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?
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%.
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.
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.
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 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).
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).
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.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on November 30, 2014, 06:03:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on November 30, 2014, 06:07:13 PM
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. :lol:
Quote from: Metal Bear on November 30, 2014, 06:07:22 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 30, 2014, 06:10:49 PM
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on November 30, 2014, 06:07:13 PM
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. :lol:
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.
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.
Quote from: Cain on November 30, 2014, 06:15:02 PM
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?
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on November 30, 2014, 06:17:39 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 30, 2014, 06:10:49 PM
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on November 30, 2014, 06:07:13 PM
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. :lol:
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.
It is, and it's something that I definitely struggle with. This superiority-by-comparison thing seems to be, as Demo Squid said, built into the culture, and because of that it's easy to sit there and think that people are SO STUPID and judge their worth based on that.
It's hard to not do it, especially after decades of habit.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 30, 2014, 06:13:14 PM
Quote from: Metal Bear on November 30, 2014, 06:07:22 PM
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.
It's a option if you're really close with said person. Lord knows everyone here has a story of them trying to push some close friend's behavior on to a better motorcycle.
Quote from: Metal Bear on November 30, 2014, 06:32:54 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 30, 2014, 06:13:14 PM
Quote from: Metal Bear on November 30, 2014, 06:07:22 PM
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.
It's a option if you're really close with said person. Lord knows everyone here has a story of them trying to push some close friend's behavior on to a better motorcycle.
I guess I don't know what you meant by that... I read it as black-and-white thinking, ie. you can choose either to accept/reject new information based on whether it fits your preexisting assumptions, or you can be an elitist with no patience for laymen discussing science.
My response is basically meant to reflect that I don't think that's an either/or choice.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 30, 2014, 05:46:42 PM
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.
Gonna guess, here: I think liberal brains make better scientists.
I am going to qualify that, though, to what you'd call "Classic Liberals" or "Franklin Liberals", because the kind of liberals you get on tumblr and much of Facebook are worse than conservatives in some ways. They might believe the right things, but they do it for all the wrong reasons (as spelled out in the OP).
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 30, 2014, 08:57:31 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 30, 2014, 05:46:42 PM
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.
Gonna guess, here: I think liberal brains make better scientists.
I am going to qualify that, though, to what you'd call "Classic Liberals" or "Franklin Liberals", because the kind of liberals you get on tumblr and much of Facebook are worse than conservatives in some ways. They might believe the right things, but they do it for all the wrong reasons (as spelled out in the OP).
Seth MacFarlene is a prime example.
Cain: Yes.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 30, 2014, 08:57:31 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 30, 2014, 05:46:42 PM
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.
Gonna guess, here: I think liberal brains make better scientists.
I am going to qualify that, though, to what you'd call "Classic Liberals" or "Franklin Liberals", because the kind of liberals you get on tumblr and much of Facebook are worse than conservatives in some ways. They might believe the right things, but they do it for all the wrong reasons (as spelled out in the OP).
These are the same people who take satire articles seriously without a second thought, however outrageous they are, because they fit in with what they
want to believe.
I have many things to say about this subject but i detect in myself an inability to be precise(or nice) at this moment in time.
I will therefore simply state that I think the definition of intelligence could use some more consideration.
Quote from: Reginald Ret (07/05/1983 - 06/11/2014) on November 30, 2014, 11:41:08 PM
I have many things to say about this subject but i detect in myself an inability to be precise(or nice) at this moment in time.
I will therefore simply state that I think the definition of intelligence could use some more consideration.
You obviously didn't read the thread, or maybe your reading comprehension skills are deficient. :lulz: Probably the latter.
P.S. go fuck yourself.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 30, 2014, 11:48:32 PM
Quote from: Reginald Ret (07/05/1983 - 06/11/2014) on November 30, 2014, 11:41:08 PM
I have many things to say about this subject but i detect in myself an inability to be precise(or nice) at this moment in time.
I will therefore simply state that I think the definition of intelligence could use some more consideration.
You obviously didn't read the thread, or maybe your reading comprehension skills are deficient. :lulz: Probably the latter.
P.S. go fuck yourself.
I read the thread, therefore I lack the reading comprehension skills.
This does not really surprise me.
I think it is highly likely that I am one of those nerds you talk about here, it fits my self esteem so I won't argue.
For a slightly more in-depth response:
Quotebut it seems to me that fact-checking and critical thinking are key elements of intelligence. They are definitely key elements of science.
I agree with the bolded part.
I have heard too many people talk about intelligence in ways that make me think they each have their own personal definition. Science, at least, has a clearer definition.
Your hostility is understandable considering my recent behaviour.
I don't think this thread was specifically about me, but if it was: That was an excellently executed attack.
Quote from: Reginald Ret (07/05/1983 - 06/11/2014) on December 01, 2014, 12:04:55 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 30, 2014, 11:48:32 PM
Quote from: Reginald Ret (07/05/1983 - 06/11/2014) on November 30, 2014, 11:41:08 PM
I have many things to say about this subject but i detect in myself an inability to be precise(or nice) at this moment in time.
I will therefore simply state that I think the definition of intelligence could use some more consideration.
You obviously didn't read the thread, or maybe your reading comprehension skills are deficient. :lulz: Probably the latter.
P.S. go fuck yourself.
I read the thread, therefore I lack the reading comprehension skills.
This does not really surprise me.
I think it is highly likely that I am one of those nerds you talk about here, it fits my self esteem so I won't argue.
For a slightly more in-depth response:
Quotebut it seems to me that fact-checking and critical thinking are key elements of intelligence. They are definitely key elements of science.
I agree with the bolded part.
I have heard too many people talk about intelligence in ways that make me think they each have their own personal definition. Science, at least, has a clearer definition.
Your hostility is understandable considering my recent behaviour.
I don't think this thread was specifically about me, but if it was: That was an excellently executed attack.
You seem to have missed the parts where we touch on the subjectivity and mutability of intelligence.
You've been kind of a miserable bastard with nothing constructive to say recently, and this looked like just another drive-by shitting, so thanks for taking a minute to type up a post with some substance to it.
It was in no way a personal attack on you, and could not have been if I'd tried because I have no idea who you are or what you're like in person, and the person who inspired me is someone I have spent quite a bit of time with. The other person I used as an example is a relative. I love him, but bless his heart he's an idiot.
it seems what i was gonna say has already been said.
but, then it occurred to share the following -
i worked at 2 different bowling alleys in high school and college and i bowled on a few leagues when i was in college.
someone once said to me that bowling is a nerd sport and i think it is. but only for real nerds.
not to say, mind you, that all bowlers are nerds - there are certainly non-nerd types with athletic ability who naturally excel in the fine sport of bowling.
however, in thinking about this, I've come to the conclusion that bowling will separate the real nerds from the poseur (sp?) nerds.
I think a poseur nerd will bowl poorly and simply conclude that they are a poor bowler because they are a nerd.
I think a realtm nerd will also bowl poorly, but they will analyze their throw, analyze the lane, consider the characteristics of their ball, etc. try different things, experiment with the game and try to continually improve.
Quote from: rong on December 01, 2014, 12:19:17 AM
it seems what i was gonna say has already been said.
but, then it occurred to share the following -
i worked at 2 different bowling alleys in high school and college and i bowled on a few leagues when i was in college.
someone once said to me that bowling is a nerd sport and i think it is. but only for real nerds.
not to say, mind you, that all bowlers are nerds - there are certainly non-nerd types with athletic ability who naturally excel in the fine sport of bowling.
however, in thinking about this, I've come to the conclusion that bowling will separate the real nerds from the poseur (sp?) nerds.
I think a poseur nerd will bowl poorly and simply conclude that they are a poor bowler because they are a nerd.
I think a realtm nerd will also bowl poorly, but they will analyze their throw, analyze the lane, consider the characteristics of their ball, etc. try different things, experiment with the game and try to continually improve.
Is your assumption that all nerds like bowling, and care about being good at it? Because I see some flaws in that reasoning.
no, I don't think so - i was trying to say that if you took a bunch of nerds bowling - there would be generally two outcomes in the nerds' performances.
it was an attempt to describe the characteristics of a person who identifies themselves as a nerd vs one who is of a personality type that tends toward nerd-dom
course, maybe i'm wrong
Quote from: rong on December 01, 2014, 12:28:40 AM
no, I don't think so - i was trying to say that if you took a bunch of nerds bowling - there would be generally two outcomes in the nerds' performances.
it was an attempt to describe the characteristics of a person who identifies themselves as a nerd vs one who is of a personality type that tends toward nerd-dom
course, maybe i'm wrong
I think you may be under the impression that there is some sort of hard boundary between "authentic" nerds and "inauthentic" nerds. I think that a lot of nerds who aren't that smart are still really nerdy, and I think that a lot of really smart nerds don't care about bowling enough to analyze their game at all.
Basically, I don't think there's any kind of test that would separate "real nerds" (lol) from "poseur nerds", because I think that's a false dichotomy.
Also, just to use myself as an example, I enjoy bowling, but I'm terrible at it. And I don't give any fucks at all because I'm good at things I care about, like math and chemistry (which I should be studying right now instead of internetting, if I want to keep my "good at it" status).
i thought the thread title "nerds who aren't that smart" implied a dichotomy - that is, "nerds who are that smart" and "nerds who aren't that smart"
i got the vibe from some of the posts in this thread that the dichotomy was then re-interpreted to be:
there are some genuinely smart people who tend to be nerds
there are some not so smart people who identify as nerds
it then occurred to me that bowling might make for a test.
of course, in the process of this - I think you are right that there isn't really a dichotomy - because I think, while scientists and engineers can both be exceptionally intelligent and nerdy, i think their "stereotypical" approaches to bowling would be quite different.
i love bowling and i was pretty terrible when i started.
i don't understand: you say you enjoy bowling and you are terrible at it
you also say you are good at things you care about.
does this mean you don't care about bowling, but you enjoy it?
i'm not sure if there is anything i enjoy, but don't care about. . .
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 30, 2014, 10:45:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 30, 2014, 08:57:31 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 30, 2014, 05:46:42 PM
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.
Gonna guess, here: I think liberal brains make better scientists.
I am going to qualify that, though, to what you'd call "Classic Liberals" or "Franklin Liberals", because the kind of liberals you get on tumblr and much of Facebook are worse than conservatives in some ways. They might believe the right things, but they do it for all the wrong reasons (as spelled out in the OP).
These are the same people who take satire articles seriously without a second thought, however outrageous they are, because they fit in with what they want to believe.
The idea that grapefruit is an antidote for lead poisoning comes to mind.
There is something decidedly
anti-science about the general population these days, and that's a shame. Because if even a fraction of that population survives the next quarter-century, it will be on account of science.
Quote from: rong on December 01, 2014, 12:49:01 AM
i love bowling and i was pretty terrible when i started.
i don't understand: you say you enjoy bowling and you are terrible at it
you also say you are good at things you care about.
does this mean you don't care about bowling, but you enjoy it?
i'm not sure if there is anything i enjoy, but don't care about. . .
Really? I enjoy a great many things, including things that I don't seek out. I'll go bowling and have fun if someone invites me, but it's not something I care about enough to seek out and work on to improve my skills.
Life's too short to fail to enjoy as many things as possible, and it's also too short to care about everything I enjoy to the point of making time to be good at it.
I'm good at a lot of things that I do make time to work at, and that's good enough for me.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 12:55:28 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 30, 2014, 10:45:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 30, 2014, 08:57:31 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 30, 2014, 05:46:42 PM
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.
Gonna guess, here: I think liberal brains make better scientists.
I am going to qualify that, though, to what you'd call "Classic Liberals" or "Franklin Liberals", because the kind of liberals you get on tumblr and much of Facebook are worse than conservatives in some ways. They might believe the right things, but they do it for all the wrong reasons (as spelled out in the OP).
These are the same people who take satire articles seriously without a second thought, however outrageous they are, because they fit in with what they want to believe.
The idea that grapefruit is an antidote for lead poisoning comes to mind.
There is something decidedly anti-science about the general population these days, and that's a shame. Because if even a fraction of that population survives the next quarter-century, it will be on account of science.
Somewhere around here there's a thread where we started to talk about this... the fact that one of the side effects of the internet is that it is so easy for people to obtain misinformation that leads them to THINK they're researching science-based information. So there are tons of people who think they care deeply about science, but are on the wrong track completely.
i think maybe it is not really bowling that you enjoy
but, i didn't mean to jack this thread and our little portion seems to be turning into a different debate.
Quote from: rong on December 01, 2014, 02:09:15 AM
i think maybe it is not really bowling that you enjoy
but, i didn't mean to jack this thread and our little portion seems to be turning into a different debate.
I don't think you're qualified to tell other people what they do or don't find enjoyable. :lol: I don't think anyone is. If you want to explore what other people find enjoyable, and how, how much, and why they find them enjoyable, that would make a pretty decent thread, IMO. You might find that people have very different perspectives from one another when it comes to enjoyable activities.
I'd like to thank everyone in this thread for having this conversation. It helped me realize a joke regarding chaos magic, and also that its practice is far more widespread than I ever knew.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on November 30, 2014, 06:21:51 PM
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 mean, we're having wizard duels in public and they're being mistaken for real debates nowadays!
Did this thread become a question if a specific physical activity denotes the intellectual capacity over a socially constructed niche?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 01, 2014, 03:38:08 AM
Did this thread become a question if a specific physical activity denotes the intellectual capacity over a socially constructed niche?
Somehow, that seems to have happened.
sorry 'bout that
(http://thumb9.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/519892/519892,1314850842,2/stock-photo-puzzled-man-at-computer-shrugs-shoulders-and-expresses-lack-of-knowledge-83906137.jpg)
In fairness, it aint easy (and it's becoming increasingly hard) to separate science from bullshit and pseudo science. Back in the old days it seemed easier. Newton did the apple thing. You could try it. Drop an apple, yup down it goes. But scientific knowledge grows like a mushroom. discoveries branch into fields, discoveries in those fields branch into more fields, til you end up where we are now, with a lot of cutting edge research being so fucking narrow focus that the guys discovering the latest particle stuff being unable to explain it to the guys in the next room studying a different particle.
I look at scientific papers and they're written in whatever dialect of whatever language that particular branch of science uses and it's gobbledygook to me (unless it's computer science) so I have to make do with popular articles written after the fact in layman's english. That's fine but, click on the wrong website and you'll find bullshit, indistinguishable from the real thing. There's also so much nowadays that it's easy to miss stuff. Like the other day when Nigel informed me they were back into testing psychedelics. Totally missed that memo.
The worst offender, though, has to be quantum physics. Those bastards just had to come up with popular metaphors to explain their calculations, that essentially sound like witchcraft. What the fuck did they think was going to happen when the lay public found out that looking at an experiment changes it or that the particle goes through both holes at the same time. What the fuck are you supposed to think?
You realize that most of those silly metaphors were created about 100 years ago, when they honestly had no idea of what was going on, right? For the most part, physicists have stopped doing that a while ago.
Your above rant sounds like a person who only knows about a Turing-style card-fed Automatic Computing Engine trying to describe the Watson supercomputer.
Well tbh, nerd doesn't mean smart, and when it does there are alot of different kinds of 'smart'.
In truth nerds today is more a fashion. It happened around the time being nerdy became cool. Like the big bang theory, sure they have 'smart' jokes, but anyone with a GED can get the jokes. Truth be told, looking smart is 90% of what you need. Because a 'nerd' today is like a wizard 100 years ago. Normal people have no clue how they work so they don't question it, and when an actually wizard shows up shooting lighting at the other wizards who just throw dirt to defend themselves. Normal people don't know which is which, that's wizard business I'm a fucking farmer, I didn't spend my free time reading wizard books and shitting in my friends mouth while exploring my sexuality, i tended the farm.
That one real wizard is going to be labeled a 'none' wizard by the wanna be wizards and a wizard by the farmer, so he's fucked. We're all fucked.
Cause nerds are magic now, leftest, egolectual, mages who can spout facts, but can't spout anything that matters.
Quote from: Meunster on December 01, 2014, 02:57:49 PM
Well tbh, nerd doesn't mean smart, and when it does there are alot of different kinds of 'smart'.
In truth nerds today is more a fashion. It happened around the time being nerdy became cool. Like the big bang theory, sure they have 'smart' jokes, but anyone with a GED can get the jokes. Truth be told, looking smart is 90% of what you need. Because a 'nerd' today is like a wizard 100 years ago. Normal people have no clue how they work so they don't question it, and when an actually wizard shows up shooting lighting at the other wizards who just throw dirt to defend themselves. Normal people don't know which is which, that's wizard business I'm a fucking farmer, I didn't spend my free time reading wizard books and shitting in my friends mouth while exploring my sexuality, i tended the farm.
That one real wizard is going to be labeled a 'none' wizard by the wanna be wizards and a wizard by the farmer, so he's fucked. We're all fucked.
Cause nerds are magic now, leftest, egolectual, mages who can spout facts, but can't spout anything that matters.
:lulz:
I approve of this ranting.
Here's these people doing this thing:
http://io9.com/a-test-to-measure-how-rational-you-really-are-609412488 (http://io9.com/a-test-to-measure-how-rational-you-really-are-609412488)
QuoteKeith E. Stanovich is Professor of Human Development and Applied Psychology at the University of Toronto. The author of over 200 scientific articles and seven books, he, along with Richard West, was recently given a grant by the John Templeton Foundation to create the first comprehensive assessment of rational thinking — a test that will ultimately determine a person's 'rationality quotient'.
...
Perhaps intelligence is highly associated with rationality even though tasks tapping the latter are not assessed directly on the tests. Here is where empirical research comes in — some of which has been generated by our own research group. We have found that many rational thinking tasks show surprising degrees of dissociation from cognitive ability in university samples. Many classic effects from the heuristics and biases literature — base-rate neglect, framing effects, conjunction effects, anchoring biases, and outcome bias — are only modestly related to intelligence if run in between-subjects designs.
I'm hoping they come up with something workable. It would be cool to see what kind of things they can find comparing IQ to RQ.
I already know that I am not very rational. I try to do better, but in the end I am a primate, and "rational" is something I have to DO, rather than something I AM.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 04:18:52 PM
I already know that I am not very rational. I try to do better, but in the end I am a primate, and "rational" is something I have to DO, rather than something I AM.
Word. It's an uphill battle.
Quote from: Meunster on December 01, 2014, 02:57:49 PM
Well tbh, nerd doesn't mean smart, and when it does there are alot of different kinds of 'smart'.
In truth nerds today is more a fashion. It happened around the time being nerdy became cool. Like the big bang theory, sure they have 'smart' jokes, but anyone with a GED can get the jokes. Truth be told, looking smart is 90% of what you need. Because a 'nerd' today is like a wizard 100 years ago. Normal people have no clue how they work so they don't question it, and when an actually wizard shows up shooting lighting at the other wizards who just throw dirt to defend themselves. Normal people don't know which is which, that's wizard business I'm a fucking farmer, I didn't spend my free time reading wizard books and shitting in my friends mouth while exploring my sexuality, i tended the farm.
That one real wizard is going to be labeled a 'none' wizard by the wanna be wizards and a wizard by the farmer, so he's fucked. We're all fucked.
Cause nerds are magic now, leftest, egolectual, mages who can spout facts, but can't spout anything that matters.
It's funny that people use the popularity of The Big Bang Theory as the tipping point of nerd cool, considering the nerds themselves are the butt of 99% of the "humor" in the show.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2014, 04:47:45 PM
Quote from: Meunster on December 01, 2014, 02:57:49 PM
Well tbh, nerd doesn't mean smart, and when it does there are alot of different kinds of 'smart'.
In truth nerds today is more a fashion. It happened around the time being nerdy became cool. Like the big bang theory, sure they have 'smart' jokes, but anyone with a GED can get the jokes. Truth be told, looking smart is 90% of what you need. Because a 'nerd' today is like a wizard 100 years ago. Normal people have no clue how they work so they don't question it, and when an actually wizard shows up shooting lighting at the other wizards who just throw dirt to defend themselves. Normal people don't know which is which, that's wizard business I'm a fucking farmer, I didn't spend my free time reading wizard books and shitting in my friends mouth while exploring my sexuality, i tended the farm.
That one real wizard is going to be labeled a 'none' wizard by the wanna be wizards and a wizard by the farmer, so he's fucked. We're all fucked.
Cause nerds are magic now, leftest, egolectual, mages who can spout facts, but can't spout anything that matters.
It's funny that people use the popularity of The Big Bang Theory as the tipping point of nerd cool, considering the nerds themselves are the butt of 99% of the "humor" in the show.
I fucking hate that show. It's every awful stereotype of the nerd/science set, with added constant non-funny horribleness to the pretty girl, which I never witnessed as a physics major.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 01, 2014, 12:14:11 PM
You realize that most of those silly metaphors were created about 100 years ago, when they honestly had no idea of what was going on, right? For the most part, physicists have stopped doing that a while ago.
Your above rant sounds like a person who only knows about a Turing-style card-fed Automatic Computing Engine trying to describe the Watson supercomputer.
Maybe the problem is lead time, then. Discovery is made then, a century later, someone brings it to my attention. The internets has improved this immensely but finding reliable feeds with good information means navigating a gobshite minefield
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 01, 2014, 04:56:37 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 01, 2014, 12:14:11 PM
You realize that most of those silly metaphors were created about 100 years ago, when they honestly had no idea of what was going on, right? For the most part, physicists have stopped doing that a while ago.
Your above rant sounds like a person who only knows about a Turing-style card-fed Automatic Computing Engine trying to describe the Watson supercomputer.
Maybe the problem is lead time, then. Discovery is made then, a century later, someone brings it to my attention. The internets has improved this immensely but finding reliable feeds with good information means navigating a gobshite minefield
In my case, my problem is that I accept information too readily. I am, as a result, full of truisms, given the avalanche of shit that is the internet.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 04:18:52 PM
I already know that I am not very rational. I try to do better, but in the end I am a primate, and "rational" is something I have to DO, rather than something I AM.
Yeah. The good news is that these researchers seem pretty solidly founded that unlike intelligence (at least the way IQ measures it), rationality is more skill than genetic lottery. The bad news is that they could still very well be wrong.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on December 01, 2014, 04:58:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 04:18:52 PM
I already know that I am not very rational. I try to do better, but in the end I am a primate, and "rational" is something I have to DO, rather than something I AM.
Yeah. The good news is that these researchers seem pretty solidly founded that unlike intelligence (at least the way IQ measures it), rationality is more skill than genetic lottery. The bad news is that they could still very well be wrong.
I was under the impression that IQ measures perception with respect to cultural and educational benchmarks, and that there is no actual standard of intelligence.
I could be wrong, though.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 04:58:45 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 01, 2014, 04:56:37 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 01, 2014, 12:14:11 PM
You realize that most of those silly metaphors were created about 100 years ago, when they honestly had no idea of what was going on, right? For the most part, physicists have stopped doing that a while ago.
Your above rant sounds like a person who only knows about a Turing-style card-fed Automatic Computing Engine trying to describe the Watson supercomputer.
Maybe the problem is lead time, then. Discovery is made then, a century later, someone brings it to my attention. The internets has improved this immensely but finding reliable feeds with good information means navigating a gobshite minefield
In my case, my problem is that I accept information too readily. I am, as a result, full of truisms, given the avalanche of shit that is the internet.
It's the age old problem of signal to noise ratio, scaled up to information overload levels. On the plus side the signal is much quicker nowadays
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 04:59:52 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on December 01, 2014, 04:58:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 04:18:52 PM
I already know that I am not very rational. I try to do better, but in the end I am a primate, and "rational" is something I have to DO, rather than something I AM.
Yeah. The good news is that these researchers seem pretty solidly founded that unlike intelligence (at least the way IQ measures it), rationality is more skill than genetic lottery. The bad news is that they could still very well be wrong.
I was under the impression that IQ measures perception with respect to cultural and educational benchmarks, and that there is no actual standard of intelligence.
I could be wrong, though.
My last exposure or even real interest in the subject was a high school psych 101 class in the early 90's--so I'm pretty sure you can take my word as gospel, here.
Quote from: Meunster on December 01, 2014, 02:57:49 PM
Well tbh, nerd doesn't mean smart, and when it does there are alot of different kinds of 'smart'.
In truth nerds today is more a fashion. It happened around the time being nerdy became cool. Like the big bang theory, sure they have 'smart' jokes, but anyone with a GED can get the jokes. Truth be told, looking smart is 90% of what you need. Because a 'nerd' today is like a wizard 100 years ago. Normal people have no clue how they work so they don't question it, and when an actually wizard shows up shooting lighting at the other wizards who just throw dirt to defend themselves. Normal people don't know which is which, that's wizard business I'm a fucking farmer, I didn't spend my free time reading wizard books and shitting in my friends mouth while exploring my sexuality, i tended the farm.
That one real wizard is going to be labeled a 'none' wizard by the wanna be wizards and a wizard by the farmer, so he's fucked. We're all fucked.
Cause nerds are magic now, leftest, egolectual, mages who can spout facts, but can't spout anything that matters.
Gee, thanks. :lol:
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on December 01, 2014, 03:55:07 PM
Here's these people doing this thing:
http://io9.com/a-test-to-measure-how-rational-you-really-are-609412488 (http://io9.com/a-test-to-measure-how-rational-you-really-are-609412488)
QuoteKeith E. Stanovich is Professor of Human Development and Applied Psychology at the University of Toronto. The author of over 200 scientific articles and seven books, he, along with Richard West, was recently given a grant by the John Templeton Foundation to create the first comprehensive assessment of rational thinking — a test that will ultimately determine a person's 'rationality quotient'.
...
Perhaps intelligence is highly associated with rationality even though tasks tapping the latter are not assessed directly on the tests. Here is where empirical research comes in — some of which has been generated by our own research group. We have found that many rational thinking tasks show surprising degrees of dissociation from cognitive ability in university samples. Many classic effects from the heuristics and biases literature — base-rate neglect, framing effects, conjunction effects, anchoring biases, and outcome bias — are only modestly related to intelligence if run in between-subjects designs.
I'm hoping they come up with something workable. It would be cool to see what kind of things they can find comparing IQ to RQ.
This is interesting, but may actually prove to be as useful as the IQ test (that is, kind of useful in some ways and under constant revision) due to the fact that rationality is social-context dependent.
People who have damage to their social-cue processing centers are very bad at making good decisions.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 04:59:52 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on December 01, 2014, 04:58:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 04:18:52 PM
I already know that I am not very rational. I try to do better, but in the end I am a primate, and "rational" is something I have to DO, rather than something I AM.
Yeah. The good news is that these researchers seem pretty solidly founded that unlike intelligence (at least the way IQ measures it), rationality is more skill than genetic lottery. The bad news is that they could still very well be wrong.
I was under the impression that IQ measures perception with respect to cultural and educational benchmarks, and that there is no actual standard of intelligence.
I could be wrong, though.
It measures a particular subset of very useful problem-solving abilities that are used heavily in our highly-technological society.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 04:58:45 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 01, 2014, 04:56:37 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 01, 2014, 12:14:11 PM
You realize that most of those silly metaphors were created about 100 years ago, when they honestly had no idea of what was going on, right? For the most part, physicists have stopped doing that a while ago.
Your above rant sounds like a person who only knows about a Turing-style card-fed Automatic Computing Engine trying to describe the Watson supercomputer.
Maybe the problem is lead time, then. Discovery is made then, a century later, someone brings it to my attention. The internets has improved this immensely but finding reliable feeds with good information means navigating a gobshite minefield
In my case, my problem is that I accept information too readily. I am, as a result, full of truisms, given the avalanche of shit that is the internet.
You're also skilled at rejecting truisms as soon as you have good evidence that you're wrong, which is a pretty rare and valuable skill.
FWIW I wasn't talking about "fashion nerds", AKA "hipsters", in my op. While some nerds are hipsters, the nerds I was thinking of are people who are definitely actual nerds and not just dressing up. While there may come a time when non-nerds are really into role-playing games, it hasn't happened in my lifetime and I don't foresee it happening anytime soon.
They're just kind of dumb, but unaware of it because they're nerds and everyone knows that nerds are smart.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 02, 2014, 01:19:49 AM
FWIW I wasn't talking about "fashion nerds", AKA "hipsters", in my op. While some nerds are hipsters, the nerds I was thinking of are people who are definitely actual nerds and not just dressing up. While there may come a time when non-nerds are really into role-playing games, it hasn't happened in my lifetime and I don't foresee it happening anytime soon.
You'd be amazed, actually.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 02, 2014, 01:13:12 AM
You're also skilled at rejecting truisms as soon as you have good evidence that you're wrong, which is a pretty rare and valuable skill.
Thanks. I think that's a by-product of my line of work, which penalizes people who can't abandon a beautiful hypothesis in the face of ugly facts.
Unless you're an engineer. Which makes me fucking crazy.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 02, 2014, 01:38:23 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 02, 2014, 01:19:49 AM
FWIW I wasn't talking about "fashion nerds", AKA "hipsters", in my op. While some nerds are hipsters, the nerds I was thinking of are people who are definitely actual nerds and not just dressing up. While there may come a time when non-nerds are really into role-playing games, it hasn't happened in my lifetime and I don't foresee it happening anytime soon.
You'd be amazed, actually.
I like D&D, and referred to the word "care" as a noun because a website said so... :kingmeh:
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 02, 2014, 01:19:49 AM
FWIW I wasn't talking about "fashion nerds", AKA "hipsters", in my op. While some nerds are hipsters, the nerds I was thinking of are people who are definitely actual nerds and not just dressing up. While there may come a time when non-nerds are really into role-playing games, it hasn't happened in my lifetime and I don't foresee it happening anytime soon.
They're just kind of dumb, but unaware of it because they're nerds and everyone knows that nerds are smart.
Would that whole Dunning-kerkawassname effect be in play here, with sort of a halo effect on top of it? Specifically smart, which leads to the belief in being smart about other things?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 02, 2014, 01:39:30 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 02, 2014, 01:13:12 AM
You're also skilled at rejecting truisms as soon as you have good evidence that you're wrong, which is a pretty rare and valuable skill.
Thanks. I think that's a by-product of my line of work, which penalizes people who can't abandon a beautiful hypothesis in the face of ugly facts.
Unless you're an engineer. Which makes me fucking crazy.
Well,
engineers.
We all know how those people can be.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 02, 2014, 01:41:58 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 02, 2014, 01:38:23 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 02, 2014, 01:19:49 AM
FWIW I wasn't talking about "fashion nerds", AKA "hipsters", in my op. While some nerds are hipsters, the nerds I was thinking of are people who are definitely actual nerds and not just dressing up. While there may come a time when non-nerds are really into role-playing games, it hasn't happened in my lifetime and I don't foresee it happening anytime soon.
You'd be amazed, actually.
I like D&D, and referred to the word "care" as a noun because a website said so... :kingmeh:
:lulz: It happens to the best of us.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 02, 2014, 02:33:24 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 02, 2014, 01:19:49 AM
FWIW I wasn't talking about "fashion nerds", AKA "hipsters", in my op. While some nerds are hipsters, the nerds I was thinking of are people who are definitely actual nerds and not just dressing up. While there may come a time when non-nerds are really into role-playing games, it hasn't happened in my lifetime and I don't foresee it happening anytime soon.
They're just kind of dumb, but unaware of it because they're nerds and everyone knows that nerds are smart.
Would that whole Dunning-kerkawassname effect be in play here, with sort of a halo effect on top of it? Specifically smart, which leads to the belief in being smart about other things?
Well, yes and no. Everyone from all walks of life is susceptible to Dunning-Kruger effect, and it's not that being good in one arena makes people think they are good in all arenas, as much as that being incompetent renders one unable to correctly gauge one's level of competence.
So on that particular level, yes, it is probable that not being very intelligent could make it nearly impossible to accurately gauge one's own intelligence, leading to a falsely inflated estimate of one's own intelligence.