Nerds who aren't that smart

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Recently I've noticed a category of people I've encountered all my life but never really thought about before; the nerd who isn't particularly bright.

My thoughts on this subject aren't particularly well-defined, but I thought I'd start rambling and see if anything useful or interesting emerges. This particular thought was triggered by a guy I know who has all of the trappings of nerd-dom and is undeniably a nerd: loves science fiction, reads voraciously, has a fantastic vocabulary and great grammar, adores tabletop gaming, and "loves science" in that way that nerdy people do... you know, by watching Cosmos, thinking Bill Nye is awesome, and liking the "I Fucking Love Science" page on Facebook. He prides himself on his intelligence, which he assumes is considerable, and has vast contempt for the unwashed masses and the stupid. Not that he's a bad guy, though; he just, like many people who consider themselves smart, has a low tolerance for stupidity.

However, he seems beneath it all to not be all that intelligent; when presented with a novel piece of information, he either accepts it or rejects it based primarily on how well it matches his internal models, without investigating it to find out whether it has solid support. The result is that he ends up believing things that are easily demonstrated to be false, and rejecting things that are easily demonstrated to be true, based essentially only on whether the premise fits his expectations and worldview.

Maybe this is just my personal definition, but it seems to me that fact-checking and critical thinking are key elements of intelligence. They are definitely key elements of science. From that perspective, he simply seems like someone who has been trained in all the trappings of intelligence but lacks the foundational capacity to retrain himself. On the other hand, it could be that he has the capacity, but has never been trained to use it.

I have a feeling we all know this guy, or someone like him. Maybe someone who is into Doctor Who and puns, writes science fiction, considers himself highly intelligent, and talks with the nerd lisp and is, bless his heart, just kind of dumb.

I'm not really going anywhere with this, I lack a punchline.

Thoughts?

[LMNO]

He sounds like a human, with a uniform that will get hm through 90% of his life without a problem.

You just happen to be one of the 10%.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm having a niggling thought in the back of my mind that there is some kind of tie-in with the differences in neurophysiology of the liberal brain vs. the conservative brain. I can't put my finger on it though.

I think maybe it could be that because scientists tend to be liberal (either because the liberal brain is better suited to science or because science tends to create liberal brains), liberals tend to associate liberalism with intelligence and assume that because they are liberal, they must be more intelligent. Statistically there is a correlation, but not a huge one.

[Eater of Clowns]

I don't think critically thinking about new evidence is an inherent trait, whereas using new information as part of confirmation bias is. Reevaluating one's outlook based on changed information is a learned skill that, even when adopted, takes continued effort. Intelligent people may be more capable or maybe more likely to start thinking this way, but not doing so doesn't make them less intelligent, it just makes them not intelligent as they could be.

[Demolition Squid]

It sounds more like intellectual laziness to me. If you know you are smart (because everyone around you tells you you are smart all the time, and you have all the trappings that culture tells you smart people enjoy) then your gut reaction must be correct - you're smart, after all. You know what's what. Facing facts that go against your existing ideas takes effort. Why both putting in effort when you're smart?

It doesn't help that it is ridiculously easy to find sources to back up any idea you like, or smear any idea you don't like, regardless of the facts. So you can easily just fall back into a comforting circle of reinforcement if you take the path of least resistance.

One of my friends described my dad as the 'dumbest smart person I know' because... well, he does exactly this. Whilst not a stupid man by any stretch of the imagination (he is an expert in his field, he's got an amazing breadth of knowledge regarding coding and statistics, he's capable of analysing the core assumptions behind something and redesigning complex systems from the ground up) he makes his decision on almost any given subject within the first ten minutes of hearing about it. He will then ignore any evidence to the contrary and tends to respond to sustained challenges to these ideas by increasing volume and hyperbole rather than engaging with the new evidence or reasoning.

This basically makes it impossible to talk about politics or certain areas of science (environmental science especially) with him - especially since he has the habit of just assuming he knows what you 'mean' and explaining your view to you, before shouting it down.

Its a kind of arrogance I think; if you change your mind, that means you were wrong. You are a smart guy, smart guys don't make mistakes, therefore you can't change your mind. This doesn't mean you don't have the capacity for high levels of reasoning and insight if you do apply yourself and bother to gather all the necessary information before coming to any conclusions... but if you're too lazy or disinterested to do so, you're not going to back down because that would wound your pride.

Like you say, though, part of this is down to how you define intelligence. Fact-checking and critical thinking are definitely important to be intelligent; but you can have the skills to apply that some of the time and choose not to engage them all of the time. Does that mean you're not intelligent? I don't know if that's fair. I think it means you're too lazy to be intelligent all of the time. Intelligence definitely seems to be more variable than other traits (like, say, physical strength).

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think that part of the conversation is the question of how mutable intelligence is. I think that the current consensus of psychology is that it's sorta mutable, but not totally mutable; ie. everyone has a certain potential which may or may not be reached, depending on environment.

Critical thinking is definitely a learned skill, no question about it. It's also, interestingly, a skill that we are born with, and then unlearn during childhood.

Some environments foster it more than others (often the same environments which produce nerds).

[Cainad (dec.)]

Sounds like a category I sometimes fall into when I'm being intellectually lazy (which is more often than I want to admit).

It's definitely something I've noticed in others. I can think of a few individuals who are certainly highly literate and intellectually capable, but are not quite as smart as they think they are.

A shared trait in just about all of them is a blanket contempt for "idiots," where "idiots" are usually defined by some particular metric that they themselves are strong in (grammar, background scientific knowledge, trivia, etc).

[Ben Shapiro]

From the my experience the alternative to this guy is the Kais of the world. If you're not a scientist STFU about science pleb.
I guess one must choose what poison they can stomach.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It sounds more like intellectual laziness to me. If you know you are smart (because everyone around you tells you you are smart all the time, and you have all the trappings that culture tells you smart people enjoy) then your gut reaction must be correct - you're smart, after all. You know what's what. Facing facts that go against your existing ideas takes effort. Why both putting in effort when you're smart?

It doesn't help that it is ridiculously easy to find sources to back up any idea you like, or smear any idea you don't like, regardless of the facts. So you can easily just fall back into a comforting circle of reinforcement if you take the path of least resistance.

One of my friends described my dad as the 'dumbest smart person I know' because... well, he does exactly this. Whilst not a stupid man by any stretch of the imagination (he is an expert in his field, he's got an amazing breadth of knowledge regarding coding and statistics, he's capable of analysing the core assumptions behind something and redesigning complex systems from the ground up) he makes his decision on almost any given subject within the first ten minutes of hearing about it. He will then ignore any evidence to the contrary and tends to respond to sustained challenges to these ideas by increasing volume and hyperbole rather than engaging with the new evidence or reasoning.

This basically makes it impossible to talk about politics or certain areas of science (environmental science especially) with him - especially since he has the habit of just assuming he knows what you 'mean' and explaining your view to you, before shouting it down.

Its a kind of arrogance I think; if you change your mind, that means you were wrong. You are a smart guy, smart guys don't make mistakes, therefore you can't change your mind. This doesn't mean you don't have the capacity for high levels of reasoning and insight if you do apply yourself and bother to gather all the necessary information before coming to any conclusions... but if you're too lazy or disinterested to do so, you're not going to back down because that would wound your pride.

Like you say, though, part of this is down to how you define intelligence. Fact-checking and critical thinking are definitely important to be intelligent; but you can have the skills to apply that some of the time and choose not to engage them all of the time. Does that mean you're not intelligent? I don't know if that's fair. I think it means you're too lazy to be intelligent all of the time. Intelligence definitely seems to be more variable than other traits (like, say, physical strength).

I like this post. Laziness, arrogance, hubris... these are all traits that every single one of us carries to some degree.

Intelligence is an interesting subject, and it's especially interesting to me to explore the limits of intelligence, and how those limits are formed.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Sounds like a category I sometimes fall into when I'm being intellectually lazy (which is more often than I want to admit).

It's definitely something I've noticed in others. I can think of a few individuals who are certainly highly literate and intellectually capable, but are not quite as smart as they think they are.

A shared trait in just about all of them is a blanket contempt for "idiots," where "idiots" are usually defined by some particular metric that they themselves are strong in (grammar, background scientific knowledge, trivia, etc).

This might be the thing that bothers me the most. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

From the my experience the alternative to this guy is the Kais of the world. If you're not a scientist STFU about science pleb.
I guess one must choose what poison they can stomach.

I don't care much for that attitude, either. Especially when it goes hand-in-hand (as it often does) with a smug sense of superiority and an inability to admit to not knowing, being mistaken, or the existence of gray areas.

Speaking of gray areas, I don't think "I guess one must choose what poison they can stomach" is really the answer.

[Cain]

For some reason, I find myself thinking of the related issue, that of identifying as a "nerd" is not only now socially acceptable, but in certain circumstances actually socially advantageous.

I think it probably originally started as a not so subtle form of countersignalling ("I'm so socially aware and secure I can ignore the conventions and declare myself of lower status without it negatively impacting on me") but somehow formed into actual social currency.  Hipster nerds?

Thus, one can acquire all of the social trappings of nerdery (which is very easy now...popular culture is dominated currently by nerd-friendly entertainment) without any of the social costs.  For those who can remember being a nerd when it wasn't so trendy, and actually do have the intellectual qualities alongside the interests, it probably seems like a slap in the face and a lot of Johnny-come-lately's invading what they saw as their personal preserve.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Sounds like a category I sometimes fall into when I'm being intellectually lazy (which is more often than I want to admit).

It's definitely something I've noticed in others. I can think of a few individuals who are certainly highly literate and intellectually capable, but are not quite as smart as they think they are.

A shared trait in just about all of them is a blanket contempt for "idiots," where "idiots" are usually defined by some particular metric that they themselves are strong in (grammar, background scientific knowledge, trivia, etc).

This might be the thing that bothers me the most. 

I'm pretty sure it was through discussion on this board that I realized how common that kind of thinking is, and just how ugly it really is. Intellectual ability is not a good metric for a person's moral worth, and sneering contempt over minutiae is a pretty pathetic way to elevate oneself above others.

[Demolition Squid]

I do wonder how much this is a cultural thing, too.

One of the points that stood out in that radio talk I linked to before was about how the meaning of dialogue has shifted. The aim of a dialogue used to be to reach understanding; you'd try to engage with and understand the assumptions behind a point of view, leaving aside emotion as much as possible, and come to a closer understanding of the truth by doing so. In fact, Socrates said that if the discussion seemed to be causing true emotion distress, everyone ought to take a break until the discourse could continue with a cooler head. The point was to try and expose the truth through a mutual examination of assumptions; not to debase anyone else.

Now, the rules of discourse have changed it into a kind of competition, with a right side and a wrong side, and admitting there might be some validity to someone else's point of view means you're weak. The aim of public debate is completely divorced from the truth, as any polisci rhetoric text will tell you, and we're taking that model of 'win or lose' into our lives more and more every day. The person who walks away from an argument is the person who loses.

I think part of the explanation for that is because it is more entertaining than a moderate and respectful discussion, and we look to television/social media for our examples on how to speak to each other.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

For some reason, I find myself thinking of the related issue, that of identifying as a "nerd" is not only now socially acceptable, but in certain circumstances actually socially advantageous.

I think it probably originally started as a not so subtle form of countersignalling ("I'm so socially aware and secure I can ignore the conventions and declare myself of lower status without it negatively impacting on me") but somehow formed into actual social currency.  Hipster nerds?

Thus, one can acquire all of the social trappings of nerdery (which is very easy now...popular culture is dominated currently by nerd-friendly entertainment) without any of the social costs.  For those who can remember being a nerd when it wasn't so trendy, and actually do have the intellectual qualities alongside the interests, it probably seems like a slap in the face and a lot of Johnny-come-lately's invading what they saw as their personal preserve.

It was interesting coming of age as a nerd in an era when "nerd" went from insult to compliment. I remember sitting around with my nerd friends and talking about how weird it was, and then the advent of "nerd fashion", and seeing people emulate nerds in order to be cool.


Side note; someone just posted a satire article on the wall of the guy who inspired this. The last time someone did this, he didn't get that it was satire and got all outraged. Waiting to see whether he does it again with this one.

Is it wrong that I am using this as entertainment?