Can high IQ make you illogical?

The Audacious Epigone reports that high IQ people are more likely to vote.

Does this mean that voting is the logical thing to do? Not necessarily. If you calculated the cost of the time spent voting versus the personal benefit of your one vote, voting is probably not a very logical thing to do.

People with high IQs tend to reflexively do what society considers to be the moral and correct thing. This also explains why high IQ people are more likely to recycle and be “green.” Once there is some sort of consensus reached (even if it’s just a consensus of a vocal plurality) that a specific activity is the morally correct thing to do, high IQ people will reflexively do it without giving it much logical thought.

This explains the paradox found in the General Social Survey in which respondents with high Wordsum scores are less likely to believe in religion, but are actually more likely to regularly attend religious services. In certain social circles (but not in Manhattan), weekly attendance of religious services is considered the morally correct behavior.

Frequency Distribution
Cells contain: -Column percent -Weighted N		WORDSUM
		1 0-5	2 6	3 7-10	ROW TOTAL
ATTEND	Do not attend every week	74.0 6,685	71.5 3,537	69.4 6,220	71.7 16,442
	Every week or more	26.0 2,350	28.5 1,408	30.6 2,739	28.3 6,496
	COL TOTAL	100.0 9,035	100.0 4,944	100.0 8,959	100.0 22,938

Frequency Distribution
Cells contain: -Column percent -Weighted N		WORDSUM
		1 0-5	2 6	3 7-10	ROW TOTAL
BIBLE	1: WORD OF GOD	47.7 2,417	33.4 997	19.7 1,053	33.3 4,467
	2: INSPIRED WORD	39.6 2,007	53.6 1,600	58.5 3,124	50.2 6,732
	3: BOOK OF FABLES	11.9 603	12.5 372	20.8 1,111	15.6 2,086
	4: OTHER	.9 43	.6 19	1.0 52	.8 114
	COL TOTAL	100.0 5,071	100.0 2,987	100.0 5,340	100.0 13,398

Comments

[Dan]

Keep in mind that high IQ people are also more ethical (because of higher moral reasoning, better general mental qualities that transcend intellect etc) and one with high moral reasoning understands that voting is a collective dilema, and an ethical person will not put the burden of voting on others when they too can partake.

[The Griffyn]

Is it possible that IQ tests give higher scores to people who are inclined to suck-up to society's authorities?

[JewishAtheist]

There are also intangible benefits of voting, like feeling like you belong, having the satisfaction of making a (tiny) contribution to or against a candidate, etc.

[blahblahblah]

iq=/sucess
class=/sucess
knowing want you want and getting it=sucess

It's knowing what you want that's the hard part, as well as telling yourself you deserve it and depending on others for help.

Dear sigma, why don't you write about cause and corelation and, you know, how they are not the same thing? Or can your supirior intellect not wrape your head around that?

oh oh! why don't you find some statistics about how outrage or smugness increases blog hits!
seriously I wanna know which one brings in more, my money's on outrage.

[Ray Midge]

Once there is some sort of consensus reached (even if it’s just a consensus of a vocal plurality) that a specific activity is the morally correct thing to do, high IQ people will reflexively do it without giving it much logical thought.

More likely than the general population? Why should I think so?

[razib]

church i a good social networking too. it isn't just moral, it can be lucrative.

[Peter]

Voting is not necessarily illogical even if one's vote makes no difference. The time and effort required to vote is usually trivial, so even if casting one's vote produces only a very small psychological/moral benefit that easily outweighs the negligible cost.

[Bruno from Paris]

"Once there is some sort of consensus reached (even if it’s just a consensus of a vocal plurality) that a specific activity is the morally correct thing to do, high IQ people will reflexively do it without giving it much logical thought. "

--> That's something about what i've thought previously myself and i think you're wrong. Most don't do those things "reflexively" but very consciously in a very cynical way. I've notice when i was in High School that they were many details i didn't care about who was very important for other people for reasons unstated. For example a stain on clothes has a moral dimenssion, the kind of clothe you wear, the sports you practice, the judgment you make , there is an "infinity" of "dos" and "don't" extremly stupid that contribute to qualify you. Most people don't learn them, they live by them half by imitation half by stupidity. Intelligent people can't do that naturally (because most are too stupid to come reflexively to someone's intelligent mind). So they have to learn them consciously by observing others and put some efforts to follow the rule. The good thing is that when you know you're environment social rules, you become extremely successfull and fashionable and most doors open.

It is my exeperience - at least in France, they're can be differences with US where you're more focus on competition for money, sex, reputation - that most intelligent people never learn those rules and when they do, most can't believe they are true and most be followed.

NB : i think this is the reason why intelligent children shoud rather go to the same schools that average children, because the social rules are the most important to learn.

[Bruno from Paris]

To rationalize it a bit more further, there is practical rule that states "you should do as others do" or "imitation rule" that every one has to follow to be successfull socially (if you're rich, you can buy people interest but you would look bad to them if you don't follow the rules, so they're compulsory).

For intelligent people, this is only a SOCIAL rule. For the rest of humankind, it is a MORAL rule (in fact, it's a continuum). So even if they don't rationalize this rule nor the many social rules that you and they've got to follow, as they try their best to imitate others and judge you by those standards, the consequences are the same as they'd rationalize it (the imitation rule and the social rules).

There is another meta-rules that apply which is "the taniest the detail, the more important it is morally" (like grasping your belt around your trousers upside down).

When you begin to pay attention, you can predict others judgment and attitudes that is you're able to check that you're analysis is right.

[Lane Honda]

Buying lottery tickets is more rational than voting - the time it takes to get a ticket is less than voting, and the chance you have a winning ticket (not necessarily the 1st place ticket) is vastly higher than the chance your individual vote decides the election (at any level above county government). But playing the lottery is seen as prole activity, and voting is seen as the obligation of the responsible citizen who thinks and cares about such abstract notions as society, general welfare, political philosophy, etc. I wouldn't use the term "moral" however; the essence of government is force, so one cannot be moral by participating in the determination of which group wins power over others.
High IQ is no protection from doing irrational things, or believing in illusions.

[Jason Malloy]

HS,

I don't think your numbers combine in the way you believe they do.

Using your same variable coding, I find that 9.7% of low IQ people who believe the bible is just a book of fables go to church weekly compared with 6.0% of high IQ people who believe the bible is a book of fables.

So high IQ people are more rational: they are more likely to go to church when they believe and are more likely to not go to church when they don't believe.

From Randall Parker:

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/005582.html

No doubt Obama is a bright guy, but he is either foolishly believes or has other motives. I'm betting other motives(he is a committed communist). The guy didn't even live with the community he used to "organize." Not that I blame him.

[Peter]

"I find that 9.7% of low IQ people who believe the bible is just a book of fables go to church weekly compared with 6.0% of high IQ people who believe the bible is a book of fables.
So high IQ people are more rational: they are more likely to go to church when they believe and are more likely to not go to church when they don't believe."

It is not necessarily irrational for lower-IQ people to attend church even when they do not believe in the doctrine being taught. They may be more apt to find that the social benefits of church attendance outweigh the contradictory nature of their attendance. It's also possible that especially toward the lower end of the IQ distribution, they don't even realize that there's any contradictory or hypocritical in attending church in these circumstances.

[JewishAtheist]

Half Sigma:

Question for you.

You recognize that most smart people are liberals and conclude that there must be some problem with their reasoning rather than that of your own and the minority of smart people.

Aren't you worried that you are deceiving yourself? Isn't it more probable than the alternative -- that the majority of intelligent people are deceiving themselves?

[Half Sigma]

Jewish Atheist: "You recognize that most smart people are liberals and conclude that there must be some problem with their reasoning "

People figure out what group they belong to, and then they mimic the correct opinions of the group.

Most people are too lazy to think things out for themselves.

You're a self-proclaimed atheist, why do you think that so many smart people believe in God and Jesus?

[James Bowery]

I think its pretty straight-forward when you understand the evolutionary origin of morality is inextricably linked to intelligence.

Intelligence starts with what might be thought of as a Bayesian prior. It is from that prior probability distribution that you then experience the world and learn.

Morals evolved as a way of imparting a prior. You really need a moral prior if you are a human living in a new, technologically accessible environment, because your genes haven't had time to evolve the prior.

Once you have your moral prior you can apply your intellect.

Environments that require a lot of nongenetic adaptation evolve both morality and intelligence.

[Underachiever]

-Jewish Atheist

There is a saying among computer scientists: garbage in, garbage out. Basically, if you give a computer garbage information, it will give you garbage answers. Humans are the same way: garbage assumptions lead to garbage beliefs.

Our society does not allow one to speak realistically about IQ. Nor does it allow one to say that (for groups) genes are often much more important than environment in determining life outcomes. Our society considers anyone that does not have these garbage beliefs to be evil and children are indoctrinated with these assumptions and beliefs in public schools. This is our national religion.

Garbage assumptions (nurture >>> nature) lead to garbage leftist beliefs about society.

The high intelligence of many people only lead them to more consistently apply their false assumptions about human nature and to become more liberal. If I believed that IQ was meaningless, that race was socially constructed, and that genes had very little deterministic value, I would become a Marxist, hyper liberal.

[Half Sigma]

"If I believed that IQ was meaningless, that race was socially constructed, and that genes had very little deterministic value, I would become a Marxist, hyper liberal."

If you believed these assumptions, then you would be forced to conclude that racism is rampant in the United States as evidenced by the huge disparities in life outcomes between whites and blacks. Thus you would want to fight the racism.

But rational scientific research shows that the disparities are due to genetics.

[roissy]

jewish partisan:
"You recognize that most smart people are liberals"

oh really?

***
Sociologist Markus Kemmelmeier compared college students' self-professed political views to their SAT and ACT scores (which are imperfect but useful measures of cognitive ability.) First, he did find a general trend that social conservatives (those who wanted to ban abortion and gay marriage) aren't as gifted as students with a more progressive take on gender roles. But he found the exact opposite pattern with anti-regulation attitudes: The conservatives/libertarians (yay guns boo taxes) appeared to be smarter than their commie compatriots.
***

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/200809/conservatives-are-dumber-and-smarter-than-liberals

"that the majority of intelligent people are deceiving themselves?"

"it's all in the numbers" -- a typical marxist.

[Jason Malloy]

"You recognize that most smart people are liberals... Isn't it more probable than the alternative -- that the majority of intelligent people are deceiving themselves?"

This was a pretty terrible appeal to authority I must say. Are you trying to shoot yourself in the foot? First of all, the chart above shows that some 80% of above average people believe the bible is magic. And yes the majority *are* deceiving themselves.

Second, your assertion is incorrect. As I've had to repeat here several times in the last year and a half: looking at whites in the GSS, Republicans had higher IQs, were more 'proscience' in values, and did better on the science questions.

http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2007/09/liberals_and_low_iq_believe_in.php#comment-576877

http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/09/conservatives_are_as_smart_as.php

[JewishAtheist]

Alright, fair enough.

I agree whole-heartedly with Dan.
Ever thought about where the term 'thoughtful' comes from? How about 'considerate'?

I disagree with the notion that moral uprightness is 'easy' or 'natural' to every person. It is often the road less travelled, so to speak. Individuals who find it easier to follow are merely more aware of moral principles; absolute standards for which to strive. These are carefully defined are deeply considered: There is definitive reasoning behind principles of abolishing murder, theft, fraud, etc.

And yet, somehow, one always seems to benefit more from doing the right thing anyway. Compare a moment of honesty and dishonesty in your own life. Which was more rewarding? And in the long run? Which act required more discipline? Which one would you describe as 'cunning' and which one would you describe as 'insightful'?