The Importance of Logic and Critical Thinking

[JackRiddler]

Thanks to General Patton bringing up this piece in the libertarian thread - it fits here perfectly.

http://www.psclipper.com/IntelligenceTraps.asp

Clipper Performance Solutions

Intelligence Traps

Highly intelligent people may turn out to be rather poor thinkers.


They may need as much, or more, training in thinking skills than, other people. This is an almost complete reversal of the notion that highly intelligent people will automatically be good thinkers.


1) A highly intelligent person can construct a rational and well-argued case for virtually any point of view. The more coherent this support for a particular point of view, the less the thinker sees any need actually to explore the situation. Such a person may then become trapped into a particular view simply because he can support it (see Hypothesis Traps).



2) Verbal fluency is often mistaken for thinking. An intelligent person learns this and is tempted to substitute one for the other.



3) The ego, self-image and peer status of a highly intelligent person are too often based on that intelligence. From this arises the need to be always right and clever.



4) The critical use of intelligence is always more immediately satisfying than the constructive use. To prove someone else wrong gives you instant achievement and superiority. To agree makes you seem superfluous and a sycophant. To put forward an idea puts you at the mercy of those on whom you depend for evaluation of the idea. Therefore, too many brilliant minds are trapped into this negative mode (because it is so alluring).



5) Highly intelligent minds often seem to prefer the certainty of reactive thinking (solving puzzles, sorting data) where a mass of material is placed before them and they are asked to react to it. This is called the “Everest effect” since the existence of a tough mountain is sufficient reason for the best climbers to react to it. In projective thinking, the thinker has to create the context, the concepts, and the objectives. The thinking has to be expansive and speculative. Through natural inclination or perhaps early training, the highly intelligent mind seems to prefer the reactive type of thinking. Real life more usually demands the projective type.



6) The sheer physical quickness of the highly intelligent mind leads it to jump to conclusions from only a few signals. The slower mind has to wait longer and take in more signals and may reach a more appropriate conclusion.


7) The highly intelligent mind seems to prefer – or is encouraged – to place a higher value on cleverness than on wisdom. This may be because cleverness is more demonstrable. It is also less dependent on experience (which is why physicists and mathematicians often make their “genius” contributions at an early age).

[tazmic]

7) The highly intelligent mind seems to prefer – or is encouraged – to place a higher value on cleverness than on wisdom. This may be because cleverness is more demonstrable. It is also less dependent on experience (which is why physicists and mathematicians often make their “genius” contributions at an early age).

I must be being thick. I mean, I need more signals.

Physicists and mathematicians often make their “genius” contributions at an early age because... ?

Because when they get older they are too distracted by wisdom to do good mathematics?

Because paradigm shifting inductive cleverness requiring experience is rarely called genius because it's less unexpected in older mathematicians but the young who stand out with displays of deductively cleverness tend to get called geniuses especially as we are encouraged to place a higher value on cleverness than on wisdom to the extent that we think inductive reasoning must be a weird thing called wisdom rather than something related to genius?

.....

Ahah! The author thinks that mathematics IS just deductive cleverness but missed out the word 'can' from their sentence:

"which is why physicists and mathematicians often can make their “genius” contributions at an early age"

That's better.

Except it's wrong. I thought it was common knowledge that mathematicians peak at around age 19, and then have to rely on experience to develop their intuition about what constitutes a worthwhile problem and a fruitful line of inquiry.