• localhost@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    The author’s suggesting that smart people are more likely to fall for cons that they try to dissect but can’t find the specific method being used, supposedly because they consider themselves to be infallible.

    I disagree with this take. I don’t see how that thought process is exclusive to people who are or consider themselves to be smart. I think the author is tying himself into a knot to state that smart people are actually the dumb ones, likely in preparation to drop an opinion that most experts in the field will disagree with.

    • luciole (he/him)@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s not a take though, it’s a thing. The tendency to fall into irrational beliefs has been called “Dysrationalia” in psychology and is linked to higher education and intelligence. An example would be the tendency of Nobel prize winners to espouse crazy theories later in life, which is humourously referred to as the Nobel Disease.

      • localhost@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s a 1 month old thread my man :P

        But sounds interesting, I haven’t heard of Dysrationalia before. Quick cursory search shows that it’s a term that has been coined mostly by a single psychologist in his book. I’ve been able to find only one study that used the term and it found that “different aspects of rational thought (i.e. rational thinking abilities and cognitive styles) and self-control, but not intelligence, significantly predicted the endorsement of epistemically suspect beliefs.”

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6396694/

        All in all, this seems to me more like a niche concept used by a handful of psychologists rather than something widely accepted in the field. Do you have anything that I could read to familiarize myself with this more? Preferably something evidence-based because we can ponder on non-verifiable explanations all day and not get anywhere.

        • luciole (he/him)@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          That’s a 1 month old thread my man :P

          Not sure what you mean. The thread was created August 16, my comment was made August 21, and now here you are replying on September 24. Some fediverse hiccup maybe.

          So anyways I don’t have anything a cursory search wouldn’t turn up.

          • localhost@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Oh damn, you’re right, my bad. I got a new notification but didn’t check the date of the comment. Sorry about that.

    • ericjmorey@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I don’t see how that thought process is exclusive to people who are or consider themselves to be smart.

      They aren’t saying that this is exclusive to people who consider themselves smart. They’re saying that they’re more likely to fall for the trap by engaging with the assumption of not being susceptible to being tricked. Although I think the author does conflate smart people with people who think of themselves as smart inappropriately.