The Anthropic Stupidity Hypothesis

[Cain]

Charlie Stross asks "why are there so many stupid people"?

I have a speculative answer:

We are hominids. One of the things that makes us different from other primates is that we have language. Language enables us to communicate about our environment and to communicate our interior states. This is a very powerful tool; it means that if, for example, you have figured out a better way to peel a banana, you can tell me about it, and I can acquire that trait.

Our ability to exchange extended phenotypic traits without genetic exchange (thank you, language faculty!) makes us, as Dawkins pointed out in the 1990s, exceptional.

Because of this ability, we don't have to invent everything for ourselves, individually; we can borrow one anothers' good ideas. So we only need to be smart enough to understand and use the cognitive tools created by our most intelligent outliers.

Let me re-formulate that hypothesis: The evolutionary pressure selecting for general intelligence (to the extent that general intelligence exists) breaks once a species develops language.

And a logical corollary of this hypothesis is that we are only just smart enough, on average, to be capable of horizontal transfer of memes. Once language and culture arrived (note specialized usage of term 'culture'), we didn't need to get any smarter: we could "borrow" from one another. Therefore we're only just smart enough to do this.

(I call this Charlie's Anthropic Stupidity Hypothesis.)

Steve Hynd suggests that this could explain the trajectory of the Republican Party at the moment:

My analogy is this: the Republican Party has lost the minimum intelligence to listen to its outliers because it has lost the minimum intelligence to realize that its outliers are now on its left-moderate wing.

[...]

To borrow from Charlie, the Republican Party – a memetic entity – has become too stupid for horizontal transfer of new memes which would fit it for survival in a cultural environment which is rapidly changing in demographics and in its attitudes to bigotry of various stripes. It can change that and evolve or it can stay the same and become extinct.

[Juana]

I think that's a pretty good explanation!

[Telarus]

Neat theory.

[Rev. Thwack]

My theory on this has always had to do with comfort. As a species we are driven to find that which is comfortable and safe... it's part of the survival mechanism. We seek warmth as it protects us from hypothermia, shelter as it guards us from exposure, a full belly as it staves off malnutrition. The majority of our basic behavior as humans is to avoid discomfort and search for pleasure, as it is with all animals.


The first question is "how does this interact with our thought patterns"? How often have you thought about the world around you... the chance of dying as you cross the street, the likelihood of contracting a horrible illness from those around you. These are not pleasant thoughts. What do we do about these thoughts? We buy safer cars, wear our seat belts, wash our hands, and shy away from those showing outward signs of illness. Our minds know on a subconscious level that these actions will help our survival so it feels good to do them... you get a warm fuzzy feeling inside. This feeling holds true whenever we have that illusion that the actions will make us safer.


So, next we have the question of how stupidity plays into this. The answer is simple, the it's more comforting to not think about these things. The less you open your eyes to the reality of the world around you the less you fear. You don't realize the multitude of ways that the universe is trying to kill you every second of your life. You don't understand that modern society has no concept of shared responsibility and tie to each other and tends to look at you as just another stepping stone to be tread upon. When people are faced with an uncomfortable and painful thought they seek solace in that which readily reassures them... things like gods and guns. It's easier to think that some supernatural being is looking out for you and loves you than it is to try and actually come up with a way to treat the cancer that is growing on your prostate.


A lifetime of seeking pleasure and avoiding deeper thought doesn't do a lot to help create a better and brighter you.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Charlie Stross asks "why are there so many stupid people"?

I have a speculative answer:

We are hominids. One of the things that makes us different from other primates is that we have language. Language enables us to communicate about our environment and to communicate our interior states. This is a very powerful tool; it means that if, for example, you have figured out a better way to peel a banana, you can tell me about it, and I can acquire that trait.

Our ability to exchange extended phenotypic traits without genetic exchange (thank you, language faculty!) makes us, as Dawkins pointed out in the 1990s, exceptional.

Because of this ability, we don't have to invent everything for ourselves, individually; we can borrow one anothers' good ideas. So we only need to be smart enough to understand and use the cognitive tools created by our most intelligent outliers.

Let me re-formulate that hypothesis: The evolutionary pressure selecting for general intelligence (to the extent that general intelligence exists) breaks once a species develops language.

And a logical corollary of this hypothesis is that we are only just smart enough, on average, to be capable of horizontal transfer of memes. Once language and culture arrived (note specialized usage of term 'culture'), we didn't need to get any smarter: we could "borrow" from one another. Therefore we're only just smart enough to do this.

(I call this Charlie's Anthropic Stupidity Hypothesis.)

Steve Hynd suggests that this could explain the trajectory of the Republican Party at the moment:

My analogy is this: the Republican Party has lost the minimum intelligence to listen to its outliers because it has lost the minimum intelligence to realize that its outliers are now on its left-moderate wing.

[...]

To borrow from Charlie, the Republican Party – a memetic entity – has become too stupid for horizontal transfer of new memes which would fit it for survival in a cultural environment which is rapidly changing in demographics and in its attitudes to bigotry of various stripes. It can change that and evolve or it can stay the same and become extinct.

One of the things that's amusingly contradictory of this is that in America, the average IQ has risen 27 points over the last 60 years, which, in context of the correlation of socioeconomic improvements over that span, would seem to indicate that when you lighten survival stresses upon the general population, intelligence rises.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also interesting in light of the fact that since socioeconomic factors have ceased to improve for the general population, the IQ appears to have plateaued. Well hey now.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I think it's more of the fact that the GOP has latched onto anti-intellectualism in favor of "common sense."  That sort of thing is eventually going to backfire against you. Otherwise Sarah Palin wouldn't have even had 5 minutes of fame. The willful ignorance of the right is a not necessarily the same as stupidity, as Nigel points out. I know a few conservatives who are actually very intelligent. I know others who seems more intelligent than "smart enough to receive and transmit other people's memes" when you talk to him in person, but online, that's all he is, and a rather obnoxious one too. Which makes me wonder if he's getting paid.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

My theory on this has always had to do with comfort. As a species we are driven to find that which is comfortable and safe... it's part of the survival mechanism. We seek warmth as it protects us from hypothermia, shelter as it guards us from exposure, a full belly as it staves off malnutrition. The majority of our basic behavior as humans is to avoid discomfort and search for pleasure, as it is with all animals.


The first question is "how does this interact with our thought patterns"? How often have you thought about the world around you... the chance of dying as you cross the street, the likelihood of contracting a horrible illness from those around you. These are not pleasant thoughts. What do we do about these thoughts? We buy safer cars, wear our seat belts, wash our hands, and shy away from those showing outward signs of illness. Our minds know on a subconscious level that these actions will help our survival so it feels good to do them... you get a warm fuzzy feeling inside. This feeling holds true whenever we have that illusion that the actions will make us safer.


So, next we have the question of how stupidity plays into this. The answer is simple, the it's more comforting to not think about these things. The less you open your eyes to the reality of the world around you the less you fear. You don't realize the multitude of ways that the universe is trying to kill you every second of your life. You don't understand that modern society has no concept of shared responsibility and tie to each other and tends to look at you as just another stepping stone to be tread upon. When people are faced with an uncomfortable and painful thought they seek solace in that which readily reassures them... things like gods and guns. It's easier to think that some supernatural being is looking out for you and loves you than it is to try and actually come up with a way to treat the cancer that is growing on your prostate.


A lifetime of seeking pleasure and avoiding deeper thought doesn't do a lot to help create a better and brighter you.

The one problem with this is that GOP memes are fear-based. Fox News is basically things to be afraid of all the time, or occasionally things to mock.

[LMNO]

Charlie Stross asks "why are there so many stupid people"?

I have a speculative answer:

We are hominids. One of the things that makes us different from other primates is that we have language. Language enables us to communicate about our environment and to communicate our interior states. This is a very powerful tool; it means that if, for example, you have figured out a better way to peel a banana, you can tell me about it, and I can acquire that trait.

Our ability to exchange extended phenotypic traits without genetic exchange (thank you, language faculty!) makes us, as Dawkins pointed out in the 1990s, exceptional.

Because of this ability, we don’t have to invent everything for ourselves, individually; we can borrow one anothers’ good ideas. So we only need to be smart enough to understand and use the cognitive tools created by our most intelligent outliers.

Let me re-formulate that hypothesis: The evolutionary pressure selecting for general intelligence (to the extent that general intelligence exists) breaks once a species develops language.

And a logical corollary of this hypothesis is that we are only just smart enough, on average, to be capable of horizontal transfer of memes. Once language and culture arrived (note specialized usage of term ‘culture’), we didn’t need to get any smarter: we could “borrow” from one another. Therefore we’re only just smart enough to do this.

(I call this Charlie’s Anthropic Stupidity Hypothesis.)

Steve Hynd suggests that this could explain the trajectory of the Republican Party at the moment:

My analogy is this: the Republican Party has lost the minimum intelligence to listen to its outliers because it has lost the minimum intelligence to realize that its outliers are now on its left-moderate wing.

[...]

To borrow from Charlie, the Republican Party – a memetic entity – has become too stupid for horizontal transfer of new memes which would fit it for survival in a cultural environment which is rapidly changing in demographics and in its attitudes to bigotry of various stripes. It can change that and evolve or it can stay the same and become extinct.

One of the things that's amusingly contradictory of this is that in America, the average IQ has risen 27 points over the last 60 years, which, in context of the correlation of socioeconomic improvements over that span, would seem to indicate that when you lighten survival stresses upon the general population, intelligence rises.

I think the problem between Stross' hypothesis and Nigel's observation could be resolved by introducing the UNLIMITED DATA theory combined with the Bad Signal postulate.  People may be technically smarter, but at the same time overwhelmed by information, the majority of which is Bad Signal.  Stir in heuristics that were developed before UNLIMITED DATA, and you'll get what should be smart people making incredibly poor decisions, and then using their increased intelligence to defend their positions.

[Rev Thwack]

My theory on this has always had to do with comfort. As a species we are driven to find that which is comfortable and safe... it's part of the survival mechanism. We seek warmth as it protects us from hypothermia, shelter as it guards us from exposure, a full belly as it staves off malnutrition. The majority of our basic behavior as humans is to avoid discomfort and search for pleasure, as it is with all animals.


The first question is "how does this interact with our thought patterns"? How often have you thought about the world around you... the chance of dying as you cross the street, the likelihood of contracting a horrible illness from those around you. These are not pleasant thoughts. What do we do about these thoughts? We buy safer cars, wear our seat belts, wash our hands, and shy away from those showing outward signs of illness. Our minds know on a subconscious level that these actions will help our survival so it feels good to do them... you get a warm fuzzy feeling inside. This feeling holds true whenever we have that illusion that the actions will make us safer.


So, next we have the question of how stupidity plays into this. The answer is simple, the it's more comforting to not think about these things. The less you open your eyes to the reality of the world around you the less you fear. You don't realize the multitude of ways that the universe is trying to kill you every second of your life. You don't understand that modern society has no concept of shared responsibility and tie to each other and tends to look at you as just another stepping stone to be tread upon. When people are faced with an uncomfortable and painful thought they seek solace in that which readily reassures them... things like gods and guns. It's easier to think that some supernatural being is looking out for you and loves you than it is to try and actually come up with a way to treat the cancer that is growing on your prostate.


A lifetime of seeking pleasure and avoiding deeper thought doesn't do a lot to help create a better and brighter you.

The one problem with this is that GOP memes are fear-based. Fox News is basically things to be afraid of all the time, or occasionally things to mock.

The fact that they are fear based and things to mock actually backs what I'm saying. Fox supplies fear, yet at the same time supplies a feel-good remedy to this fear... they plan on people not actually thinking about the problems and issues they are talking about because that would hurt and lead to bad thoughts. Instead, you can cling to the quick solutions and higher power they present to you that just so happens to be right in line with republican politics.

There are crazy terrorists out there who want to blow you up, but don't worry... a republican just submitted a bill to make you safe by taking away freedoms.

Ahh! Evil democrats are coming for your guns... but republicans are here to protect your security blanket.


Every problem is one you don't have to worry about, as they provide or imply a happy solution so that you don't have to think on things and realize that they are feeding you bullshit and ineffective fixes.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The interesting thing about neat and tidy and palatable theories about human development is that they are rarely true. That said, I have a theory that advances in human intelligence are driven by leisure time. We don't get smarter because of survival pressures, but because when we aren't stressed by survival pressures, we sit around and think about stuff, and make up neat stuff to play with.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And of course, when we are stressed we shut off our thinkers and turn to leadership to tell us what to do, which is why it's in the best interests of leaders who are primarily interested in power and profits to keep us stressed and at odds.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

And of course, when we are stressed we shut off our thinkers and turn to leadership to tell us what to do, which is why it's in the best interests of leaders who are primarily interested in power and profits to keep us stressed and at odds.

Hmmm. Excellent point.

[LMNO]

The interesting thing about neat and tidy and palatable theories about human development is that they are rarely true. That said, I have a theory that advances in human intelligence are driven by leisure time. We don't get smarter because of survival pressures, but because when we aren't stressed by survival pressures, we sit around and think about stuff, and make up neat stuff to play with.

I got into a huge argument about this many years ago, because I suggested something similar and it was pointed out to me that my idea (which was phrased differently than yours) was essentially endorsing elitism, and argued that it implied trust fund babies were smarter than people with blue-collar jobs.  I think the difference is I talked about wealth, and you're talking about leisure time.  Not necessarily the same, I realize now.  I should revisit this idea with that in mind.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

The interesting thing about neat and tidy and palatable theories about human development is that they are rarely true. That said, I have a theory that advances in human intelligence are driven by leisure time. We don't get smarter because of survival pressures, but because when we aren't stressed by survival pressures, we sit around and think about stuff, and make up neat stuff to play with.

I got into a huge argument about this many years ago, because I suggested something similar and it was pointed out to me that my idea (which was phrased differently than yours) was essentially endorsing elitism, and argued that it implied trust fund babies were smarter than people with blue-collar jobs.  I think the difference is I talked about wealth, and you're talking about leisure time.  Not necessarily the same, I realize now.  I should revisit this idea with that in mind.

Historically that would have meant the same thing. Thank god for the labor movement.

Oh. It makes even more sense now.