"Highly intelligent" but...

[bonfireoftheverities]

It's quite common to read about someone who is said to be very intelligent yet still fell for genderwoo. How do you reconcile smart people saying and believing such stupid things?

Lots of "clever" people are completely clueless about their own biases and flawed assumptions. Simply put, they are not that clever.

Fully agree that lots of men don't see women as fully human. Think about how people of colour were talked about two hundred years ago. Or children. Or the working classes.

This is interesting.

I was going to suggest that there's a certain arrogance that comes with intelligence. If you know a lot and are usually right, you aren't used to being wrong and more importantly admitting you are wrong. That's something 'stupid people' do.

That point fits with the above about rationalising.

It's interesting seeing the LDs twisting things to try and rationalise their position and make out that women are still wrong rather than hold their hands up and go. 'Yeah fair enough, we neglected to consider women'.

Their arguments are utter bobbins but I think there's an element of almost trying to intimidate others with their reasoning so they shut up and the LDs get the last word in.

I have to say this insistence of 'im right and I must get my way' really was something that has jarred with me with regards to Brexit - they didn't know when was the appropriate time to back down and instead engaged in unpragmatic brinkmanship to the detriment of absolutely everyone. Because they HAD to be right and HAD to win.

This. I think it's when people have been caught up in the "this is kind because everyone I'm around says it's kind" it before they have actually thought it through logically. And then once you and your tribe are so vocal about how this is the way to be good/kind/progressive, and the other way is evil/bigoted, then how the hell does anyone get out?

Nb I know that people do, because I'm one of them, but I think for people whose identity is more tied up in people liking them then it's very difficult.

If you were to trace lines of argument from where 1980s middle-class activism (on racism, sexism et al) met 'Cultural Theory' in UK universities you'd see how ideas about Queer Theory, 'Subjectivity', postmodern possibilities, rhizomes, laughing medusas and so on, followed a trail of internal logic whereby existing boundaries and boring old categories could be kicked out because they're as uncool as your Mum and Dad. I was part of this minority-interest fun, but still can't quite see how it spread so widely outside certain subject-areas although it does coincide with the great uptake of students post 1992.

But, it's the spread and take-up of these ideas, sometimes half-understood, with all the original debates removed, in application to the real world via vocational or would-be vocational subjects, then to become embedded in institutions and management structures which has at least partly led to of the current situation.

Academics have been gently simmering in this for so many decades and generations that an unspoken agreement on categories, oppressions, language, 'progressiveness' and so on has simply become the new common-sense. It's become the orthodoxy in how to get on at work, how to get grant funding and how not to get into trouble. It's become belief. Student-customers don't really question it, having been taught it by new generations of academics who can't remember the old debates or contexts.

Universities don't prioritise critical thinking or debate in any area where they might be socially and financially punished for wrongthink but reassure themselves that all the ideas about categories and oppressions they buy into are just settled facts among their own class, so no questioning is needed. In my experience, academics don't have any special powers to get them out of stupid thinking and its consequences.

I’ve yet to see any of these ‘intelligent’ people come and make a robust argument here.

I don’t disagree with the premise. It’s interesting though how the number of trans-supporting doctors and lawyers, as well as academics, speaks volumes about the lack of academic curiosity and courage among these people. I’d love to understand why, but of course you’re not allowed to ask. Is it the power of DEI training?

I agree.

I've worked with some PhDs and other academics who couldn't find their own arse with two caravan mirrors and an instruction manual but anything about their topic and they are in their element.

One was yelling for some time about having lost a pencil on his desk. I went to his desk after he stormed off in a massive snit and it was right there, centre of the desk in bright red. I placed a white sheet of printer paper underneath the pencil for when he came back, he thanked me for giving him my pencil as someone pointed out to him I'd approached his desk after he left (I hadn't it was definitely his I don't chew wood as a habit).

OP I guess we can all be susceptible to believing stuff that we might ordinarily dismiss if it is presented the right way or as a slow creep. I must admit when someone told me the subject I studied and worked in was a belief and not a science I laughed until I realise they absolutely bought it. Also the pressure to conform can be enormous, which is why so many people have stayed silent on this.

"Smart is not necessarily multi dimensional. I work with academics who can do incredible things in their chosen domain, yet sometimes I do seriously worry about how they get home alone on public transport."

That did make me laugh @AlphabetBird I recognise this only too well!

I know someone who got a first in a science degree - but didn't know that penguin was a bird.

That was an eye opener.

To be fair, I had to think for a moment when it came up in conversation once😂

I have 2 smart friends who support it, one Is a fairly angry woman with an axe to grind who thinks supporting trans issues is somehow fighting against a conservative society. The second is open minded and genuinely thinks it’s a some kind of previously suppressed sexuality.

I don’t know why academics are coming in for criticism. They’re some of the people standing out against it with their jobs on the line.

I think certainly in Ireland it was many of the people involved in campaigning for the legalisation of abortion and gay marriage who just got behind it as the next liberal cause. Without realising, somehow, that it was eroding women’s rights and legal existence.

Conan Doyle had a son, brother and two nephews killed in the Boer and Great War. He got into spiritualism as he was desperate to believe he could make contact with the deceased; very sad. A lot of people were never quite the same after WWI particularly.

Because their need to seem cool or compassionate outweighs their intelligence? I also think that many people can be intelligent enough to hold professional jobs but don't actually think that critically and just take their cues from others in a rather unthinking way.

That is why we see so much belligerence in response to the SC ruling because these people don't want to be made to think nor can they accept that they might have been wrong because that call into question everything and exposes that they live life on a kind of intellectual autopilot, outsourcing their opinions, taste and so on.

I can totally see how to some people the whole "be kind" and "right side of history" rhetoric of the trans lobby looked like an easy win to these people, but I doubt any of them gave it any real thought. Look at all the companies that blindly went along with Stonewall.

Sadly there are many superficially functional but ultimately unthinking people in society, and many are just self interested cowards who bend whichever way the wind blows. That includes doctors, politicians, broadcasters, police, teachers and so on. Scary if you think about it.

Also, do not underestimate the scientific illiteracy and general innumeracy in this country. We've only had one PM with a science degree (Thatcher).

wow. I wonder how common this is?

This is a useful book:

https://davidrobson.me/books/the-intelligence-trap/

I think we're all susceptible to falling for fallacies. The only solution is to try and test your thinking regularly. The trouble with blind spots is that you don't know you have them. It's the unknown unknowns that can bite you in the bum.

Plus, echo chambers. Emotion based reasoning. Self righteousness.

Half of the population is of below average intelligence.

(I've googled to see if this means mean or median but I can't quite tell. Which probably illustrates the point. 😁)

I agree that we're being a bit scatter-gun about 'academics', HarpSnail. Obviously lots of individual academics are both intelligent, knowledgeable and wise.
Some areas of study seem to encourage the kind of environment in which genderwoo can flourish. Dare I say Cultural Studies?

Thank you! Yes, most of us academics don’t believe any of it but we can’t (and in some cases have been explicitly told by our managers not to) say anything. My experience of it is that students started bringing this up themselves during and after the Covid lockdowns, and that it came originally from US-dominated online youth culture on Tumblr, Discord etc.

There are definitely a few academics (not the majority, the minority in my experience) who do go along with it, for whatever reason (as I outlined in my post above); but they mostly don’t really actually believe in it and just go along with it to virtue-signal and look modish to the students. There are lots of stealth-GC academics in universities (even those who are parents of gendery kids). The most vocal pro-genderwoo ones in my university are young childless women and gay men who want to look down with what the undergrads think these days.

I was going to suggest that there's a certain arrogance that comes with intelligence. If you know a lot and are usually right, you aren't used to being wrong and more importantly admitting you are wrong. That's something 'stupid people' do.

I was going to say this their identity is being smart so fear or lack confidence to ask questions that may be stupid.

They haven't learnt the skill of asking without asking - just checking as others may be confused - or just not caring what others think. I've found if someone can't explain something simply often means their understandings not as good as they are trying to make out and there doing some blagging.

I think younger people - often femals just lack life experience and once they get that can easily see the flaws.

Also I think there a lack of interest - there's so much to know now that many go with well they are usually relibably or I tend to agree with them so - yep. I think it seen quite a lot in US politics and the uninted messaging on the left in other places.

I walked past a rally last weekend in city not to be LGBTQ+ friendly near Uni ca,pus and the speaker with US accent was going on only reason there was issue with transwomen in women space was fear of men - I said to DH yep well a subset you can't ID and only from their behavior often to late the murders and rapists and other sexual predators most of who are men - DH agreed with me and then american young woman went on it becuase these so call feminists are part of the patriarchy they are upholding it with this ruling - wtf - we left the area but I think the logic just corkscrewy because it's more cult/religion than logic - at least for some.

Yes, but there's also self justification fallacy.

I've seen friends who identify as The Good Guys recently defend that band who chanted 'kill your local MP' onstage, for example. This is not a good thing to chant. But these people think its okay, because they're on the same side. See also 'the only good Tory is a dead Tory', and various other things that are actually not alright to say.

If you're chanting for people to be killed, or dehumanising people, you're not doing The Good Thing. See also David Tennant wishing Kemi Badenoch 'didn't exist anymore', for example.

There are lots of stealth-GC academics in universities (even those who are parents of gendery kids). The most vocal pro-genderwoo ones in my university are young childless women and gay men who want to look down with what the undergrads think these days.

DH one I think he went with be kind then slowly wised up and now is stealth GC.

Actually, historians and people doing cultural studies are some of the very least likely - we’re all very familiar with historical phenomena and how ideological mindsets come about at different times and in different cultures! You’ll find the historians some of the most sceptical, especially historians of science and medicine, who work on this kind of thing all the time.

The ones in my university who are most prey to it are film & theatre studies, modern languages, some of the lit people (though some very much not), and sociology/politics. Plus a few well meaning scientists who don’t really understand what it’s all about but think they must say what the students approve of.