LJWorld.com / "Is being smart better?" by Dangerous Ideas

Blogs home Dangerous Ideas

Is being smart better?

The thread on my last post has veered of into an interesting area-namely the ability of animals to learn. Coincidentally two articles have appeared in the New York Times talking about this very issue. The first one by Carl Zimmer looks at the question of learning by turning the way we normally think of learning on its head. Namely, if learning is so great then how come more organisms aren't so smart. The article notes that even simple animals do have the ability to learn in limited contexts. Certainly fish can be conditioned as this video shows:

Thanks Mutidisciplinary for the heads up!

But often times this learning is very context specific and often very smart animals have blind spots. For instance, as any dog trainer knows, dogs have a difficult time grasping that they should try to wrap themselves around trees while being walked on leash.

Zimmer notes that experiments done to select for fruit flies better able to learn is possible in a laboratory situation but the larvae have difficulty competing with their not so smart competitors. So learning has costs aside from the fact that unlike instinct, learning takes time. Plus there is a cost in terms of maintaining bigger flexible brains as opposed to smaller hardwired brains suited for instinctive behavior.

Of course some people seem to have big inflexible brains but that is another matter that takes me to the second Nytimes article.

This article, Why Superstition is Logical by John Tierney looks at a question I have always wondered about. Namely if rationality is so great how come humans aren't more rational? The article addresses our reluctance to tempt fate even symbolically. So we might wear a team shirt to a game thinking that if we don't the team might loose. Or we might go out of our way to carry an umbrella when the chance of rain is slight because we just know if we don't bring that umbrella it's our fault that it rained.

I was surprised at findings that at least some students think that if they don't do the readings they are less likely to get called on in class. This explains a lot about some of my classes but the system only works if at least some of the students do the readings.

Tierney notes:

"This reflexive thinking may be irrational, but there’s a logic in the way the brain makes this instant calculation of probability. An outcome that’s instantly accessible — rain — seems more likely than an outcome that isn’t accessible. And negative images tend to be more vivid and accessible. We’re more likely to remember the time we got drenched than the many days we stayed dry."

So from the point of view of how our nervous system works, irrational behaviors have a certain logic and if they are not too costly may actually be maintained and maybe spread. Further complex sets of irrational behaviors may also spread if they have some real or perceived advantage and I am sure my readers can think of just some sets of irrational behaviors.

Are there examples in humans where Smart isn't so good? Aside from the stereotypical tortured genius..maybe. In another coincidence a third NY times article in the blog Freakonomics reviews work suggesting that conservatives are generally happier than liberals.

The article doesn't address why this is generally the case but an article over at Live Science digs a bit deeper and notes that conservatives score higher on questions related to the ability to make rationalizations to explain away inequalities. Hmmm maybe we can generalize this to include rationalizing alway uncomfortable findings such as evolution happens. So I guess what conservatives tend to do-not all I know so don't jump all over me about that please- is a version of that adage "Don't Worry Be happy." Of course many liberals do their own rationalization things too so I am trying to be non partisan here.

And again in the short run of our personal existence that maybe well prove to be a good strategy...perhaps even rational, but from the long term survival of our civilization and the uncomfortable long term choices we need to make as a civilization perhaps not so rational.

Of course non of this applies to me since I am super smart with no problems, and completely rational at all times and if you believe that then I have a very nice structure to sell you with a great view of the Kaw.

Posted to: Citizen Journalism Academy, Education, Faith, Technology, The Sciences

By Paul Decelles

May 8, 2008

Dangerous Ideas

From the Citizen Journalism Academy

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

8 May 2008 at 9:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

lol.
I will go read the links when I have more energy..looks like I'm going to enjoy it.

The dog leash thing.
I've seen dogs on chains that know they get wrapped up on the tiedown screw, so they cut across to avoid doing so.
(Yeah, 1st time I saw it my brain eyes and mouth popped open!)
And I have seen dogs get wrapped around, but then know they have to go the other way to unwrap themselves. it becomes a game to them. Like a kid hitting a tether ball to see it wrap the pole..over and over.

I have wondered if I have an “extreme” case of the brain activity that you mention. Any negative things sears into mine. I mean, people saying rude things as a child in school, teacher failing to do something, wrong this, ouchy that..all of it. Or I should say “way too much of it”. It's all hanging out in there, lurking.

As though the negative thoughts are waiting for their chance to get revenge..wow, I just thought of that. Revenge, succeed the next time, improve, eventually prove some issue.
Does this have something with the brain's need to be “correct”?

I have wondered if higher IQ increases the ratio of negative memories over positive ones.
The amount we learn from experiences certainly protects us, and the smarter the brain, the greater the need for input..so, does the brain sap up more negative when the positive isn't stimulating enough?
9 May 2008 at 4:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Multi, whether the brain with the higher IQ saps up more negative if there is not enough positive or not, please remember that the brain's positive and/or negative memories can be changed. Perhaps a better way of putting it is the owner of the brain has the “choice” to look at any memory as negative or positive.

I will be posting a game soon that I am hoping will help with things such as this - it will be called the, “Why This Is Better Than That Game”. It can really change attitudes, but it has to be played daily for a month. Start thinking about your commitment levet! :)
9 May 2008 at 4:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Great! I will look forward to it Ronda!
9 May 2008 at 4:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says…

“does the brain sap up more negative when the positive isn't stimulating enough?” - mulitdisciplined

There is no such thing as “positve” or “negative”, it is an interpretation of the brain to label things as such. “Fear” comes from the anxiety inherent in being in doubt. The more one person knows, the more doubt there is, as there are more variables, (to create anxiety), as to what can happen in the future. (once we learn about death, we become scared of our own death). If we don't have much information to process, (aka we don't have as many variables to consider), the amount of doubt is less. This is why religious people refuse to learn the realities of science because it contradicts and brings anxiety to their reality. That being said, for modern man to accept his position in the universe, he/she must accept the fear that knowledge can bring. We must stare down our inevitable doom and create a world that we can be proud of and one which we are ulimately resonsible for.
9 May 2008 at 5:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

I couldn't disagree more - the more we know the less doubt we have - not the reverse. You say fear comes from the anxiety of being in doubt. Knowledge does not equate with doubt. I think the more you know about anything the less likely you would be to fear it.

Most of the very religious people I know are much less frightened by death - may not mean they”know”more, but in their minds they have an answer.
9 May 2008 at 5:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

An additional note would be to not think about whether “being smart is better”, but about the topic of “emotional intelligence”. As we know there are extremely intelligent people who may be unhappy because of their emotional intelligence - or problem there in.
9 May 2008 at 6:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says…

“Most of the very religious people I know are much less frightened by death - may not mean they”know”more, but in their minds they have an answer.” - justbegintowrite

Highly religious people think that they are going to heaven when they die. This is a lack of information, their lack of knowledge concerning physics and biology allow them to believe their life will extend beyond their body. The rational mind doesn't create heaven, the irrational, or imagination part of it does. As I said above, the more doubt, the more fear. The more you know, the more there is to doubt. While knowledge does close the door on certain fears, (aka witches, superstition, hell), it opens the door for others, (aka corrupt politicians, global warming, sun-explosion etc.) The end of the earth is much scarier than the boogey-man.
9 May 2008 at 8:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

The day I learned the aquifer was in peril..I pretty much figured we were goners. So I don't get all upset about nucs,coal plants, teflon, pesticides, global warming vs not global warming.

I believe my brain/life experience at the time (long ago) was just at the opportune time to see the uselessness of our efforts as humans.
I don't intend to belittle anyone by that, but seriously, just how much do you care about the life of your great great great grandparents?
They were so important, that most of us don't know their names or what they did during their many years.

After all, we are just a bunch of larger ants on a big planet.
Smart or not smart, life is going to smack us around.

The Garrison Keillor story talks of this. The big trouble that's going to smack everyone sooner or later. I enjoyed that. Especially the part about wheelchairs/airplanes/who's pushing at the end.
9 May 2008 at 9:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

Check this out..I thought I was bad…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1940420/…
9 May 2008 at 10:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…

anxiousatheist: I side with Ronda on this one. There are many highly educated folks out there who still believe they're going to heaven. In psychology, they call this cognitive dissonance. Most people deal with it by either trying to ignore the disconnect completely or they try to rationalize within the system that has created the dissonance. Some are successful, and some are not. Those who fail are the aspiring biologists who became chemistry and physics professors, failing to reconcile biological concepts with their systems, or conversely, that married former Catholic priest.

As for Paul's article, I recently read a chapter by Senghas, Senghas, and Pyers (linguists) in a 2005 edited volume that related the development of Nicaraguan Sign Language. From start to finish, it took 20 years or less for the language to become a formal language. Creole languages are languages formed when someone makes a pidgin (non-grammatical combination of two languages usually developed for trade relationships) grammatical. My linguistics professor said that “language is something that has survived a four-year old.” A creole has been argued to develop within a single generation.

In terms of culture and cultural repertoire, which I think is what your post is really getting at in terms of transmission of behaviors (through my anthropological perspective anyway). I personally think that biological evolutionary theories can be applied directly to culture and culture change, since culture is an adaptive mechanism with a major, uniquely human component.