For a few years I was a member of American Mensa. One of the primary things I discovered about the group, and people with high-IQ in general, is that ‘smart’ people are as capable of others of holding bizarre beliefs. Where they put their smarts to use frequently is in the creativity with which they formulate and defend their beliefs. A second gunman on the grassy knoll? Hell, there may have been a third! It was a real head-shaker.
That experience helped me realize that a major cause of belief in fanciful nonsense is not a lack of smarts, or a lack of applying logic or reasoning. Rather, it is twofold: 1) A failure to adequately consider and weigh the evidence. And reasoning isn’t evidence. 2) A problem of values. Not many people will find value in a ho-hum truth. Or a conclusion of “don’t know yet.” Instead, we gravitate toward those beliefs that are pleasing to us. That compliment our worldview and thus have greater value to us.
A recent study has revealed another way our thinking tends to be be self-serving. In, Creative excuses: Original thinkers more likely to cheat, I read -
Creative people are more likely to cheat than less creative people, possibly because this talent increases their ability to rationalize their actions, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.
Bingo. We have a winner. But not really.
Intelligence is not a sterling scalpel capable of performing operations in a vacuum. Rather, thinking is a tool wielded many ways, that is influenced by many things.
Sure, human beings are a distinct species. We are unique. As is the star-nosed mole and millions of other life-forms. But are we manifestly special to such an extent that we deserve to grant ourselves unquestioned dominion over all other species?
As for any alleged immaterial soul . . . that has yet to be manifest in any verifiable way. So how else does our kind rate as totally above and beyond all others? What exclusive characteristic makes us ontologically fabulous?
As scientists are learning more and more about other species, and are getting better and better at shedding anthropocentric blinders, it is becoming clear that we aren’t so whole-cloth exceptional. Consider the following two new findings:
1) ‘Look at That!’ Ravens Gesture With Their Beaks to Point out Objects to Each Other
Previous research has shown that while dogs understand human pointing, chimpanzees do not. And chimpanzees don’t point in the wild. At least not with an extended index finger at something in the distance. Dogs don’t either.
So is intentionally directing the attention of another a uniquely human trait? Maybe not.
For two years, Simone Pika und Thomas Bugnyar investigated the non-vocal behaviour of individually marked members of a wild raven community in the Cumberland Wildpark in Grünau, Austria. They observed that ravens use their beaks similar to hands to show and offer objects such as moss, stones and twigs.
Hmm. What else have we got?
2) Plant-food and tool transfer among savanna chimpanzees at Fongoli, Senegal
Chimpanzees found to share food and tools?! What we have here is more evidence revealing that nature isn’t completely red in tooth and claw (and thus in need of religion to save it from itself).
From the study abstract -
Transferring food is considered a defining characteristic of humans, as such behavior is relatively uncommon in other animal species save for kin-based transfer. Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) are one exception, as they commonly transfer meat among nonrelatives but rarely transfer other resources. New observations at Fongoli, Senegal, show habitual transfer of wild-plant foods and other non-meat resources among community members beyond transfers from mother to offspring.
Chimpanzees sharing tools . . . those hairy communists!
Okay, we’ve still got our Stanford-Binet scores and other ways to convince ourselves we aren’t “mere” animals. Oh, and language! Almost forgot language. No other animals are capable of using a completely symbol-based means of communication. Right? Well, at least as far as we currently know.
I have long suspected that much of any genetic influence on a gender gap in an academic/occupational field might be as much or more about innate interest in a type of activity as it is about innate ability. A new psychological theory (supported by some research, so it is more than idle speculation) supports that hunch.
The press release, Technical aptitude: Do women score lower because they just aren’t interested? contains these nuggets:
Smart people, researchers have found, are able to learn the requirements of any job if they are motivated to. And research shows that men and women do not differ, on average, in general intelligence.
Frank Schmidt, author of the paper outlining the theory . . .
posits that this difference stems from sex differences in interest in technical pursuits, which leads people to acquire technical experience, which in turn increases technical aptitude scores.
Excellence follows interests by way of learning experiences. Of course, culture can play a role in how a field is presented and taught,making it more interesting to one gender or another. Social factors can also determine how accessible and attractive types of learning experiences are to one sex or the other. Engineering, nursing, etc. If females are interested, they will gain experience and acquire aptitude. If males are interested, ditto. Those uninterested will not, or at least not as much.
Of course, allow me to add, “it seems” & “in general.” Greater confidence in the proposed relationship between variables awaits further research.
[recycled material - first appeared here]
[This is the 3rd part in a 4-part series. Intro here.]
While age certainly brings the opportunity to join the Association for the Advancement of Retired People, does it also bring wisdom? Equipped with the belief, “with age comes wisdom,” a person could find data in the form of personal observations supporting this belief, even if hits were as infrequent as finding a penny on the pavement.
When you don’t count opposing and alternative cases — the misses — the hits shine. Any time an older person — and if that comprises any individual over the age of 50, we’re swinging one gigantic net — acts in a manner that could be viewed as wise, a mental flash goes off. But how are we to notice and weigh possibly disconfirming evidence? Why would we throw the geriatric driver who backs into a shopping cart, pulls forward three feet, then backs directly into it again, into the same net that holds the instances our grandparents gave us comforting advice? Why would we throw the twenty-five year old who buys a less expensive car and puts the money saved into her IRA — certainly an exercise of sound judgment — in there as well?
Like the idea of a mid-life crisis, the age-brings-wisdom proposition is given a flying start through the use of loosely defined terms. Just what is wisdom? If wisdom is a mere synonym for knowledge, then sure, with age comes increased knowledge. The longer you live, the more you can learn. But if wisdom is something possibly related but distinctly different, and I think most people would agree it is, then what is it?
In an article about the cultural and historical roots of the term, Takahashi writes, “In the West wisdom historically involved various aspects of daily conscious experience and a relationship to a god or gods. . . . Wise people possessed an extensive knowledge base and ability to reflect upon information processes utilizing that knowledge base.” (6)
From the latter half of the above quote we can infer how the belief in age-acquired wisdom may have originated and, at that time, probably held some truth. Before the invention of printing and books, certainly before libraries and the Internet, and before humanity settled into cities in which labor was highly specialized, if you wanted to know the best way to hunt gazelle, for example, you’d look to speak to someone with many memories and a wealth of personal experience.
It today’s highly specialized world overflowing with new information making obsolete the old, a world in which consulting gods is rarely part of everyday decision-making, have the aged lost their esteemed position? Seems they have. Sixty-year olds applying for jobs are often greeted as if they had arrived in a Ford Edsel.
But what about the “reflect” part, an essential component to many definitions of wisdom? Given that the aged have the same access to information as the young, are they better able to reflect upon it? From the scant research on the matter, it doesn’t appear so. For example, a study conducted by Staudinger, Smith, and Baltes found that while old adults performed as well as young adults, they did no better. The authors did find a link between profession and wisdom, with those in the human services performing better than the control group.(7)
With more and more people resorting to extreme measures, such as surgery, to defy signs of advancing years, attesting to an acute ageism in our culture, it would be nice if age did bring wisdom. In consolation-prize fashion, the elderly could find an upside to the decline of capabilities and the onset of arthritis and other physical insults. However, as much as I’d like to grant the older generation an unwritten diploma honoring their advanced judgment, I see no good evidence of it. And thus I’ve discarded that particular belief.
What, if anything besides the tendency to insist on weighty evidence, makes the skeptic less prone to affliction by self-confirming belief-baubles? Do we have a small orange sticker affixed to the handle of all our beliefs carrying the warning, “use with caution”? Do we habitually generate three-headed nets, one labeled “yes,” the other two “no” and “but”?
In her book, Lucy’s Legacy, after having explored the benefits of sexual reproduction, Allison Jolly asks, “In what way is intelligence like sex?” Her answer: “If sex evolved so that your children are not condemned to be just like you, intelligence evolved so that you are not condemned to be just like yourself.” As you may have deduced from the header text to this blog, I really love that quote. Extending her analogy, I like to encourage people to engage in frequent and vigorous intercourse. Why listen to the redundant prattle of others? Become infomaniacs. It’s the more rational thing to do.
-
(6) Takahaski, M. 2000. “Toward a culturally inclusive understanding of wisdom: Historical roots in the East and West.” International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 51(3), 217-230. (7) Staudinger, U. M., Smith, J. & Baltes, P. B. 1992. “Wisdom-related knowledge in a Life Review task: Age differences and the role of professional specialization.” Psychology and Aging, 7(2), 271-281.
A new study suggests that the idea of “with age comes wisdom” is a glass half-full. And that is better than half-empty.
The news release title declares:
Clinical study shows young brains lack the wisdom of their elders
That’s the glass half full–that elderly brains apparently have more wisdom the young brains. The glass half full is that their brains aren’t as fast.
You may wonder what the researchers meant by “wisdom” and how they measured it, as I did. Upon reading the article a second and third time, I gather that with the word “wisdom” the researchers were referring to a brain’s ability to allocate its resources. Efficiency. And this was measured by psychological tests and functional neuroimaging.
What the article and the researchers did a poor job expressing was not only the half-empty part, but also specifying exactly how full the darn glass was. I’m not sure. But I did read this seemingly research-summarizing sentence:
“When it comes to certain tasks, the brains of older adults can achieve very close to the same performance as those of younger ones.”
Ahhh. Very close. That’s not quite half-full, if you ask me. And the article title surely emphasizes the half-empty part of having a young brain.
Congratulations grandma and pa! Your consolation prize for getting old is a brain that can pretty much compensate for a speed slowdown by increased efficiency!
Those poor green-behind-the-ears upstarts! They’re quick, but they don’t have our ability. Which makes us . . . if not better, very nearly as good!
Can we please call a spade a spade, a cane a cane?
Recent Comments