lack intelligence, what makes you think they're smart enough to recognize that, or care? And besides they can always find some scientist with aberrant views to cling onto. Most supporters of nonsense theories aren't under the illusion that they themselves have figured out some "truth", they're just repeating someone else; and not rarely that's someone with a degree.


Quote:
What I propose adds something on top of free speech that could make it work better.
No, really, it can't; it's nonsense.
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by amichail on Jun 14th, 2009, 11:36am

on 06/14/09 at 07:22:55, towr wrote:
And besides they can always find some scientist with aberrant views to cling onto. Most supporters of nonsense theories aren't under the illusion that they themselves have figured out some "truth", they're just repeating someone else; and not rarely that's someone with a degree.

Scientists with aberrant views are probably not all that bright.  Whether this is so could be checked empirically.
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by Obob on Jun 14th, 2009, 11:58am
Almost by definition, scientists have to be decently bright in their field of study.  Their beliefs are their own, and its mighty pompous to say that because they believe something different from you that they should be silenced.

Einstein believed in God.  This does not imply that there is a God or that we should discredit Einstein's work.

As frustrating as it may be, just because somebody adopts views which are different from your own doesn't mean they have any less right to support their views.  And it's a mighty slippery slope to try and change this.

For an example of intelligent people spouting nonsense, check out Marilyn vos Savant's book criticizing Andrew Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.  IQ is a really sh*tty means to measure the words that will come out of somebody's mouth (or pen).

A very useful skill in this world is to determine for yourself whether somebody is spouting nonsense, or if they are saying something valuable that you should pay attention to.  Tatooing the person's IQ on their forehead won't help you all that much in making this decision.
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by amichail on Jun 14th, 2009, 12:02pm

on 06/14/09 at 11:58:09, Obob wrote:
Almost by definition, scientists have to be decently bright in their field of study.  Their beliefs are their own, and its mighty pompous to say that because they believe something different from you that they should be silenced.

Einstein believed in God.  This does not imply that there is a God or that we should discredit Einstein's work.

As frustrating as it may be, just because somebody adopts views which are different from your own doesn't mean they have any less right to support their views.  And it's a mighty slippery slope to try and change this.

There is a huge variation in scientist IQ.  Some scientists who are failures may adopt crazy views just for the attention and money.  I suspect that high IQ scientists would rather be respected in their field than adopt such positions.

BTW, I don't believe science will ever have all the answers.   But in the case of evolution, the evidence is overwhelming.
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by Obob on Jun 14th, 2009, 12:05pm
There is a huge variation in scientist success, which is not necessarily correlated with IQ.  I would imagine there are few scientists (who virtually all have PHDs) who have IQs under about 130 or so.  And this IQ is plenty high that you shouldn't dismiss whatever they say just because you know what their IQ is.
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by towr on Jun 14th, 2009, 12:09pm

on 06/14/09 at 11:36:58, amichail wrote:
Scientists with aberrant views are probably not all that bright.
Every major scientific revolution started with someone with an unorthodox view. Before Einstein came along, the newtonian universe was the "well-established scientific truth".


Quote:
Whether this is so could be checked empirically.
Well, here's a list to get you started: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/#presentsci Let me know if you find anyone with an IQ under 120.
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by BenVitale on Jun 14th, 2009, 12:42pm
Your proposal reminds me of the essay I wrote last year. In my essay I attempted to draw a link between low IQ and faith/religiosity. I used flawed logic and statistics. You know how easy it is to lie with statistics. My intention was not to lie. I have good intentions ... but I was biased. And to a certain degree I'm still biased against religions.

I recommend you to read ...

... any articles at myths about IQ tests (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=myths+about+iq+tests&meta=&aq=0&oq=myths+about+IQ&rlz=1W1GZEZ_en-GB)

... smart people are subject to social reinforcers at Why Smart People Believer Weird Things (http://skeptically.org/logicalthreads/id15.html)
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by Obob on Jun 14th, 2009, 1:17pm
I'm enjoying the second article you posted, BenVitale.  The following quote is particularly interesting:

"In fact, in almost any profession significantly affected by intelligence (e.g., science, medicine, the creative arts), once you are at a certain level among the population of practitioners (and that level appears to be an I.Q. score of about 125), there is no difference in intelligence between the most successful and the average in that profession.  
At that point other variables take over, such as creativity, or achievement motivation and the drive to succeed, which are independent of intelligence."
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by amichail on Jun 14th, 2009, 2:19pm

on 06/14/09 at 12:09:26, towr wrote:
Every major scientific revolution started with someone with an unorthodox view. Before Einstein came along, the newtonian universe was the "well-established scientific truth".

Yes, but the vast majority of unorthodox views are wrong. The correct ones are eventually accepted by the mainstream scientific community.  Only when that happens should the general public accept them also.
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by amichail on Jun 14th, 2009, 2:21pm

on 06/14/09 at 13:17:57, Obob wrote:
I'm enjoying the second article you posted, BenVitale.  The following quote is particularly interesting:

"In fact, in almost any profession significantly affected by intelligence (e.g., science, medicine, the creative arts), once you are at a certain level among the population of practitioners (and that level appears to be an I.Q. score of about 125), there is no difference in intelligence between the most successful and the average in that profession.  
At that point other variables take over, such as creativity, or achievement motivation and the drive to succeed, which are independent of intelligence."

This would depend on the field.  Much higher IQs are required for breakthrough proofs in mathematics for example.
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by Obob on Jun 14th, 2009, 2:36pm
As a mathematician, I would disagree.  Hard work, perseverance, and a mastery of the subject are far more important than boosting an IQ score a bit.
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by towr on Jun 14th, 2009, 3:34pm

on 06/14/09 at 14:19:27, amichail wrote:
Yes, but the vast majority of unorthodox views are wrong. The correct ones are eventually accepted by the mainstream scientific community.  Only when that happens should the general public accept them also.
Why?
Why should they act like sheep? If your elite high-IQ club can't explain science in a convincing manner, why should anyone believe any of it?
Science is about proper argument, evidence, reasoning, it is most definitely not about argument from authority. If you can't convince them, they shouldn't believe you, simple as that. And if life were fair, they'd demand convincing evidence from whatever loony theory they adhere to; but that's besides the point.

You don't solve the problem of ignorance by stopping people from thinking and instead having them follow the herd. You should in fact do quite the opposite, make them think, make question authority figures, and make them go after the evidence; teach them how to evaluate evidence and theories. They don't need an IQ over 100 to do this.
Effectively saying "you're too stupid to form an opinion" is a distinctly anti-scientific attitude.
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by amichail on Jun 14th, 2009, 4:25pm

on 06/14/09 at 15:34:37, towr wrote:
...teach them how to evaluate evidence and theories. They don't need an IQ over 100 to do this.

So why hasn't this happened already?  Why do we have pseudoscience?
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by towr on Jun 16th, 2009, 3:30am

on 06/14/09 at 16:25:33, amichail wrote:
So why hasn't this happened already?
Too much effort, probably. It's easier to dismiss people than to engage them.
Ideally you'd hope that people develop these skills in the education system. But, education focuses more on knowledge and practical skills like writing and maths than on critical thinking. Additionally, much of education is authority based; as student you have to take on faith that what the teacher says is true, questioning is often not encouraged. Which is not surprising considering how the education system is set up (classes are too large for intensive interaction).
And outside of education there is also little incentive for people to develop critical thinking skills on their own. Too much effort, too little pay-off. We would need a cultural shift to change this.


Quote:
Why do we have pseudoscience?
The second article BenVitale links to gives at least one important reason: "Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons."
And then they convince other people. People, even scientists (which should know better), tend to look for confirmation of their ideas, rather than faults in them.

Another article on the same site gives a whole list of ways in which thinking goes wrong, http://skeptically.org/logicalthreads/id2.html
One small quote from toward the end: "Psychologist David Perkins conducted an interesting correlational study in which he found a strong positive correlation between intelligence (measured by a standard IQ test) and the ability to give reasons for taking a point of view and defending that position; he also found a strong negative correlation between intelligence and the ability to consider other alternatives. "
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by amichail on Jun 16th, 2009, 12:02pm

on 06/16/09 at 03:30:26, towr wrote:
The second article BenVitale links to gives at least one important reason: "Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons."
And then they convince other people. People, even scientists (which should know better), tend to look for confirmation of their ideas, rather than faults in them.

Another article on the same site gives a whole list of ways in which thinking goes wrong, http://skeptically.org/logicalthreads/id2.html
One small quote from toward the end: "Psychologist David Perkins conducted an interesting correlational study in which he found a strong positive correlation between intelligence (measured by a standard IQ test) and the ability to give reasons for taking a point of view and defending that position; he also found a strong negative correlation between intelligence and the ability to consider other alternatives. "

IQ tests should be expanded to cover the sorts of issues you mention.  This is probably something that education can help btw: make people aware of these flaws so they can try to avoid them.
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by towr on Jun 16th, 2009, 12:16pm

on 06/16/09 at 12:02:42, amichail wrote:
IQ tests should be expanded to cover the sorts of issues you mention.  This is probably something that education can help btw: make people aware of these flaws so they can try to avoid them.
Well, the way it usually works is that people are aware of these flaws, and spot them in others, but not in themselves.
What you really want is not an IQ test, but a test to measure how critical people are of their own idea vs the ideas of others. And as the article shows, IQ may very well be inversely correlated with that. (And certainly the smarter people think they are, the less critical they generally are of themselves.)
I'm not sure how you'd construct such a test though.
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by amichail on Jun 16th, 2009, 12:36pm

on 06/16/09 at 12:16:24, towr wrote:
Well, the way it usually works is that people are aware of these flaws, and spot them in others, but not in themselves.
What you really want is not an IQ test, but a test to measure how critical people are of their own idea vs the ideas of others. And as the article shows, IQ may very well be inversely correlated with that. (And certainly the smarter people think they are, the less critical they generally are of themselves.)
I'm not sure how you'd construct such a test though.

It's not important what the test is called.

You could always score people in a way that rewards a combination of things, even if some subset of those things tend not to be strong in combination in many people.

With education, I believe that smart people can learn to identify those flaws you mention in themselves.
Title: Re: A proposal for reducing ignorance
Post by towr on Jun 16th, 2009, 12:56pm

on 06/16/09 at 12:36:37, amichail wrote:
It's not important what the test is called.
True, but it is important that it isn't an IQ test; it shouldn't test intelligence because that's not what we want to measure.


Quote:
You could always score people in a way that rewards a combination of things, even if some subset of those things tend not to be strong in combination in most people.
There is nothing in IQ tests that tests for this. So it not a matter of scoring an IQ test differently.


Quote:
With education, I believe that smart people can learn to identify those flaws you mention in themselves.
Why concentrate only on "smart" people, however you want to define that; anyone that isn't mentally retarded can learn to identify and avoid most of those reasoning flaws.


Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board