The originators of clever-silly ideas – Nietzsche, Marx, Franz Boas – are psychologically very different. This allows the academic to play for status because, even if his idea is wrong, he shows the intelligence to entertain a complex, relatively novel idea and the intelligence to originally critique it but this is balanced with all the benefits of essentially conforming and showing that he is cooperative. Accordingly, the best course of action is to accept the overly complex, dogmatic ideology and to critique it slightly. Advocating the most logical position does not really allow them to do this, as the most logical idea is often the simplest idea and the truth will almost certainly question aspects of the dominant ideology. In order to be successful academics the followers must exhibit their intelligence. These ideas are least influential in hard science because scientists are higher on Asperger’s traits, more mentally stable, and have much higher IQs (average physics PhD = 150) meaning they are less susceptible to fallacious arguments. However, these traits also mean that you don’t want to cause offence, have difficulty thinking outside the box, and fear social ostracism. They accept the dominant ideology once it is relatively widely adhered to, because academic success is predicted by three key personality traits: impulse control, cooperativeness and empathy, as well as mild mental instability (which predicts, for example, worrying enough to revise for an exam). But there are two kinds of clever-silly academic: the originators and the followers. The modal academic disposition renders these ideas intensely attractive. My research with Dimitri van der Linden, recently published in the journal Intelligence, shows that academics are actually more likely than the general population to fervently advocate the fashionable “clever silly” ideology. After all, PhD holders have an average IQ of 123. You would think that academics would be the first to dismiss systems of thought based on unprovable or obviously wrong dogmas. It is a “clever silly” idea, one based around an unprovable or disproven dogma which nevertheless permits you to showcase your intelligence. Postmodernism, in being relatively novel and claiming there’s no truth, can make you appear deeply philosophical. These are desirable qualities that allow you to play for or maintain status.īut conservative nationalism, in the West of 2015, doesn’t make you seem original and so is not especially fashionable. Postmodernism, arguing that the disadvantaged are somehow enlightened and that a better world can be created because all differences are cultural, makes you seem altruistic and positive. Insecure members of the elite will outdo each other in how fervently they accept this Noble Lie or “dogma” because their acceptance of it makes them seem attractive and thus secures a following.įar-right nationalism, insisting that “we are superior,” means you’re loyal and fearless. The Noble Lie, claimed Socrates, was a falsehood perpetuated to keep the elite in power.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |