I've seen a number of posts here about highly intelligent people (in other areas) who nevertheless remain TBM.

An article in today's Washington Post (actually about Gini Thomas...) gives an indication:


"“The really upsetting finding is that the better you are at particular types of cognitive tests … the better you are at manipulating the facts to reflect your prior beliefs, the more able you are to cognitively shape the world so it fits with your values,” says David Hoffman, a University of Pennsylvania law professor who studies cultural cognition."
[...]
"A highly regarded study by Yale Law School’s Dan Kahan and others explains how this happened. It tested people with math problems related to the effectiveness of gun bans in reducing crime. Those with higher numeracy skills were more likely to reach the correct answer — but only if it was “congenial to the subjects’ political outlooks.” They were, in other words, using their intellects selectively, skipping the calculation when it appeared the answer would contradict their “cultural affiliation,” explained Paul Slovic, a University of Oregon psychology professor who worked on the study.

Humans probably have always had this tendency. What’s exacerbating it now is hardening political attitudes, social media and outlets such as Fox News that keep people immersed in their partisan identity full time, filtering out contrary facts. “You can reject virtually any kind of evidence if you work hard enough at it,” explains Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a University of Pennsylvania communications professor. “Highly intelligent people whose core identity is a partisan identity will parse the world and the evidence in it through that identity.”

So the cleverer you are, the better you will be at denying reality. If you're clever and wish to be truthfull, beware of this! Certainties (not doubts ;-) should always be doubted.


The full article can be read at:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/28/ginni-thomas-republicans-psychology-conspiracy-theories/

But it's probably behind a paywall :-/

Thank you for this - it shines some light on something I could never figure out for myself: how could the specialist M.D. I saw some years ago (important within the local LDS population, probably the Stake President or similar) believe in the purported power of garments, believe polygamy was a solution to anything (at any time in human history), believe that he's going to be rewarded with his own planet and harem, believe his beliefs were sent from a deity by a shyster from upstate New York....?

This doctor is smart, capable, makes time for all his patients, sees his LDS flock for more routine care since they are in his flock - yet believes what a hit Broadway musical calls out as fiction.

Smart brain, wrong religious conclusions.

There are myriad facts to select from when you choose your own personalized set that will be designated important for you. Interestingly, though each fact may be true on its own, each conglomeration formed by selective picking will form a slightly different picture.

Besides being clever, being artistic can aid one in choosing the combination that furthers their own agenda. And if a particular agenda is of the utmost importance in your life and all of your focus goes to finding just the right fact combination to support said agenda, while discounting facts that won't win any trophy for a supporting role, then there is nothing in this world that one can't be sure of.

All goes back to what someone on the board--The Illustrious Dr. No, I believe--said about sorting. Sorting. It's not just Mormons that rely on editing and labeling, and tucking things neatly under the rug.


We have to make ourselves look good somehow, don't we?

Religious beliefs are always in need of plastic surgery.

Good one. Should be needle pointed on a pillow with some BoMs as a border decoration.

James Fetzer is a retired professor of philosophy, specifically, philosophy of science. He wrote a book, 400 pages, cites 4 other PhD beside himself. He think he has tons of evidence confirming his theory. The title of his book:

Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.

I kid you not. The guy turns out to be a general conspiracy theorist, and Holocaust denier. He got sued by some Sandy Hook parents in 2019 and lost. Alex Jones got sued for the same thing this year and lost. The narrative was that Sandy Hook was staged so “they” could confiscate our guns, donchaknow.

Then there are the millions of Mormons who believe Indigenous Americans came from Jerusalem and the earth is 7,000 years old. There are 50 million or so anti-vaxxers who believe a rather long list of preposterous things about covid vaccines, from causing autism to training your body to produce cancers to mind control. In reality the most dangerous thing about the vaccines is the risk of injury or death driving to the pharmacy, and that risk is pretty low.

And of course there are tens of millions of people who are absolutely convinced the last election was stolen, and know of lots of evidence that shows how, but all the judges, all of ‘em, are part of the conspiracy. Except Clarence Thomas. His wife knows he is not part af the conspiracy, even if the rest of the Supreme Court is! D’oh!

Yes, there are lots of clever people who believe crazy things. I’m surprised there is not a tin foil shortage in the world.

+ another 100

> I’m surprised there is not a tin
> foil shortage in the world.

Tin foil hats are so 20th century.

Many of us have found that you can achieve the same effect through self-hypnosis, producing a self-generated aura of protection from Jewish space lasers and MSNBC without the frequent trips to the supermarket.

It's better for the environment too.

Metaphysicians are usually not stupid. It takes real mental powers to cross some leaps of faith.

Thank you for this very interesting article, Tom. It would stand to reason,then, that the stronger one's core identity is partisan or religious, the more they are able to discount any facts contrary to their identity.

“Highly intelligent people whose core identity is a partisan identity will parse the world and the evidence in it through that identity.”

COMMENT: I recently read the following paragraph: (I am purposely leaving the last work blank--to be filed in by the reader.)

"Metaphysical predilections, however, can impede a person's scientific objectivity and cause him or her to select the low probability proposition. Many otherwise rational persons make unwarranted conclusions which are not based on evidence but are made in the absence of evidence and contrary to mathematical probabilities because of their faith in the ideology of [blank]."

Now, pick your favored ending word: "Religion," "Mormonism."
The actual word in this book was "materialism." (Dean Overman, A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization.) This is not an apologetic religious treatise, but a serious, scientific and mathematical critique of the application of the idea of "self-organization," which is a contemporary idea being offered as part of the explanation for the origin of life. (See, Stuart Kauffman, At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity.) Personally, I found some of the arguments in this book well-taken, and some not.)

I have read numerous books and articles that address the importance of distinguishing 'genuine' science from 'pseudoscience.' Invariably, these books list a hodgepodge of vague criteria (like Carl Sagan's ludicrous 'Baloney Detection Kit'), and then provide their own favored list of 'pseudoscience.' According to Sagan, UFOs are pseudoscience because there is no evidence for UFOs, but SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) (Carl Sagan's own pet project) is scientifically legitimate.

(For a critique of Carl Sagan's views on UFOs and SETI see, Michael Shermer, The Boderlands of Science: Where Sense Meets Nonsense, Chapter 10; and Massimo Pigliucci, Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science From Bunk, p. 119-127) Incidentally, in my view both of these books themselves miss the mark in addressing, much less solving, the "demarcation problem;" that is, the problem of distinguishing between science and pseudoscience.)

The point here, however, is just a reminder that the ideological predispositions by "clever people" are by no means restricted to the religious, the political extremes, or our favorite "nutcase." It is thus imperative that when making such judgments of others, we ask ourselves about our own "core identity" and how 'the facts' merge with that identity.

Thanks. It would be nice to hear from you when you disagree. I have no doubt that I could learn from your perspective.

Soft Machine Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------

> So the cleverer you are, the better you will be at
> denying reality. If you're clever and wish to be
> truthfull, beware of this! Certainties (not doubts
> ;-) should always be doubted.

like the idea that men can become women, the concept of 'nonbinary,' etc

Whoosh.

They are laughing all the way to the bank.