I’d heard about Mensa many years ago, and for many years I was kind of interested in it. Every once in a while I’d see “intelligence quizzes,” which were supposed to get one interested in the group (it worked). Mensa requires an IQ test, and a minimum score, to join. Nevertheless, I looked at some samples of the discussions members had on topics related to societal issues, though, and it all looked pretty mundane. It wasn’t the intelligent discussion I expected, which was surprising. Later, I found out I’m below their entrance threshold. Based on taking a peek, though, I don’t feel like I’m missing anything.
I came upon the following video by Stefan Molyneux recently (it was made in 2012), and it seems to explain what I’ve been seeing generally for more than ten years in the same sort of societal discussions (though I can’t say what the IQ level of the participants was). I’ve frequently run into people who seem to have some proactive mental ability, and yet what they come out with when thinking about the society they live in is way below par. I see it on Quora all the time. Most of the answers to political questions are the dregs of the site–really bad. I’ve had no explanation for this inconsistency, other than perhaps certain people with less than stellar intelligence are drawn to the political questions, until I saw this analysis. Molyneux said it’s the result of a kind of cognitive abuse.
The reason I’m bothering with this at all is seeing what he described play out has bothered me for many years, though I’ve assumed it’s due to popular ignorance. It’s part of what’s driven my desire to get into education, though now I feel I have to be more humble about whether that’s really a good answer to this.
I found his rational explanation for this confusing. I’ve needed to listen to it a few times, and take notes. I’ll attempt to summarize.
This is a generalization, but the point is to apply it to people who are more intelligent than average, and refuse to allow inquiry into their beliefs about society:
Children who are in the “gifted” categories of IQ are told a certain moral message when they’re young, about how they are to behave. However, when those same children try to apply that morality to their parents, and the adults around them–in other words, demand consistency–they are punished, humiliated, and/or shamed for it. They eventually figure out that morality has been used to control them, not teach them. (This gave me the thought, based on other material by Molyneux, that perhaps this is one reason atheism is so prevalent among this IQ category. Rather than morality being a tool to uplift people to a higher state of being, it’s seen purely as a cynical means of control, which they understandably reject.) As soon as they try to treat morality as morality, in other words, as a universal set of rules by which everyone in their society is governed, they are attacked as immoral, uncaring, brutish, wrong, and are slandered. This is traumatic to a young mind trying to make sense of their world.
The contradiction they encounter is they’re told they’re evil for not following these rules as a child, and then they’re told they’re evil for attempting to apply those same rules to other adults when they grow up. They are punished for attempting to tell the truth, even though they were told when they were young that telling the truth is a virtue (and that lying is evil). If they attempt to tell the truth about their society, they are punished by the same adults who cared for them.
The image he paints is, to me, analogous to Pavlov’s dog, where all of its attempts to follow its instincts in a productive way are punished, leading to it quivering in a corner, confused, afraid, and despondent, unable to respond at all in the presence of food. In this case, all attempts to apply a moral code consistently are punished, leading to a disabled sense of social morality, and a rejection of inquiry into this battered belief system, in an attempt to protect the wound.
Molyneux comes to an ugly truth of this situation. This inability to question one’s societal beliefs is the product of a master-slave society: In slave societies, rules are applied to the slaves that are not applied to the masters. They operate by a different set of rules. Morality that is dispensed to the ignorant is used as a cynical cover for control. Those subjected to this inconsistent reality deal with it by trying their best to not look at it. Instead of pushing through the shaming, and demanding consistency, risking the rejection that entails from the society in which they grew up, they blindly accept the master-slave dichotomy, and say, “That’s just the way it is.” Those who question it are attacked by these same people, because engaging in that leads them back to the pain they suffered when they did that themselves.
He also addressed a psychological phenomenon called “projection.” He said,
… they must take the horrors of their own soul and project them upon the naive and honest questioner. Every term that is used as an attack against you for engaging in these conversations is an apt and deeply known description of their own souls, or what’s left of them.
I also found this summary video helpful in understanding motivated reasoning, why we’re wired to reject rational thought, and evidence, and to prefer beliefs that are inculcated and reinforced through our social groups, and their authority figures.
Molyneux sort of addressed the evolutionary reasons for it, but I have liked Jonathan Haidt’s explanation for it better, since he gets into the group dynamic of shared beliefs, and justifies them, saying that they played some role in the survival of our species, up until recently: Those who had this group-belief trait lived to reproduce. Those who did not died out. That isn’t to say that it’s essential to our survival today, but that it deserves our respectful treatment, since it was a trait that got what we are here.
What’s also interesting is that Molyneux relates the trait of motivated reasoning to the practice of science, quoting Max Planck (I’ve heard scientists talk about this) in saying that science really only advances when the older generation of scientists dies. This creates room for other ideas, supported by evidence, and critical analysis, to flourish, perhaps setting a new paradigm. If so, it becomes a new sort of orthodoxy in a scientific discipline for another generation or so, until it (the orthodoxy), too, dies away with the scientists who came up with it, repeating the cycle.