attempt to define the scope of stupidity - a useless idea, which is why the study of the human mind are dedicated, as a rule, the most brilliant examples of intelligence.Nevertheless, such a big difference between people is bound to cause problems.If the mind - an evolutionary advantage, then why are we not equally intelligent?Or, perhaps, slowpoke lives better?And why even the most intelligent people sometimes make stupid things?
«The Earth has limits human stupidity is infinite" - Gustave Flaubert wrote.It drove him crazy.In letters to the poet Louise Colet he tirelessly painted the dementia of his contemporaries.He saw the folly everywhere - and in sense of middle-class businessmen, academics and lectures.Even Voltaire did not escape his critical eye.Absorbed in his mania, Flaubert devoted the last years of his life compiling something like an encyclopedia of stupidity, consisting of several thousands of examples, but died before its completion, and some explain his early death (in 58 years) constant annoyance.
apparently now common measure intelligence - IQ - has nothing to do with the irrational, illogical behavior that led to the fury of Flaubert.You can be outstanding intellectual and at the same time desperately stupid.Did not solve the intellectuals were the cause of catastrophes in the history of mankind, would not they led to the global economic crisis?
idea that the mind and stupidity are at different ends of the scale of intelligence, appeared recently.For example, the Renaissance philosopher Erasmus felt stupid self-sufficient substance.Others saw it as a combination of vanity, obstinacy and imitation.Only in the middle of the XVIII century it became a synonym for mediocrity, says Dutch historian Mattheis van Boksel: "The bourgeoisie has gained momentum, and the new ideal was the reason.During the Enlightenment it believes that his fate you answer yourself. "
Today, knowing the man made to attribute a certain number - the result of tests on IQ.Despite the prevalence of this practice, scientists are not prepared to say that in reality these numbers mean.For example, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan (USA) believes that in this way, the ability of abstract thinking, "If your IQ is 120, you can easily cope with problems of this kind.100 If, you, too, right, but you spend more effort, but because you need extra motivation for this work.If 70, then do not even try. "Several studies have shown that IQ is correlated with academic performance in schools and universities, as well as to the promotion of the career ladder.
of IQ is influenced by many factors.About a third of this figure depends on the environment in which we grew up, that is, from nutrition, education, and so on. D. The share of genes of more than 40% of the difference between the two people.
These factors are reflected in the way the neurons are connected and the various areas of the brain, explains psychologist Jenny Ferrell at the University of the West of England.For example, a person with high intelligence faster "operative" memory, making it easy to find the link between the different ideas and selects an effective way to solve the problem.
The fact that not all people are smart professionals led to the assumption of the high price they have to pay for intelligence, otherwise everything would be geniuses.But what is the price?They suspect that smart people often suffer from depression and more prone to commit suicide, but there is no evidence of this.Only one study showed that men with high IQ often perished in the Second World War, but most likely, then played the role of other factors, unaccounted authors.
Gerald Crabtree of Stanford University (USA) defends another hypothesis.Over time, human civilization has freed from many problems which he had to deal with in the past and who were the driving force behind the evolution of the brain.Intelligence depends on the 2-5 thousand. Is constantly mutating genes.In the distant past, people with mutations, slows down the brain, did not survive and did not pass their genes descendants.Today, scientists say that society has become more cooperative, unsophisticated web browsers can use the successes of others and survive well.According to him, the people who lived in the year 1000 BC.e., were would now among the most lucid minds.
This theory is often called "idiokraticheskoy" - based on the movie, which is represented by perfectly safe for human future where smart just be useless.This nickname sounds ironic, because for all their popularity hypothesis lacks solid evidence.It is not possible to estimate the intelligence of our ancestors, and the average IQ level in recent years is growing - despite the predictions of the supporters of this theory, that the stupid people to have more and sooner or later humanity otupeet finally, emphasizes the psychologist Alan Baddeley from York University (UK).
In any case, like the theory of evolution of intelligence need radical rethinking in light of recent discoveries that have led many to question the presence of the other parties and the human mind apart from IQ.Critics have long said that IQ was untenable, for easy changes under the influence of various factors (dyslexia, education, culture)."Most of all, I failed miserably test for intelligence that would prepare me Indian XVIII century from Sioux" - notices Mr. Nisbett.In addition, people who scored in the IQ-tests, only 80 points, can still speak several languages, and even (in the case of a Briton) turn the complex financial fraud.The converse is also true: a high IQ does not guarantee that people will always behave rationally: some eminent physicists continue to insist that the climate does not change, in spite of all the scientific evidence.
It is this failure to weigh the pros and cons and make a decision so infuriated Flaubert.However, unlike the French novelist, many scientists avoid talking about his own stupidity, because unscientific term, said Mr. Baddeley.Nevertheless, the idea of Flaubert that of logical errors are not insured, even the most brilliant minds, has recently attracted more attention."The intellectual can be stupid," - cuts Dylan Evans, a British psychologist.
How can we explain this paradox?The answer is at the cognitive psychologist Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University (USA), winner of the Nobel Prize in economics for his work on human behavior.Normally, economists presume that humans possess an innate rationality and Mr. Kahneman and his colleague Amos Tversky have shown the opposite.By processing the information, our brain has access to two different systems.IQ tests only refer to one of them - the one that is involved in rational problem solving.But in everyday life the brain switch the default set in a completely different position, which implies intuition.
From an evolutionary point of view, this gives us a great advantage, allowing to cope with information overload.That's why we think of stereotypes, prejudice and dislike uncertainty (in this case, refers to the tendency to solve the problem first came to the mind is capable of, even though he may not be the most efficient).
But while heuristics sometimes really helps us understand the difficult situation, it also leads to serious mistakes if we treat it without proper scrutiny.Inability to see the mistake and not make it - that's the root of our stupidity."The brain is not a switch that would make a person stereotypically think only about restaurants, but not about other people, - says Ms. Ferrell.- This "muscle" has to train. "
As for IQ is nothing to do, have to come up with a different figure than engaged and Keith Stanovich of the University of Toronto (Canada).Its development called RQ (rationality quotient, ratio of rationality).
That's one of the questions on the test RQ: «Jack looks at Anna, but Anna is looking at George.Jack is married, and George - no.See whether an individual is married to unmarried? "You can answer" yes "," no "or" can not be determined. "Most choose the last answer for the simple reason that he was the first to come to mind.But you have to answer "yes."
RQ suitable for assessing a person's ability to calculate the probability of an event (risk intelligence).For example, we tend to overestimate their chances of winning the lottery, said Mr. Evans, and underestimate the possibility of divorce, to marry.Because of this, we can make the wrong decision and then half of my life wondering how it happened.
Where does the highest RQ?Mr. Stanovich concluded that, unlike IQ, this index is not related to genes or the environment in which you grew up.Most of all it depends on what is called metacognition (metacognition), that is, the ability to assess the validity of their own decisions.People with high RQ often choose the method that involves the development of self-awareness.For example, they take their intuitively generated by the response and consider its opposite, before coming to any conclusion.In other words, in solving the problem they seek as best we can know ourselves - what they really know, understand, can do.
But these can be put into a situation where they will not be able to master them."Circumstances dictate to us what to do," - emphasizes Ms. Ferrell.
course, you noticed that the most powerful distraction leads to an error - an emotion.Grief and anxiety load "operational" memory so that you could hardly discern the world around.Because such moments resources are limited, we have to rely on heuristics.That Ms. Ferrell explains the phenomenon of "stereotype threat» (stereotype threat), when, for example, representatives of national minorities is concerned that his behavior will reinforce prejudice against the majority of his group.
Perhaps nothing encourages stupidity more than the culture of behavior adopted by some companies and organizations.This conclusion Andre Spicer from the Cass Business School (UK) and Mats Alvesson from Lund University (Sweden), discovered that certain organizations (primarily commercial banks, PR-agencies and consulting firms) employ highly skilled professionals, but at the same time deprivetheir ability to express themselves on the field to which they were prepared.The researchers called this nonsense functional (functional stupidity).
example, reduces the ability of the corporate culture to risk assessment because the worker does not see the connection between what he does and the result of the work of the whole company, that is, it just is not able to evaluate himself.In addition, large organizations often operates on the principle "think?So, it does not work! ", So its employees grab the first-encountered solution, if only to avoid ambiguity.
catastrophic consequences of such a relationship.The researchers concluded that the US financial crisis is largely due to this practice."These people were incredible smart - says Mr. Spicer.- They knew the risks related securities, which are secured by mortgages and structured credit. "But, first, no one was responsible for the assessment of these risks, and secondly, attempt to express their concerns equated to manifest disloyal to a superior staff.The result was that the brightest minds leave logic at the door of the office.
This discovery confirms fears about the influence of Flaubert fools who had gathered in a large group.In one letter, he exclaimed: "Folly of Empire surpasses all stupidity.I do not played any of these any vile comedy? 'Rights and Mr. Boksel who said that nonsense is especially dangerous for people with high IQ, because they often have a great responsibility.
That's why, according to Mr. Stanovich, the financial sector has long needed a test of rationality.While he developed RQ-test is not able to give a clear number of similar IQ, because first it is necessary to compare the results of a very large number of people.However, the researchers found that this test itself promotes cautious attitude to their own intuition.
ended anyone work Flaubert?As long as the applicant can be considered the main library of the US Congress, which has decided to archive all the tweets in a row."Stupidity reigns me" - wrote Erasmus.
Dmitry Tselikov
Articles Source: compulenta.ru
