Why humans are unintelligent: it's all about belief

[lunaflare]

Well, I am of the belief that humans are intelligent. Our bodies certainly are, and so is the astounding creative intelligence of the Natural world...we are just in a type of game/experience that seems to require forgetfulness...

[Ashiris]

People are not unintelligent. They are brainwashed

[pueblo]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
This is a serious thread. For years I've pondered why (e.g.) someone with a PhD and a measured IQ of 180 might be just really dumb and unaware outside of their specialist field. We see this ALL the time.

It's not about EQ (Emotional Intelligence) or SQ (Spiritual Intelligence). I think it's about the predominant vulnerability of almost all humans, whatever their IQ, EQ, SQ, age, culture, or level of education, to be victims of belief.

And there may be two components to that:

1. The susceptibility to being initially influenced to form a belief.
2. The resistance to letting go of it once it's entrenched.

A high intellect can paradoxically be a handicap, as extremely clever people are often very skilled at self-justifying whatever beliefs they have. A smart and articulate person will defend their beliefs strongly, self-reinforcing all the time.

I'd be most interested in other members' views (and experiences!) about this.

Perhaps some of the explanation for the seemingly inexplicable tendency for some people to become "victims of belief" can be explained by the difference between right and left brain dominant thinkers.

The below is a quote from a book 'The Matter with Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions, and the Unmaking of the World'.

"When confronted with a deadline, insight solvers will simply not complete the task if the answer has not come in time.

However, when analytic solvers run out of time, they tend to guess, often incorrectly, before the deadline, offering the hypothesis they were busy evaluating at the time.

Don’t forget that, to put it bluntly, the left hemisphere is overconfident and is prone to bull****.

Creative intuitions frequently begin with not knowing, with the recognition that the obvious does not apply, that something here does not fit.

If you are engaged in narrowing down to the most likely, are less inclined to doubt what you believe you know, and are inclined to preserve the current paradigm at all costs, rather than take seriously a finding that requires its modification, it is clear that you will be less likely to find something new – or accept it when it is pointed out to you."

So, these "victims of belief" may simply not be able to access the creative power of "not knowing", unable to see that "something here does not fit". Further, when presented with something which challenges their current paradigm they are unable to accept it.

This neatly explains the phenomenon we have all experienced when trying to explain something non mainstream to a mainstream mind....namely that no matter how much proof/evidence or support for your argument you present the person remains unmoved from their original position.

I am guessing, but I don't know, that those high IQ PHDs mentioned in the OP are predominantly left brain thinkers.

For reference on Left v Right brain thinking....

The concept of "left brain" versus "right brain" thinking suggests that individuals have a dominant side of the brain that influences their personality and cognitive abilities. Left-brain dominance is often associated with logic, analysis, and linear thinking, while right-brain dominance is linked to creativity, intuition, and spatial reasoning. However, it's important to note that the brains of most people are not entirely dominated by one side and both hemispheres are active in most cognitive tasks.

Link to a PDF of the book quoted above.
https://dokumen.pub/the-matter-with-...914568053.html

[Bill Ryan]

Bumping this thread with a fascinating little snippet from Peak Prosperity, just 90 seconds long. (The original video, all about 9/11, is here.)

Chris Martenson is talking with Dr. Madhava Setty, now an anesthesiologist but whose first degree was in electrical engineering. Dr. Setty recounts how he tried to present and explain the many serious 9/11 anomalies to some of his friends, who themselves were highly qualified, intelligent and and educated people.

He was met with glazed eyes and a refusal to consider what for them was new and unacceptable information. Their fixed belief of the mainstream narrative was just too strong.

I Showed Engineers the 9/11 Evidence. Their Reaction Shocked Me

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z5O_PUzKd1E

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

They are thinking in their minds: NIST are the best there is. They cannot possibly be "wrong" with their findings on 9/11.

Their thought process can go no further than right/wrong.

It never gets through to them that this problem isn't about right versus wrong. It's about lying versus telling the truth. It does not occur to them that NIST is lying in their report. That the 9/11 commission is lying. The Government is lying. And the legacy media lies to protect them.

It doesn't matter if they're super smart and have all these degrees. Actually, that probably makes things worse. Sometimes, the smarter you are, the dumber you are -- you don't think you can be 'outsmarted', not as easily as this. It's offensive to their ego.

[Valknut3301]

I'm paraphrasing someone I can't remember the name of. 'It's astounding to me how people believe you can send an idiot through university, hand them a degree, and they will somehow not be an idiot anymore'. It's another example of discernment being the basis of intelligence, not how much information you can cram into your skull.

[DNA]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Bumping this thread with a fascinating little snippet from Peak Prosperity, just 90 seconds long. (The original video, all about 9/11, is here.)

Chris Martenson is talking with Dr. Madhava Setty, now an anesthesiologist but whose first degree was in electrical engineering. Dr. Setty recounts how he tried to present and explain the many serious 9/11 anomalies to some of his friends, who themselves were highly qualified, intelligent and and educated people.

He was met with glazed eyes and a refusal to consider what for them was new and unacceptable information. Their fixed belief of the mainstream narrative was just too strong.

I Showed Engineers the 9/11 Evidence. Their Reaction Shocked Me

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z5O_PUzKd1E

You know there are so many examples of this.

It's an example of using a strength against you.
It's incredibly insidious and effective.

There is a cultural directive to work towards the common good.
To participate in an agreed upon set of staging points so as to help mankind move forward.

My uncle is a certified genius master level chess player.
Multiple degrees in psychology and history. A very amiable and agreeable person,
A boomer who lived through and adopted the mantra of feminism and the liberal rights movement.
A good guy
I understood he would be a tough nut to crack but, I figured with time and patience I could do it.

I've failed to move the bar one inch on this guy.
He believes the official version of 9/11, JFK, covid 19 and every other small example from history you could present for debate.
Not only does he believe everything CNN tells him, I can't get past the threshold with offering a differing perspective.
The triggering, the emotional pedal to the metal of 0-95 mph when you bring up anything contrary to the official agreed upon consensus reality.

It's a defense that escalates if you continue, he literally will start yelling over you if you continue once he has -detected a contrary opinion from the official narrative.

Now we all see this in various forms but to see it in someone you've tried so many angles on, it goes beyond frustrating.
I once asked him if there was anything the Democratic party has ever done he disagrees with.
He sidebarred my every attempt when asking the question.
So although he couldn't bring himself to say it, he agreed with every single premise the Democrat party proposed and when I bring up points like full term abortion he cries fake media and refuses to look at my outstretched phone glowing with a cursory Google search.

Literally his party can do no wrong.
How does a sane rational even intelligent person do this?
Did it ever used to be like this?

A case of high intellectual IQ and if you met him decent emotional IQ but no self examination dividing autonomy and self from society and it's media propaganda

[grapevine]

"The dinosaurs disappeared because they could not adapt to their changing environment..." — Arthur C. Clarke

Courtesy of AI:

Adapt
means to change something—or to change yourself—to fit a new purpose, condition, or environment.

Key Meanings and Uses
• To change behavior or habits: Adjusting how you act, think, or live to fit a new situation (e.g., adapting to a new job or a different country).
• To modify an object or design: Changing a physical thing, tool, or software so it works for a new use or user (e.g., adapting a computer program for a new operating system).
• To convert a creative work: Turning a book, play, or article into a different medium, such as a movie or television series (e.g., adapting a novel for the screen).
• Biological evolution: When a living species changes slightly over generations to survive in a specific climate or habitat.

An example of Failure to Adapt would be Donald Trump's apparent inability to accept the advent of the Multipolar World and a future where the USA would have an equal say in how it's run, which failure, in the long run, could put the USA at a major disadvantage.

Nothing to do with intelligence imo.

[Sue (Ayt)]

I try to make an effort to examine and guard against propaganda on all sides. It's getting harder and harder with the abundance of today's internet "influencers" not to mention ai churning out BS as required.
-------------------

American kids want to be famous on YouTube, and kids in China want to go to space: survey

"Neil Armstrong became a role model in the eyes of kids everywhere 50 years ago when he became the first person to walk on the moon on July 20, 1969.

Kids in a recent survey, however, were much more likely to aspire to be the next YouTube star rather than the next person in space. The survey, conducted by Harris Poll on behalf of Lego, found that children in the US and the United Kingdom were three times as likely to want to be YouTubers or vloggers as astronauts when they grow up.

The survey asked 3,000 kids ages 8 to 12 to choose from five professions to answer which they wanted to be when they grew up: astronaut, musician, professional athlete, teacher, or vlogger/YouTuber. Though the top choice among kids in the US and the UK was vlogger/YouTuber, 56% of kids in China said they wanted to be an astronaut."

Article continues at link, with results of the survey (if we believe it is actually true! haha)
https://www.businessinsider.com/amer...-survey-2019-7

beLIEve nothing?

[petra]

In my experience I found the smartest people, not necessarily high IQ, in the mental institution.

IQ is just a test at how good you are at doing IQ tests really. I scored a high IQ because of a Mensa puzzle book I had as a kid. I recognized the puzzles as soon as they gave me the test. I'm not even that smart, let's be honest. Those puzzles are easy if you already know the answers..

[Sue (Ayt)]

Posted by petra (here)
I'm not even that smart, let's be honest.

Well, I don't beLIEve that for one second!
Your youthful interest in a Mensa book of puzzles alone suggests an above average IQ, I think.

But it doesn't surprise me either to hear that there are high IQ's in mental institutions, as well as prisons. Extreme ends of the normal curve often don't fit into societal norms, and it can cause problems.

Off topic, but I found it interesting that research has found that there is a correlation between how many convolutions (folds and such) are in the brain and intelligence. I had read that quite a few years back, and looked it up again because I wanted to see if that tidbit of info was considered true. And apparently it is. (Even google AI says it's so! haha).
But here's a journal article:
Mapping the Relationship between Cortical Convolution and Intelligence: Effects of Gender

Abstract
The pronounced convolution of the human cortex may be a morphological substrate that supports some of our species’ most distinctive cognitive abilities. Therefore, individual intelligence within humans might be modulated by the degree of folding in certain cortical regions. We applied advanced methods to analyze cortical convolution at high spatial resolution and correlated those measurements with intelligence quotients. Within a large sample of healthy adult subjects (n = 65), we detected the most prominent correlations in the left medial hemisphere. More specifically, intelligence scores were positively associated with the degree of folding in the temporo-occipital lobe, particularly in the outermost section of the posterior cingulate gyrus (retrosplenial areas). Thus, this region might be an important contributor toward individual intelligence, either via modulating pathways to (pre)frontal regions or by serving as a location for the convergence of information. Prominent gender differences within the right frontal cortex were observed; females showed uncorrected significant positive correlations and males showed a nonsignificant trend toward negative correlations. It is possible that formerly described gender differences in regional convolution are associated with differences in the underlying architecture. This might lead to the development of sexually dimorphic information processing strategies and affect the relationship between intelligence and cortical convolution.
(more - long article at link)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2517107/

edit to add - Maybe that's why some of us here are seen as a bit "convoluted"? LOL

[sdv]

Aren't IQ tests underpinned by the values of the society that created them? So, if a society requires people to be proficient at complex and abstract problem solving, then IQ test will measure and value highly that ability. If a society requires a population to remember and process and apply rules appropriately and efficiently, then the IQ test will measure and highly value those skills.

On another thread I posted a video in which various AI (one Chinese and the rest American so not enough variety) were asked to guess the IQ of Trump. (I did not realise that the average American IQ is below 100 and assumed that was a worldwide average.) The Chinese AI rated him the lowest, so I checked if Chinese IQ tests were different from those in the US. No, standard international tests (i.e. the same) are used in China. Ask AI and you will get a pretty good summary of why Chinese people score so much higher than Americans. Of course, an American AI will conclude that it is about coaching, but then kind of contradicts itself. Are Chinese more intelligent? No, not genetically, just as Africans do not genetically have lower intelligence than Americans (but many people believe this).

IQ tests can be seen as an important tool to identify and value skills that society requires, but who decides on those values and skills? And we can find many examples of someone having huge success (depending on how you define success) despite not having a high IQ on a test.

Are IQ tests outdated? Are they still useful? It seems that American society values fame, money and ability to dominate more highly than problem solving. Sound smart and you will make it on YouTube! I am not familiar enough with Chinese society to guess which skills and values they neglect in order to promote the kind of skills (IQ) that were necessary to eliminate absolute poverty and now to engage in space exploration and providing free energy for the future, etc., so I am guessing.

I think societies all around the world are being tested ... What is important to us? Ultimately the American people will have to decide if domination at all costs is what they want and believe is crucial for their happiness and prosperity. What skills and abilities will we need in a future world? I am guessing that for China it is those that are highly valued as being high IQ in the existing international tests. African countries are in the process of devising a new IQ test, so there is soul searching being done as well as a lot of academic research about values and needs.The world seems to remain attached to IQ tests, but are they still useful?

This thread was started a few years ago but it raises questions and opens discussions that many in the world are ignoring but that seem to be crucial in a time of transition for humankind.

Some final question: Is the culture of IQ testing a form of brainwashing? Is the cost of brainwashing a small price to pay for the benefits people can accumulate, and is the problem we now face that brainwashing for an old era is devastating for humanity in trying to adapt to a new era, if we want to remain independent and intelligent individual beings? I sort of think that this problem has been creeping up on us for a century or more, but it is now reaching crisis point. Maybe instead of IQ tests we should devote childhood and early childhood to the individual finding out what they like or are passionate about and what they are good at, which then gives them direction on what kind of work to do or career to have, instead of being motivated by what society values?

[rgray222]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
This is a serious thread. For years I've pondered why (e.g.) someone with a PhD and a measured IQ of 180 might be just really dumb and unaware outside of their specialist field. We see this ALL the time.

It's not about EQ (Emotional Intelligence) or SQ (Spiritual Intelligence). I think it's about the predominant vulnerability of almost all humans, whatever their IQ, EQ, SQ, age, culture, or level of education, to be victims of belief.

And there may be two components to that:

1. The susceptibility to being initially influenced to form a belief.
2. The resistance to letting go of it once it's entrenched.

A high intellect can paradoxically be a handicap, as extremely clever people are often very skilled at self-justifying whatever beliefs they have. A smart and articulate person will defend their beliefs strongly, self-reinforcing all the time.

I'd be most interested in other members' views (and experiences!) about this.

Bill
I believe what we're talking about is the difference between knowledge and wisdom. Pretty much anyone can gain a great deal of knowledge simply by remembering facts, but virtually all wisdom is won through a lived life. Wisdom is gained through assigning values to the knowledge you have collected while you're moving through life. Many of these high IQ people become elites, never venturing out into the everyman's world. These people have exceptional knowledge and even reasoning ability, but their lives are not grounded in common sense. Wisdom involves not just knowing a lot, but also sound judgment, openness to evidence, and being aware of your own limits.

An example of someone with a lot of knowledge but no real wisdom would be someone who knows a thousand recipes but has no idea how to cook.

Intelligence can be a double-edged sword because it helps these high-IQ people defend a belief they already hold, rather than question whether it’s true.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by DNA (here)
How does a sane rational even intelligent person do this?

From their toddler years on up, from their parents to their school years from the very beginning, their success and positive affirmation depended on their reflecting the narratives taught to them.

They no longer even know of what their own intuitions might sense.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by grapevine (here)
Courtesy of AI:

An example of Failure to Adapt would be Donald Trump's apparent inability to accept the advent of the Multipolar World

As usual, I suspect that most AI models have been well trained on TDS biased material.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by rgray222 (here)
Intelligence can be a double-edged sword because it helps these high-IQ people defend a belief they already hold, rather than question whether it’s true.

The more that one's talents in this material world bring one success in the first few decades of one's life, the less likely that one will move past those talents to more woo-woo stuff, more "fuzzy awareness" stuff deprecated in the material world, in later decades. This might apply whether one's talents brought athletic, musical, mental, monetary, power, fame, ... or other forms of success recognized in the material world.

[Ewan]

I am somewhat surprised I have not replied to this thread before now given I have a few thoughts on the matter. In truth I thought Bill had nailed it in his first post and it needed no discussion.

A positive to holding back though has allowed me to read all the responses. What is quite apparent to me from said responses is the difference between those that are still clinging to beliefs and are seemingly largely unaware of that, and those that are trying to find a way past them.

Learning to understand your thought processes is a lifetime's work. Most average beings in the world give not a second thought to what goes on in their own heads. The ability to study self is a blessing, and quite possibly an indicator of previous lives. As a child I questioned almost everything and was mostly starved of answers. I quite possibly frustrated everyone I tried to learn from. I know my teachers at school universally thought I was a lost cause, conversely I thought not a one of them were capable teachers.

Despite effectively having lost 10 years of my life in 'education' I discovered, in my case, education began after school.

I see the IQ topic was debated within the thread, at the age of 20 I was invited to join Mensa (The high IQ society) - boy did that feed my ego for a while. I wondered what my old teachers would have thought of that, but in less than 18 months I left Mensa as a pointless organisation full of self-important blowhards.

I discovered spiritual aspects to education when I was 26. A real surprise as I believed I was agnostic at the time. But there is a key point. My belief did not shape my thinking, I had to look at what had happened, it was impossible (for me) to dismiss. I won't go on except to say I never stopped learning and reassessing beliefs - to the point now where I am uncertain of any belief I still hold.

I like Mattias Desmet's explanations of understanding formation.

An earlier author who was not even qualified as a psychologist wrote an excellent work entitled "Prisons we chose to live inside."

Doris May Lessing (1919-2013) was a British-Zimbabwean novelist, poet, playwright, and short story writer, renowned for her prodigious literary output that encompassed a wide range of themes including social justice, psychological complexity, and political commitment.

Born in Kermanshah, Persia (now Iran), she spent her formative years in Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) before relocating to England in 1949.

The Psychological Prison - Why We Conform

Doris-May Lessing’s
"Prisons We Choose to Live Inside"
delves into the deeply ingrained psychological prisons that shape human behaviors and societal norms. Central to this is the compelling concept of conformity, the invisible chains binding individuals to the collective patterns of their social groups.

Human beings are fundamentally social creatures. From childhood, we learn to navigate the complexities of social interactions and the implicit codes that govern them. This socialization process conditions us to seek acceptance and belonging, often at the expense of our individuality.

Lessing argues that this intrinsic desire to fit in creates psychological prisons, where the fear of alienation leads people to conform to group norms, even when such norms conflict with personal beliefs or ethical standards.

https://vdoc.pub/download/prisons-we...e-5uk143nt2j10 ~available as an epub file at this link.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Ewan (here)
I see the IQ topic was debated within the thread, at the age of 20 I was invited to join Mensa (The high IQ society) - boy did that feed my ego for a while. I wondered what my old teachers would have thought of that, but in less than 18 months I left Mensa as a pointless organisation full of self-important blowhards.

Ha. Me too. I found Mensa members were actually pretty dumb, obsessed with trivialities and with surprisingly little true intelligence at all.