Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The “Bias Blind Spot” Makes Smart People Say Really Stupid Things

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Over at ENV, David Klinghoffer reports on an article in Live Science about research into why atheists disproportionately score higher on standard tests of intelligence.  The article states:

[Researcher Edward] Dutton set out to find [the] answer, thinking that perhaps it was because nonreligious people were more rational than their religious brethren, and thus better able to reason that there was no God, he wrote.

But “more recently, I started to wonder if I’d got it wrong, actually,” Dutton told Live Science. “I found evidence that intelligence is positively associated with certain kinds of bias.”

For instance, a 2012 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology showed that college students often get logical answers wrong but don’t realize it. This so-called “bias blind spot” happens when people cannot detect bias, or flaws, within their own thinking. “If anything, a larger bias blind spot was associated with higher cognitive ability,” the researchers of the 2012 study wrote in the abstract. . . .

If intelligent people are less likely to perceive their own bias, that means they’re less rational in some respects, Dutton said.

Klinghoffer writes about his own experience trying to push smart people off their prejudices:

These are intelligent men and women. Yet the bias instilled by their social peers is so powerful in many cases that it cannot be overcome. Perhaps it’s something about high intelligence that itself results in the inability to see or hear what’s right in front of your face, if it conflicts with what your biases are telling you, what you think should be true if your picture of the world is to be maintained.

This is exactly right.  And it accounts for why smart people often say really stupid things.  When I read the story it put me in mind of Neil deGrasse Tyson’s now infamous tweet from last summer:  “Earth needs a virtual country: #Rationalia, with a one-line Constitution: All policy shall be based on the weight of evidence.”

Let’s concede that deGrasse is a smart guy.  From his Wiki entry:  “he completed a bachelor’s degree in physics at Harvard University in 1980. After receiving a master’s degree in astronomy at the University of Texas at Austin in 1983, he earned his master’s (1989) and doctorate (1991) in astrophysics at Columbia University.”  Those are the educational accomplishments of a highly intelligent person.

But if deGrasse is such a smart guy, why would he send out such a gobsmackingtly stupid tweet?  The answer lies in his Bias Blind Spot.  Neil deGrasse is an atheist materialist who believes that science can answer all important questions.  His tweet demonstrates that he is literally unable to comprehend the limits of the types of questions science can answer, as Kevin Williamson points out here in a withering assessment of deGrasse’s tweet.

Why are smart people more blind to their biases than the rest of us?  The answer is easy:  Because they are smart.  That does not mean that intelligence makes one more blind to bias.  It means that the pride that often accompanies intelligence makes one more blind to bias.  Hubris limits one’s perception of his own flaws and limits.  Which is why we would all do well to remember a variant on an ancient Greek aphorism:  “Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make proud.”

Comments
jdk: What about this? You don't believe the Tao is teleological and intelligent.Phinehas
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
Phinehas asks,
It seems to me that the main difference is in your view that the Tao is non-teleological and non-intelligent. Is this right?
No.jdk
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
Start with a basic question of metrology. IQ tests are NOT meant to measure overall fitness or smartness. They are designed and validated to predict success in college. Nothing else. People who succeed in college come from parents who already succeeded in college and married the same type. Fitting into college requires good memory, good processing ability, AND a certain temperament. Clearly the temperament that goes with the other qualities is a temperament that prefers theory over experience. Thus it dislikes the experiential learning embodied in Natural Law. It prefers "disruptive" and "innovative" theories, which are generally lunatic delusions.polistra
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
One of the problems that I have with atheists who typically participate in internet discussions and debates is that they rarely put forth any effort to establish any kind of common ground. Basic logic teaches us that to have any kind of meaningful debate you have to start with a fact or set of facts that everyone in discussion/ debate stipulates to be either factually well-established or at least plausibly true. Frankly, I find rather pointless pursue a discussion/debate that doesn’t begin there because it only results in two people talking past each other.john_a_designer
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
jdk:
We both accept, to some degree or another, that something, somehow, has been or is involved in providing the underlying structure of the physical world so that the world that we see can and does exist as it is.
It seems to me that the main difference is in your view that the Tao is non-teleological and non-intelligent. Is this right? What is it about the underlying structure of the physical world in general or the semantic closure UBP is describing in particular that, empirically speaking, points toward a non-teleological, non-intelligent source over a teleological, intelligent one?Phinehas
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
I'm very humble. Its one of the qualities I like most about myself. I wonder if Dutton took into account that smart people will make fewer mistakes initially, so they'll have less to be biased incorrectly about overall.RodW
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
ES, you are just a bit too kind. Thank you.Upright BiPed
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
....just wondering jdk, When ID proponents claim that a correlate of intelligence (i.e. an unambiguous demonstration of a language system) is found in biological organization, do you deny them the validity of that claim? In other words, do you accept the physical evidence and reason with it inside your own perspective (X explains the appearance of an intelligent act at the origin of life) or do you deny that evidence (ID proponents have not demonstrated a language system in biology)? (EDIT: I am out for the day, I will check back later. cheers)Upright BiPed
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
Jdk, it just seems to me that if someone believes that the universe was infused with all it needs to bring about life, then we might very well see life in complete continuity with natural law. But that doesn’t seem to be what we find at all. To organize a cell first requires the capacity to specify something among alternatives. This brings on the need of a representation (a symbol, a measurement, a memory). And with that, we incur the need to interpret the symbol. And there we find a natural discontinuity between a symbol and its referent. Further, the arrangement of the symbol is rate independent, meaning that it is not determined by the minimal potential energy state of the medium. Further still, we find that in order to read a high-capacity symbol system (like what is necessary to organize the cell) requires an abstract hierarchy to exist in the recognition of the symbol, meaning that the system does not respond merely to the dynamic properties of the symbol, but to the spatial orientation of individual objects within the symbol (which, as noted, are not determined by the energy of the medium itself). Even further still, we find that the set of physical constraints that interpret the symbol cannot be integrated with a microscopic (lawful) physical description of the system itself. Such systems, as it turns out, require two complimentary descriptions; one for the dynamic and another for the symbolic aspects of the system. And to top this off, there is the almost incomprehensible requirement that a reading-frame code, complete with the logic of combinatorial permutations (something completely foreign to physics), must arise to tie this whole system together so that it can persist over time. And finally there is the little tidbit (recorded in the scientific literature decades ago) that all of this makes this system exclusively identifiable among all other physical systems, and the only other place we can identify such a system happens to be an unambiguous correlate of intelligence. It seems like a tall order, intellectually, to ignore this reality.Upright BiPed
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
jdk
I am an atheist but not a materialist
Yes, you mentioned this earlier. And, again, you are one step ahead of the atheist materialist. C.S. Lewis said something to the effect of "give me a pagan over a materialist; at least the pagan is smart enough to acknowledge the telos inherent in the universe." I would say the same about your mysticism. At least you are smart enough not to try to ascribe the information in a book to the properties of the ink and paper. Barry Arrington
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
Klinghoffer:
"Perhaps it’s something about high intelligence that itself results in the inability to see or hear what’s right in front of your face, if it conflicts with what your biases are telling you, what you think should be true if your picture of the world is to be maintained."
Tisn't. It is simple mental self-conditioning, a self-re-wiring of thought patterns resulting in an impairment to process unpleasant facts. Similar to how pornography can re-wire the brain, the self-gratification from constructing a pleasant bias reinforced by "peers" also rewires the brain to automatically prefer the bias over the automatic discomfort of disconfirming information.Charles
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
I will give you this: You are one step ahead of the atheist who insists it can all be explained by random collision of particles, as if a book could be explained by the properties of the paper and ink with which it is printed.
I am an atheist but not a materialist.jdk
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
jdk:
But you are no more able to say where that design came from and how it became manifested in the physical world that I am to explain how the creative products of the Tao become manifested.
That is not true. We are much more able for the simple reason that we have countless examples of other systems with these same properties of which we can be quite certain of the provenance. And without exception the provenance is design by intelligent agent. You on the other hand, file away the evidence in a shroud of mysticism you have created to hide from yourself the conclusion that is plain to see. I will give you this: You are one step ahead of the atheist who insists it can all be explained by random collision of particles, as if a book could be explained by the properties of the paper and ink with which it is printed.Barry Arrington
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
ub writes,
The bottom line here is that this physical description of the system is now half a century old, and we have known for half a century that the only other place that we can positively identify this exact same physical system is in written language and mathematics – two universal correlates of intelligence.
Yes, I know that you, and many others, see the genetic apparatus as evidence, and even, proof of intelligent design. But you are no more able to say where that design came from and how it became manifested in the physical world that I am to explain how the creative products of the Tao become manifested. We both accept, to some degree or another, that something, somehow, has been or is involved in providing the underlying structure of the physical world so that the world that we see can and does exist as it is. But we neither of us can explain much more than that. You call it intelligent design. Many call it God. I am provisionally and quite agnostically attracted to a different philosophical way of understanding the situation, calling it a manifestation of the Tao. But none of us actually explain anything when we say what we do. The truth is that we can study what is, and we can study evidence that helps describe what was in the past and the progression of events, including proximate causal relationships, leading to the present. That's what we can do, given our limited perspective of the world. All else is metaphysical speculationjdk
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
UB, Your comments are worth bookmarking and citing, as usual. They are part of the golden fund of this blog.EugeneS
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
#39 sorry for the delay To you, as a "firm believer in empirical investigation", my point is we already know how genes exist as a symbolic medium. They persist over time because of semantic closure, which is merely a term to describe the necessary functional relationship between the sequence of the medium and a set of physical constraints that specify what the medium represents. You'll likely remember from your reading on genetic translation that the gene establishes the sequence of amino acids in a protein, but a separate set of aminoacyl synthetases (aaRS) independently determines which specific amino acids will appear within that sequence. In short, the codons in the medium are symbolic representations, and the set of aaRS are the necessary constraints that determine what is being represented. If you have questions about this architecture, you'll surely also remember that the anticodon-to-amino acid association inside the cell is temporally and spatially isolated from the codon-to-anticodon association. This architecture establishes a “discontinuous association" between the representations and their referents, which is the very thing that makes specification possible in the first place. (In other words, in a semantic-free material universe, codons don't actually represent amino acids; they only do so as a product of this special organization). There is another interesting detail of the system. Semantic closure, as mentioned above, refers to the necessary functional relationship between the sequence of the medium and the non-integrable constraints that will interpret that sequence. It is fundamental to the preservation of the system, given the fact that a system that cannot describe itself cannot persist, and neither can a system that cannot successfully interpret its description. The interesting thing is that the relationship between these two sets of objects (the codons and the constraints) must be based on Crick’s “reading frame code”. In other words, only by the use of combinatorial permutations will the system have the capacity it needs to describe its own translation. Also, only by the use of combinatorial permutation will that high-capacity be transcribable between mediums (which is a requirement of self-replication). The bottom line here is that this physical description of the system is now half a century old, and we have known for half a century that the only other place that we can positively identify this exact same physical system is in written language and mathematics – two universal correlates of intelligence. So my question to the intelligent atheist such as yourself -- whom seeks empirical investigation and claims no debilitating bias – how do you reason away the multiple requirements of symbolic representation, discontinuity, interpretation, combinatorial permutations, a reading frame code, and the formalization of semantic closure prior to the ability to organize the cell? It does not go unnoticed that your first reaction is to reach for a proof-question that no one can ever answer. You then hit the same question over and over again. It would be difficult to not recognize this as your response when faced with what we already know to be true. Feel free to verify anything you question. I can suggest: Bibliography. and TimelineUpright BiPed
June 8, 2017
June
06
Jun
8
08
2017
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT
F/N: My notes on JDK's version of Taoism: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/fft-charles-unmasks-the-anti-id-trollish-tactic-of-attacking-god-christian-values-and-worldview-themes/#comment-632103 KFkairosfocus
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT
Hi again jdk - I only put the language in quotes to set it off because I was not saying it. It is what I thought you were conveying. I wanted you to hear it as I heard it. If I went over the line a bit please forgive me. I don't think I really want to go reading all of your previous statements seeing as I think you have a very confused metaphysic. I only want to ask you some questions. If you choose to answer them, good, if not it has not cost me much. 1. Why is it better to believe in an impersonal Tao than a personal God? 2. Does your Tao have a will. Why is it better to believe that the creator has no purpose? 3. Like it or not, your critique of the world's religions was snobbish at best. I don;t understand what is better about your belief in Tao. I find it a very conveniently selfish belief. Tao makes no demands on you because it has no will, no purpose, no desires. It just is. OTOH you don't face the crippling incoherence of a materialistic viewpoint. Whenever you end up with a problem like - how did the DNA code come into being you have an out. The Tao is there. In a sense - what your religion - and it is just another religion - allows you to do is to be God, Priest, parishioner, and Pope of your own little religion. Other than that it allows you to proclaim all of your viewpoints - which you will probably claim rest in empiricism, but I would bet actually lie in your personal preferences - as Holy Writ of your personal religion. Why is this better???JDH
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT
I understand some about how genes work. The language you use isn't exactly what I remember learning, or entirely clear, but I don't disagree with what I think you are saying. I'm also not sure what your point is. If the question is how did such things as genes, DNA, and RNA come to exist, I don't know. Do you?jdk
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT
As a matter of direct observation, a gene is a medium that must be translated in order to convey a specification among alternatives. In order to persist, it must convey the specification of its own translation. Do you disagree?Upright BiPed
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT
I'm not sure what you mean, but, again, I don't know how genes and DNA came to be. Do you?jdk
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT
To be a gene at all they would need to be specified, would they not?Upright BiPed
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT
I don't know how genes arose. Do you?jdk
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT
Well there's my original question, as a firm believer in empirical discovery, how do you reason with the need for symbolic language prior to the organization of the cell?Upright BiPed
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
That's not true about my position: I'm a firm believer in empirical investigation. I also am pretty aware, of situations where we don't have enough information to know much, and situations in which we can't know at all.jdk
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT
I don’t do theology so I’ll leave that to someone else. Even so, I think the general Christian tradition is to use your head, i.e. that a judgment can be derived from what is acquired by the senses. In any case, I am speaking solely from the standpoint of empirical discovery. It would seem that your position needn’t consider it, given that it doesn’t matter.Upright BiPed
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT
No different than believing in God: "ascribe whatever you need to a source that is beyond question."jdk
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
So you ascribe whatever you need to a source that is beyond question. I suppose as long as you have no questions, this would certainly make for a powerful belief. EDIT: In as few words as possible, contrary to the idea of an unguided origin of life.Upright BiPed
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
jdh writes,
Hi again jdk – You claim to be humble.
I actually wrote,
My guess is that your stereotypes about “unhumble” atheists don’t apply to me.
That is different, I think, than what you wrote about me. I also did not write, "I have analyzed all those obviously false myths religious people believe ...", so I don't think you should have made that look like a quote, even if you think it is what I implied. I'm sure we disagree about a lot of things. I have posted links to a viewpoint very different from Christianity. I offer it as an alternative perspective, but not something I want to debate or discuss.jdk
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
Contrary evidence to what? Philosophically, I believe (taking all my disclaimers about agnosticism into account) that the underlying unfathomable root of reality (called the Tao but in fact ineffable) infuses our universe with the creativity to have the properties it does, including the origination of life. How the Tao "does" this is beyond me, and beyond anyone else, I think. We can investigate the manifestations of the Tao, but not how the Tao does the manifesting. I know this doesn't actually explain anything, but neither do analogous beliefs about the actions of an omni-everything god of Western monotheism.jdk
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply