Archive for ‘Intelligence’

August 25th, 2008

Anti-Intellectualism Is Destroying America

From Alternet.org:

“It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant.” Barack Obama finally said it.

Though a successful political and electoral strategy, the Right’s stand against intelligence has steered them far off course, leaving them — and us — unable to deal successfully with the complex and dynamic circumstances we face as a nation and a society.

American 15-year-olds rank 24th out of 29 countries in math literacy, and their parents are as likely to believe in flying saucers as in evolution; roughly 30 to 40 percent believe in each. Their president believes “the jury is still out” on evolution.

Steve Colbert interviewed Georgia Rep. Lynn Westmoreland on “The Colbert Report.” Westmoreland co-sponsored a bill that would require the display of the Ten Commandments in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, but, when asked, couldn’t actually list the commandments.

This stuff would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous.

In the 2004 election, nearly 70 percent of Bush supporters believed the United States had “clear evidence” that Saddam Hussein was working closely with al Qaeda; a third believed weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq; and more than a third that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion, according to the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. The political right and allied culture warriors actively ignore evidence and encourage misinformation. To motivate their followers, they label intelligent and informed as “elite,” implying that ignorance is somehow both valuable and under attack.

and from Way of the Mind:

In my opinion, anti-intellectualism is one of the world’s most serious problems, these days.

What is it? It’s the belief that what is good are the “simple people”, the “common people”, who are supposedly more honest and “real” than so-called “ivory tower” intellectuals.

It’s also the belief that thinking and learning are trouble, that they lead people to unhappiness, sinfulness, asking too many questions, and such.

It’s geeks, or more intelligent students, being called “brainy” or “nerds” and harassed by classmates. It’s science being seen as a waste of time and money. It’s a political candidate winning an election because he successfully depicted his opponent as an “egghead”. Incidentally, it’s likely that one of the reasons America currently has one of its worst presidents ever is that, by being less educated and articulate than Gore or Kerry, he appeared “more in touch” with the common man (of course, one should then wonder if you really want the village idiot in charge of the most powerful nation in the world… but I digress.)

There are several sources of anti-intellectualism. Religion is an obvious one, of course, since being intelligent and learning makes one less likely to accept arguments from authority, and to question unproven assertions. An intelligent, learned man has no need for religion – therefore, we don’t want any intelligent, learned men (to paraphrase The Fountainhead’s Elllsworth Toohey).

Besides “normal” religion, there’s also the usual mystical, new age thinking, according to which the mind is “flawed” and imperfect, incapable of perceiving any real “revelations”, which you supposedly can only grasp with “your heart” or “your spirit”. The mind is human, and therefore imperfect, while the heart/spirit are filled with “the cosmos’s love” or any other generic, meaningless terms.

Another reason is populism, the belief that the honest, hard working “masses” are oppressed by the corrupt, privileged “elites”. While they certainly are, sometimes (in dictatorships, for instance), populism is wrong because of its belief of “the lower, the better”, and its worship of ordinariness. Populism, like most forms of collectivism, punishes people for ability and for success – therefore, it promotes mediocrity and sameness. And a populist certainly hates and feels threatened by anyone with more “brains” or education.

Dictatorships (communism, fascism, etc.) always strongly promote anti-intellectualism, for mostly the same reasons as religion does: an intelligent, educated person is much more likely to question, and to see “what’s rotten”. The “unwashed masses” are much easier to keep in line. Higher education is seen as “dangerous” and “subversive”.

An intellectual isn’t necessarily someone more intelligent or with more knowledge than the norm. It just means that the person highly values the mind, thinking, and the pursuit of knowledge. And it’s frightening, to me, how few intellectuals (by that definition) I personally know. Anti-intellectuals (people who deride the mind, who pride themselves on not thinking, on not using their reason), on the other hand, are everywhere.

During this presidential campaign we’ve heard the terms “elite” and “elitist” used as pejorative terms.  I agree with Bill Maher when he said,

Say it loud: I’m elite and proud! The right-wing crusade to demonize elites has paid off. Now the country’s run by incompetents who make mediocrity a job requirement and recruit from Pat Robertson’s law school. New rule: Now that liberals have taken back the word liberal, they also have to take back the word “elite.” By now you’ve heard the constant right-wing attacks on the “elite,” or as it’s otherwise known, “hating.” They’ve had it up to their red necks with the “elite media.” The “liberal elite.” Who may or may not be part of the “Washington elite.” A subset of the “East Coast elite.” Which is influenced by “the Hollywood elite.” So basically, unless you’re a shitkicker from Kansas, you’re with the terrorists.

I don’t get it: In other fields — outside of government — elite is a good thing, like an elite fighting force. Tiger Woods is an elite golfer. If I need brain surgery, I’d like an elite doctor. But in politics, elite is bad (Source)

It’s not just politics, though.  As the influence of fundamental religion grows worldwide, it is becoming perceived as honorable, honest, down-to-Earth to be ignorant and bad-mouth intellectualism.  A 16 year old kid makes the news dropping out of high school to play Guitar Hero.  Education and the desire to know are no longer priorities.

Do you value the intellect?  Does the negative connotation of “elite” and “intellectual” bother you?

June 28th, 2008

Plastic Brain Outsmarts Experts

Training can increase fluid intelligence, once thought to be fixed at birth

Illustration showing the memory storage area of the brain with a nerve network.

Training a person’s working memory may increase his or her general intelligence.

Can human beings rev up their intelligence quotients, or are they stuck with IQs set by their genes at birth? Until recently, nature seemed to be the clear winner over nurture.

But new research, led by Swiss postdoctoral fellows Susanne M. Jaeggi and Martin Buschkuehl, working at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, suggests that at least one aspect of a person’s IQ can be improved by training a certain type of memory.

Most IQ tests attempt to measure two types of intelligence–crystallized and fluid intelligence. Crystallized intelligence draws on existing skills, knowledge and experiences to solve problems by accessing information from long-term memory.

Fluid intelligence, on the other hand, draws on the ability to understand relationships between various concepts, independent of any previous knowledge or skills, to solve new problems. The research shows that this part of intelligence can be improved through memory training.

“When it comes to improving intelligence, many researchers have thought it was not possible,” says Jaeggi. “Our findings clearly show this is not the case. Our brain is more plastic than we might think.”   (Read More…)

There is no pain

There’s only gain

When you can train

Your plastic brain.

signature

June 7th, 2008

Why our brains are so clumsy

Free thinking, indeed any kind of thinking, is dependent on the abilities of our brains.  Learning more about our brain can give us insight into the process and products of thinking.

In his new book, Kluge: The haphazard construction of the human mind, Gary Marcus aims to take the human species down a peg or two. We might like to think of ourselves as sleek and perfectly-adapted products of evolution, but Marcus instead describes the brain as a clumsy collection of spare parts. If evolution is so powerful, he asks, how did we end up so flawed?

Why do you think that the mind is a kluge?

There are two answers to that. The first is a general argument about evolution: that if you look at evolution it makes a lot of kluges. Evolution tends not to optimise things; it simply tinkers with what’s already there. So it tends to make things better but there’s no guarantee that it will make the best.

The second is an empirical argument. I look to see whether there is anything clumsy about the human mind, and I find lots of examples.

But we tend to think of evolution as something that produces the best possible solution to a problem.

And that’s just not true. Darwin didn’t actually say “survival of the fittest”; I think that was Huxley, but people take that as their crude approximation to evolution. They think that must mean that the fittest thing that could possibly be will survive, but really it means the fittest of the available options. Evolution can’t take a step back and ask what the best option would be; it just works with what it has. And that’s what leads to tinkering and ultimately the kluges.

You’ve said that we tend to think of evolution as a single slope but actually it’s more like a rocky terrain.

Absolutely. You can think of evolution as a process of hill climbing, but it’s a blind process of hill climbing. It can take small steps and it may get higher on the particular mountain peak that it’s on, but it might not realise that there’s a much higher peak off in the distance.

I think that happened with memory. Our memories work reasonably well, but there are much better solutions that evolution just never stumbled upon.

Couldn’t you argue that we are well-adapted for the environment that we evolved in, when we were living in small groups, looking for food? So there’s no problem with our minds, it’s just that the environment has changed.

There are some cases like that. For example, our desire for fats and sugars is mostly tuned to an environment where McDonalds wasn’t around and you couldn’t get these things so easily. But I think that with the memory system, evolution just made a mistake. Probably all creatures would be better served if their memory was better organised, but evolution just happened to go in this one direction. It’s very difficult for evolution to start from scratch and do something completely new.

What’s wrong with thinking of ourselves as perfectly designed, rational beings, when actually we’re not?

Economists make that mistake. They assume that humans are rational, but they aren’t necessarily. And I think that people almost always overestimate their own abilities. They overestimate the quality of their memory, and how careful they are at reasoning. That contributes to political polarisation, for example, where everyone is convinced that they know the truth and nobody else does. I don’t think that’s a very good thing for the species.

What can we do to make our minds work better?

In the long term we may be able to take control of evolution, to adopt new technologies or something like that. In the short term, what they say in Alcoholics Anonymous makes sense – recognition is the first step. We have to see what the limits are and try to work around them.

A good example is that we have this thing called confirmation bias, where we notice evidence that supports our own theories. You can counteract that by forcing yourself to systematically think about alternative hypotheses, and about the perspective that somebody else might take. We don’t do that naturally but we can train ourselves to do it.

Scientists are forced to do that to some extent. But everybody could do with a little bit more humility about their own intellectual powers, and realise that, if somebody disagrees with them, maybe they’re looking at the evidence in a different way; it’s not necessarily that they’re stupid and you’re smart. The more we can recognise that other people are working as best they can from their evidence, that could make us more sympathetic and perhaps we can get along better.

(Source)