Intelligence and Cognitive Bias

[Ego]

If you are really smart that means you are less susceptible to cognitive biases like confirmation bias, right?

Wrong. Here are details of a new study showing that smart people are just as susceptible to cognitive biases as dummies.

http://www.globalcognition.org/head-sma ... tive-bias/

[fips]

Too bad the article doesn't provide any suggestions what the reasons would be that more intelligent people do not also have a lower cognitive bias.

Also, if you look at the studies - why should it not be reasonable for more intelligent people to be one-sided?Maybe because of their intelligence they did indeed find that one side of the story has stronger arguments, so that they did focus on rationalizing this one side. Then again, we don't know what the experiments really looked like .. the link to the study is unfortunately a dead link.

[Felix]

Everyone is vulnerable to biases. Everyone is stuck in his view of the world. I think intellligence provides the ability to step out of that world, consider another perspective and maybe change it. It does not mean that this ability is used or even that there is motivation to do so.

It could be argued that intelligent people are even more vulnerable simply because they think they are too smart to fall for it.

It is a general problem. By definition, you don't know what you don't know. And you tend to forget that simple fact. Since nobody knows everything, every world view has to be inherently tentative if one wants to be intellectually honest.

The cosmic schmuck principle comes to mind:

The Cosmic Schmuck Principle holds that if you don't wake up, once a month at least, and realize you have recently been acting like a Cosmic Schmuck again, then you will probably go on acting like a Cosmic Schmuck forever; but if you do, occasionally, recognize your Cosmic Schmuckiness, you might begin to become a little less Schmucky than the general human average at this primitive stage of terrestrial evolution.

The thing is that this is very difficult to detect, even more difficult to do and hardly anyone seems to be willing to do it.

[Ego]

Hah! Maybe we should rename the EDIT button the Cosmic Schmuckiness button and leave it for at least 24 hours. Please?

Two of the most intelligent people I know have made two of the most phenomenally stupid decisions I've ever witnessed because they used their smarts to rationalize what they wanted to do. The decisions were so obviously stupid and required such complex rationalizations that only a genius could even follow the logic let alone generate it. The rest of us were left in awe.

[Chad]

I must admit, I'm highly suspect of this "test." Not that smart people can't make stupid and biased decisions, but I don't think I can be convinced it occurs at the same rate.

[bibacula]

Two of the most intelligent people I know have made two of the most phenomenally stupid decisions I've ever witnessed because they used their smarts to rationalize what they wanted to do.

Bright people are better at rationalizing their mistakes.

I must admit, I'm highly suspect of this "test." Not that smart people can't make stupid and biased decisions, but I don't think I can be convinced it occurs at the same rate.

I'm surprised that intelligent people aren't more susceptible to cognitive bias due to overconfidence. The overconfidence displayed on this forum amazes me sometimes.

All humans are susceptible to these biases. We are human; we make these mistakes, too.

[Chad]

I must admit, I'm highly suspect of this "test." Not that smart people can't make stupid and biased decisions, but I don't think I can be convinced it occurs at the same rate.

I'm surprised that intelligent people aren't more susceptible to cognitive bias due to overconfidence. The overconfidence displayed on this forum amazes me sometimes.

All humans are susceptible to these biases. We are human; we make these mistakes, too.

I didn't say never. Of course, it happens. I just said I'm highly doubtful the bias occurs at the same rate.

[workathome]

I'm surprised that intelligent people aren't more susceptible to cognitive bias due to overconfidence. The overconfidence displayed on this forum amazes me sometimes.

The Dunning-Kruger effect would imply the exact opposite. More intelligent people tend to be less confident, while less intelligent tend to be over confident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2 ... ger_effect

[bibacula]

I'm surprised that intelligent people aren't more susceptible to cognitive bias due to overconfidence. The overconfidence displayed on this forum amazes me sometimes.

The Dunning-Kruger effect would imply the exact opposite. More intelligent people tend to be less confident, while less intelligent tend to be over confident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2 ... ger_effect

Uh-hoh. Then what does that imply about us forum members?

Actually, Dunning-Kruger is about competence in an activity, not overall intelligence. Being smart doesn't actually make one better at most activities. Good luck telling that to people who think that they are smart, though.

[Chad]

I'm surprised that intelligent people aren't more susceptible to cognitive bias due to overconfidence. The overconfidence displayed on this forum amazes me sometimes.

The Dunning-Kruger effect would imply the exact opposite. More intelligent people tend to be less confident, while less intelligent tend to be over confident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2 ... ger_effect

Uh-hoh. Then what does that imply about us forum members?

Actually, Dunning-Kruger is about competence in an activity, not overall intelligence. Being smart doesn't actually make one better at most activities. Good luck telling that to people who think that they are smart, though.

Yeah, stupid is much better.

[Felix]

Apparently, the better you are at math, the better you are at twisting statistical research to support your political beliefs:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... innumerate

There's also a book by Michael Shermer on "Why smart people believe weird things".

[jennypenny]

@Felix--That article is disturbing. It's also interesting how in the gun control experiment, conservatives tracked differently regardless of their numeracy, but liberals tracked together and then diverged sharply at the high end.

[Felix]

Yes. It shows the importance of the Cosmic Schmuck Principle. The smarter you are, the better you are at resolving the cognitive dissonance caused by new information that does not conform to your existing beliefs. In that sense, knowledge and intelligence are counterproductive.

It is easy to see this in other people, how they are limited by their beliefs and conditioning and how predictable and often irrational they are, but it is incredibly hard to apply this knowledge to oneself. And it is the easiest thing to forget or even to never notice to begin with.

[jennypenny]

I'm having trouble reconciling both sides of this--that more intelligent people are less decisive and confident, but still suffer from cognitive bias.

[Felix]

Maybe it's an ambivalence of the term "intelligent". It can mean "well-trained in complex subjects (or able to)" or it can mean "self-aware and critically open-minded". It appears that the two do not necessarily go hand in hand. The second definition probably goes more into the "enlightened"-category.

[Ego]

Both of the brain books I've been reading use the visual blindspot as a way to show how the mind works in this regard. We have a blindspot in our eyes where the optic nerve passes through the optic disc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_spot_%28vision%29

Our unconscious brain fills in this blind spot by integrating what it expects to see with the surrounding features in order to provide our conscious mind with a coherent view of the world. There is also evidence that it ignores the blind spot.

You can test it on yourself by downloading this free ebook
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/110777

So the brain both fills in the blind spot (active) and ignores it (passive).

Since the world is not entirely know, we have lots of blind spots we encounter every day. When we are presented with information that conflict with a theory we currently believe to be true, we might actively and/or passively see conflicting evidence incorrectly.

I wonder if our political affiliations are the result of the extent to which we unconsciously use the active or passive method. We all do it.

It seems to me that smarter people are better at concocting a story explaining to themselves (and others) what happened when these blindspots are pointed out and how they coped with them.

[Tyler9000]

The problem with equating intelligence with lack of cognitive bias is that such a claim assumes that the collective knowledge of a well-educated individual is inherently unbiased. Which is, of course, a ridiculous assumption.

We are what we eat. And what we are taught. And what we choose to believe. Quantity doesn't change that, especially when you refuse to eat (or read) anything you don't find appetizing.

[Ego]

We are what we eat. And what we are taught. And what we choose to believe. Quantity doesn't change that, especially when you refuse to eat (or read) anything you don't find appetizing.

That is really well put. I find it becomes work to read something I don't agree with.