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
I've now had a chance to look over your links. There is nothing there about how you reason with intractable contrary evidence. I assume from this that you simply ignore it.Upright BiPed
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
Hi again jdk - You claim to be humble - but do you not see how the attitude you projected in your comments , "I have analyzed all those obviously false myths religious people believe and understand why they are believed and why those people believe them" might be considered arrogant. Curious why you were so sure the Christian religion is false? I don't understand your argument. 1. IF we are able to really make objective arguments - like you insist YOU can - then we must have some supernatural deciding agent in us that is really able to make abstract decisions which CAN NOT be determined by purely materialistic laws. 2. IF we have this non-materialistic agent in us ( And we have no idea where it came from ) It would make sense that this had to be given to use by some superior agent as it is impossible for it to develop in us naturally. 3. This leads to an infinite regress, unless you cut off that regress at some superior intellect who has been here eternally - has no beginning or no end. 4. I believe this is what even you would have to label "GOD". 5. If this God was so great to create us - wouldn't you think he would also interact with us.JDH
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
Okay. I suppose I could ask if you remember any key details of how you resolve yourself to intractable physical evidence, but I gather if you had wanted to share that you would have done so instead of sending me on a hunt.Upright BiPed
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
to UB at 21: I wrote some summaries of my beliefs, most of which are tempered and framed by my strong agnosticism, as below: Taoism Thoughts on my beliefsjdk
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
rvb8 @ 22:
my biases, at least, seem to have a logical foundation
Do tell. What is the logic behind a universe from nothing or a self-created universe (the only two options available to the atheist). Both options are logically incoherent. Yet rvb8 demonstrates his bias blindness by seemingly being unaware of that fact. As for your comment about religions, it demonstrates a profound ignorance of religious tradition and history. Google "how can christian deal with doubt" and you'll get thousands of hits. Barry Arrington
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
Is this bias and blindness in any way similar to the bias and blindness employed by all the world's religions concerning the rightness of their faith, compared to the wrongness of all other faiths, and atheism? Is it like the bias and blindness of the Orthodox Jew towards Christianity and Islam, and vice, vice, versa? As an atheist materialist I have biases to be sure. However as the religious never, (as in not once), produce physical evidence for their claims of miracles or accounts of near history, my biases, at least, seem to have a logical foundation.rvb8
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
jdk, a question please. How does an intelligent atheist reason with the symbol-matter problem at the origin of life? Is it a matter of just ignoring it, or do you have a more sophisticated means of resolving it? I hope you'll accept this as a fair question, because that is the way it is intended.Upright BiPed
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
I did not mean to be uncivil. In some jest I shared that humility did not emanate from your post as assumed. I did re read your post and maybe the buzz word claim was strong, or maybe I was just sensing ahead to post 12.ecs2
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
There is a huge difference between intelligence and wisdom. Augustine had a massive intellect. It could have held a dozen or so minds like that of Neil deGrasse Tyson, with plenty of room to spare. (I doubt anything Tyson says will appear in physics textbooks seventeen centuries from now, but Augustine's ideas on the nature of time find their way into modern physics textbooks.) But Augustine obtained wisdom only after he had converted to Christianity. I think one of the main differences between intelligence and wisdom is that wisdom is capable of objectivity. What appear to be conflicts between their faith and their reasoning about nature don't upset the wise. They are confident such conflicts will eventually be resolved because they know that their Christian faith and nature have the same Author, so they can remain objective and do a calm analysis of the evidence. On the other hand, atheists freak out, start spewing sophomoric insults, sue school boards and intimidate scientists when the evidence threatens their world view. They aren't capable of the objectivity true science requires. They panic. They don't have the source of confidence that the Christians have. A final thought: The gigantic, wise intellect of Augustine eventually came to this conclusion: Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore, seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand.harry
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
Duly warned, Barry. I'll say no more.jdk
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
jdk @ 16. Last warning.Barry Arrington
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
So I am just supposed to accept rudeness? I wrote a civil and reasonable post at 4, and both ecs2 and you replied in ungenerous and uncivil ways, as I said. I also objected to being called "foolish" in another thread. I'm not sure two remarks qualifies as "incessant". Are you exempt from reasonable expectations of civility?jdk
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
jdk @ 8
I didn’t expect any generous or civil replies
Your incessant whining about the spirit of the replies you get to your comments is tiresome. First warning.Barry Arrington
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
'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.' The above quote from the thread header I've just scanned, seems to encapsulate the whole. It is very scriptural indeed. Remember Christ's words concerning his unlettered disciples : 'At that time, Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and declared, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was well-pleasing in Your sight.' The spiritual wisdom was the theme of Jesus' address, largely, it seems to the Anawim, which we know as The Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount ; and its worldly counterpart, is what we designate today simply as 'intelligence'. The point is that the deepest truths - pre-eminently religious - are so subtle and tenuous that we end up believing what we prefer to believe, what we wish to believe; and these form the assumptions underpinning our world-view. It is related to Einstein's preferred aesthetic criterion which he resorted to when choosing his (physical) hypotheses. It is why our Christian faith in addition to mere belief entails 'commitment': the commitment of the heart, an ideally unflagging disposition of the will towards credence as displayed in prayer, self-denial and action. In Jesus' own day, it was slightly different in that it was more difficult to believe in someone who was both true God and true Man, yet was born into a poor family, and after working as a carpenter became an indigent, itinerant preacher, to whom the respectable politico-religious Establishhment became extremely hostile, eventually as we know, to the point of killing him. So, there is truth in the old atheist jibe that religion is wishful thinking, though it is equally true that atheism is wishful thinking, provided one reduces the meaning of 'wishful' to signify the action of the will (one of the three functions of the soul : memory, will and understanding). However, why would not the God of Christianity inspire such positive wishful-thinking (than which there could be none more so), to match the reality of this world he has made for us ? And for Him to use as the primary criterion in the Last Judgment. What sort of a heaven would it be, if people were accepted and welcomed there, on account of their intellectual prowess, herebelow. Certainly, scripture tells us that, if used well, i.e. subordinated to the divine, all-loving wisdom, inter alia in teaching others, such a person will reap a rich reward in heaven. But the intellect will be accidental, the self-denying love, the charity, is the active ingredient, as it is in all the virtues (many of which have a counterfeit counterpart that lacks that generosity of spirit). Enjoying the company of the likes of the concentration-camp doctors, for example? James tells us in an Epistle that the Devil believes and trembles. In heaven, there need be no limitation on the intellect, qua worldly intelligence, now fully permeated by the Holy Spirit - other perhaps than the limitation of our own heart in terms of our personal capacity for bearing the divine love. So, biases in the scientific endeavour theoretically at least make sense, though the level of atheists' wilful, wanton stupidity seems very much in line with Einstein's quip : "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Not to speak of Planck's dictum to the effect that science progresses one funeral at a time.Axel
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
jdk@10
I am not a materialist, so most of your remarks don’t apply to me. I had some long conversations about this a while back, but I forget the names of the threads.
Mostly unrelated to the thread but is there a way in Wordpress to do a self search to find threads that one has commented on? Edited because jdk answered the question I had while I was typing.Latemarch
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
I don't know how to find the thread, but I recently wrote several posts in along discussion where I explained that I might be labelled a "strong agnostic atheist Taoist existentialist humanist", although of course such labels as those are just guides to discussion. The "Taoist" and "existentialist" parts together constitute the non-materialist part of my beliefs, but the "strong agnostic" part emphasizes that I don't thing we can really know whether metaphysical speculations are true. The atheist part is because no matter what the true nature of metaphysical reality is, I think all human religions are stories we have made up that are part of our very limited perspective on the world.jdk
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
@jdk Sorry, I thought your comment implied you are an atheist. How can you be an atheist and not a materialist? I don't get it.JDH
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
Hi JDH: I am not a materialist, so most of your remarks don't apply to me. I had some long conversations about this a while back, but I forget the names of the threads.jdk
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
@jdk - Do you mean to say that you are a "humble atheist". Then please allow me to introduce myself. I don't consider myself to be a "non-humble theist". But I have a real problem with atheism that I don't see how you can answer. I do not see how complexity can add will. I admit that - if atheism/materialism is true - the brain is an extremely complex organ. I just do not see how making something more complex can introduce REAL will. I can see it introducing the "ILLUSION" of will, but I don't see how you can ever have an agent which evaluates something and make a moral decision that "THIS COURSE OF ACTION IS WHAT I DECIDED TO DO BECAUSE IT IS CORRECT". And this is just the problem I have. You make the statement that you have "...a lot of understanding, I think, about why religion exists and the role it plays in the lives of human individuals...", but how could you have that if atheism is true. You are claiming that lots of humans are not judging these things objectively, except you happen to have this objective judgement - even though you propose that you are only a collection of dumb particles responding to external forces. There is no way to get from a collection of dumb particles responding to external forces, a will which can evaluate and decide what is objectively correct. Can't you see this?JDH
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
If you want to read it that way, ecs2, you can, although I'm not sure what "buzz-words" I used. Is "role" a buzz-word? Same with you, Barry. I didn't expect any generous or civil replies, but I spoke up anyway. Moving on ...jdk
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
jdk, your bias blind spot is showing.Barry Arrington
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
@4 -This is meant to be humorous right? It sort of reads - I am very smart and I have done very impressive sounding research into buzz-wordy topics that allow me to assess and draw subjective value judgments on purpose and meaning and role of spirituality and call them science, and do so all from a position of comfortable detachment. Kudos. But the joke was that is not evidence of humility but the opposite, right? Really good one, 'I am very humble, just ask me.' Kind of thing. I like that kind of meta humor. But ... you could not have meant that seriously could you?ecs2
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
There are the occasional humble materialist atheists but they are few and far between. One that comes to mind is Penn Jillette of Penn and Teller. Penn and Bible Now if you include what I like to term the spiritual atheists, (Buddhists and Taoists fall into this category) then there are lots more.Latemarch
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
Hi Barry: allow me to introduce myself. Not quite sure what "humble about overcoming the “superstition” of religious belief" means, but I have a background in comparative religion, and a lot of understanding, I think, about why religion exists and the role it plays in the lives of human individuals and societies. My guess is that your stereotypes about "unhumble" atheists don't apply to me.jdk
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
There may be an atheist who is humble about overcoming the "superstition" of religious belief. I've never met such a person. Thus, Dawkins labeling himself and those who agree with him "Brights."Barry Arrington
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
Late @ 1. Yeah, that too.Barry Arrington
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. Prov. 16:18Latemarch
June 7, 2017
June
06
Jun
7
07
2017
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply