30 Jan 2024 — “Common sense is something that we all believe we possess, but rarely, if ever, are we forced to articulate which of our beliefs we consider ' ...
Healthy Childhood. Advice, research, and community outreach to support kids' mental, physical, and emotional health and explore tech's effects on well-being.
Common sense is usually the simplest and most direct account of a situation. It is the knowledge and experience which most people have, or should have.
If someone offers to sell you a piece of the Brooklyn Bridge and you decline, that's common sense, i.e., a sound practical judgement about everyday manners.
Common sense is a cognitive disposition that can be developed over time through education, life experience, and personal growth. Some say that highly intelligent people may lack common sense because they override it with their brain power. For example, they may think in situations where they should feel, or avoid the correct response because it doesn't seem rational. Others say that people who spend a lot of time by themselves may not learn what constitutes common sense because they don't have regular social interaction.
Life’s Hard & Controversial Questions ·
Quora · 1y
Why do some people lack common sense? - Quora
2 Jan 2023 — For example, someone with a learning disability may struggle to understand and apply practical knowledge and good judgment. Personal biases: Personal biases and preconceived notions can cloud judgment and lead to a lack of common sense. Difficulty applying abstract concepts: Some people may have difficulty applying abstract concepts and theories to real-world situations, which can lead to a lack of common sense. It is important to note that common sense is not a fixed trait and can be developed over time through education, life experience, and personal growth. interested in Bible truth. · 1y.
PubMed
why high IQ people tend to be deficient in common sense
4 Sept 2009 — In short, it has often been observed that high IQ types are lacking in 'common sense'--and especially when it comes to dealing with other human beings. General intelligence is not just a cognitive ability; it is also a cognitive disposition. So, the greater cognitive abilities of higher IQ tend also to be accompanied by a distinctive high IQ personality type including the trait of 'Openness to experience', 'enlightened' or progressive left-wing political values, and atheism.
advisorpedia.com
Where, Oh Where, Has Common Sense Gone? - Advisorpedia
Common sense requires social interaction. Common sense is usually connected to universal truths. If you don't have regular social interaction, you might not learn what constitutes common sense and how to use it. This is why very smart people who spend a lot of time by themselves might seem to lack common sense.
Barking Up The Wrong Tree
Why do smart people lack common sense? - Barking Up The Wrong Tree
Other reasons why some people may lack common sense include:
Learning disabilities: Difficulty understanding and applying practical knowledge and good judgment
Personal biases: Preconceived notions can cloud judgment
Difficulty applying abstract concepts: Inability to apply abstract concepts and theories to real-world situations
Fear of confronting the truth: Intimidation by facts
Influence by biases: Ignoring or dismissing facts
Generative AI is experimental.
Show more
Featured snippet from the web
The cognitively-stratified context of communicating almost-exclusively with others of similar intelligence, generates opinions and behaviours among the highest IQ people which are not just lacking in common sense but perversely wrong.4 Sept 2009
In other words, liberals and other intelligent people lack common sense because their general intelligence overrides it. They think in situations where they are ...
5 Jul 2023 — Common sense refers to the information people know to be true, which also means that it does not require mental processing.
Why do smart people lack common sense?
.
Yes, some smart people lack common sense. Why?
Intelligent people often override common sense with their considerable brain power — but this isn’t always a good thing.
Smart people think in situations where they should feel, like in relationships. They may avoid the correct response because it doesn’t seem rational when we all know that life isn’t always rational.
Intelligent people, however, have a tendency to overapply their analytical and logical reasoning abilities derived from their general intelligence incorrectly to such evolutionarily familiar domains and, as a result, get things wrong. In other words, liberals and other intelligent people lack common sense because their general intelligence overrides it. They think in situations where they are supposed to feel. In evolutionarily familiar domains such as interpersonal relationships, feeling usually leads to correct solutions whereas thinking does not.
This same tendency to rely on superior mental power also trips up smart people when the pressure is on. They’re more likely to choke under pressure. Being very smart can even hamper creativity.
Jonathan Haidt points to research showing that high IQ improves people’s ability to defend their own position but doesn’t have any effect on ability to better understand the other side’s position.
So smart people are better at arguing their own views but they’re not necessarily better at understanding where others are coming from.
Perkins found that IQ was by far the biggest predictor of how well people argued, but it predicted only the number of my-side arguments. Smart people make really good lawyers and press secretaries, but they are no better than others at finding reasons on the other side. Perkins concluded that “people invest their IQ in buttressing their own case rather than in exploring the entire issue more fully and evenhandedly.”
In previous editorials I have written about the absent-minded and socially-inept 'nutty professor' stereotype in science, and the phenomenon of 'psychological neoteny' whereby intelligent modern people (including scientists) decline to grow-up and instead remain in a state of perpetual novelty-seeking adolescence. These can be seen as specific examples of the general phenomenon of 'clever sillies' whereby intelligent people with high levels of technical ability are seen (by the majority of the rest of the population) as having foolish ideas and behaviours outside the realm of their professional expertise. In short, it has often been observed that high IQ types are lacking in 'common sense'--and especially when it comes to dealing with other human beings. General intelligence is not just a cognitive ability; it is also a cognitive disposition. So, the greater cognitive abilities of higher IQ tend also to be accompanied by a distinctive high IQ personality type including the trait of 'Openness to experience', 'enlightened' or progressive left-wing political values, and atheism. Drawing on the ideas of Kanazawa, my suggested explanation for this association between intelligence and personality is that an increasing relative level of IQ brings with it a tendency differentially to over-use general intelligence in problem-solving, and to over-ride those instinctive and spontaneous forms of evolved behaviour which could be termed common sense. Preferential use of abstract analysis is often useful when dealing with the many evolutionary novelties to be found in modernizing societies; but is not usually useful for dealing with social and psychological problems for which humans have evolved 'domain-specific' adaptive behaviours. And since evolved common sense usually produces the right answers in the social domain; this implies that, when it comes to solving social problems, the most intelligent people are more likely than those of average intelligence to have novel but silly ideas, and therefore to believe and behave maladaptively. I further suggest that this random silliness of the most intelligent people may be amplified to generate systematic wrongness when intellectuals are in addition 'advertising' their own high intelligence in the evolutionarily novel context of a modern IQ meritocracy. The cognitively-stratified context of communicating almost-exclusively with others of similar intelligence, generates opinions and behaviours among the highest IQ people which are not just lacking in common sense but perversely wrong. Hence the phenomenon of 'political correctness' (PC); whereby false and foolish ideas have come to dominate, and moralistically be enforced upon, the ruling elites of whole nations.
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.
... O funcionamento do sistema social dos países ocidentais define como parâmetros de rendimento fatores muito relacionados à quantidade de produção, adesão às normas e ao estilo que se pode chamar de "politicamente correto". Desta forma, este mesmo sistema social dá preferência às pessoas "conscienciosas e conformadas" aos muito "inteligentes, mas instáveis" segundo a crítica de Charlton [1] que usa o termo "clever sillies" 1 para descrevêlos. Charlton também observou que esta mesma tendência ocorria no meio científico e acadêmico no qual "inteligência e criatividade" vêm sido preteridos por "sociabilidade e perseverança" [2,3,4]. ...
... O Conselho Brasileiro para Superdotação (CONBRASD), vinculado aos mesmos profissionais, divulgou a seguinte nota em sua página na web: "Os sintomas comuns do TDAH (desatenção, impulsividade e hiperatividade), muitas vezes, levam a diagnosticar uma criança com Altas Habilidades/Superdotação como hiperativa equivocadamente" 2 . Entendem os mesmos, que existe uma superposição entre características inerentes à superdotação e alguns sintomas do TDAH, previsto na Teoria 1 Expressão idiomática que traduzimos como : espertos bobos (tradução do autor). 2 CONBRASD http://conbrasd.org/wp/?page_id=4188 ...
... Neste estudo a alta taxa de variabilidade anterior foi atribuída a três razões: fonte de informação utilizada, presença ou não de uma definição de comprometimento (ou prejuízo), e sistema de diagnóstico utilizado (CID-10 ou DSM-IV). Dois trabalhos recentes 1 Manual estatístico e diagnósticos de transtornos mentais (Tradução do autor). 2 Há também aqueles que, sem nenhuma evidência científica, acreditam que a frequência de diagnósticos de TDAH tem sido exagerada [23,25], enquanto especialistas brasileiros demonstram que o TDAH é ainda subtratado [26]. ...
... Greenspan and colleagues (2001) argued that people with lower intelligence are more likely to find themselves in situations wherein they could be described as gullible. In contrast, Charlton (2009) argued that people with higher cognitive ability are more likely to be gullible. Specifically, he suggested that people with higher IQs are more likely to overuse general intelligence to solve problems-overriding behaviors often considered common sense. ...
... As a result, they are more susceptible to being made a fool of. Neither Greenspan et al. (2001) nor Charlton (2009) empirically tested these assertions; hence, the present study aimed to determine whether there was a relationship between gullibility and cognitive ability. Specifically, we predicted a negative correlation between cognitive ability and gullibility scores. ...
... applications of cognitive ability which facilitate ulterior social goals). The model grew out of a critical commentary on Charlton (2009), who argued that those he termed 'clever sillies', use a combination of high g and Openness to Experience to construct 'politically correct' worldviews that are at variance to 'social intelligence' or 'common sense' (Charlton makes these terms synonymous). In response to this, Woodley (2010) offered an alternative hypothesis based on the following lines of reasoning: i) Social intelligence and general intelligence are positively related rather than uncorrelated. ...
... Dutton argues that Openness to Experience captures variance associated with moderately non-conforming thinking styles, which attract people to leftist beliefs in contemporary Western cultures. This is similar to Charlton's (2009) argument that Openness to Experience makes people more sensitive to evolutionarily novel and non-common sense beliefs. There are several problems with the construct Openness to Experience, which detract from the meaningfulness of this interpretation however. ...
... applications of cognitive ability which facilitate ulterior social goals). The model grew out of a critical commentary on Charlton (2009), who argued that those he termed 'clever sillies', use a combination of high g and Openness to Experience to construct 'politically correct' worldviews that are at variance to 'social intelligence' or 'common sense' (Charlton makes these terms synonymous). In response to this, Woodley (2010) offered an alternative hypothesis based on the following lines of reasoning: i) Social intelligence and general intelligence are positively related rather than uncorrelated. ...
... Dutton argues that Openness to Experience captures variance associated with moderately non-conforming thinking styles, which attract people to leftist beliefs in contemporary Western cultures. This is similar to Charlton's (2009) argument that Openness to Experience makes people more sensitive to evolutionarily novel and non-common sense beliefs. There are several problems with the construct Openness to Experience, which detract from the meaningfulness of this interpretation however. ...
... A controversial hypothesis [Charlton (2009). Clever sillies: Why high-IQ people tend to be deficient in common sense. ...
... In a recent Medical Hypotheses editorial, Bruce G. Charlton (2009) has proposed an intriguing albeit controversial hypothesis to account for why those with high general intelligence tend also to hold views on social phenomena that are best regarded as being 'silly', such as certain professionals who, despite exhibiting tremendous degrees of technical knowledge relevant to their domains of expertise, permit politics (typically of the egalitarian or leftist variety) to inform their understanding of social problems. Charlton considers manifestations of this behavior 'silly' in the sense that not only does it lead to counter-intuitive and 'uncommon' thinking on social phenomena, but that it is biologically maladaptive also as in the long run it is claimed to have a dysgenic impact on societies. ...
... Even assuming that adaptation is to be defined in the banal and culture-dependent terms of commonplace achievement (at school, work, etc.), conventional relationships, and longer lifespans, as it typically is in the peer-reviewed literature, the adaptive (or maladaptive) value of traits will vary as a function of context. This is widely discussed in relation to personality traits (e.g., Boyce, Wood, & Brown, 2010;Friedman, 2019;Petrides, Vernon, Schermer, & Veselka, 2011;Pettersson et al., 2014), but less so in relation to RADIX INTELLIGENCE 17 IQ, which is usually portrayed as some kind of adaptational panacea (e.g., Gottfredson, 1997; although see Charlton, 2009;Gignac & Starbuck, 2019;Karpinski et al., 2018). ...
... The theoretical and empirical differences between healthy and unhealthy studying in relation to study addiction were previously analysed in detail (Atroszko, 2013a(Atroszko, , 2015(Atroszko, , 2013bAtroszko and Atroszko, 2013;Atroszko et al., 2016aAtroszko et al., , 2015Atroszko et al., , 2016bGriffiths et al., 2018). Finally, there is empirical evidence that sophisticated though eventually non-rational subjective analyses of social phenomena seem to be entertained by individuals in particular high-IQ knowledge work sectors (Charlton, 2009;Dutton and van der Linden, 2015;Madison et al., 2017;Woodley, 2010). In science, this is related to introducing novelty rather than systematic investigation of phenomena in the collaborative elaboration of theoretical and methodological problems (Makel and Plucker, 2014;Nosek et al., 2012). ...
... предположение (т. н. clever sillies hypothesis, гипотеза об «умных дурачках») (Charlton, 2009, Woodley, 2010. В некоторых случаях обладатели высокого общего интеллекта демонстрируют алогичное с точки зрения обыденного сознания отношение к социальным феноменам, которое выражается в их необоснованно усложненном анализе, убежденном выражении экстремальной с точки зрения здравого смысла позиции, неумении интуитивно и спонтанно выбрать очевидно адаптивную форму поведения. ...
... An even stronger view is presented by Madison et al., who highlight scholarship on the clever sillieswhich presents a perspective suggesting just how extremely distorted "scholarly" conclusions can get. Much of that research suggests that social scientists who are obviously very intelligent and have extraordinary levels of knowledge and expertise express manifestly silly claims primarily to signal their intelligence (Charlton 2009;Dutton & van der Linden 2015). Because manifestly silly ideas are often presented in high-falutin and sophisticated-sounding language, they can appear rigorous and (to paraphrase Stephen Colbert) high in "scientificiness" and, therefore, can create an illusion of plausibility and validity. ...
... As such, they are blinded to the logical inconsistency of their position. In this regard, Dutton and Van der Linden (2015) have developed Charlton's (2009) concept of the 'clever silly' academic. Dutton and Van der Linden (2015, p.58) argue that: ...
... One plausible explanation is that at this level of cognitive development, the most educated or intelligent sections of the population are able to construct reasons for those irrational beliefs that satisfy their emotional needs, are socially desirable, or promote their career ambitions. This phenomenon is known as the "clever sillies" hypothesis (Charlton, 2009;Woodley, 2010). ...
... One plausible explanation is that at this level of cognitive development, the most educated or intelligent sections of the population are able to construct reasons for those irrational beliefs that satisfy their emotional needs, are socially desirable, or promote their career ambitions. This phenomenon is known as the "clever sillies" hypothesis (Charlton, 2009;Woodley, 2010). ...
... An even stronger view is presented by Madison et al., who highlight scholarship on the clever sillieswhich presents a perspective suggesting just how extremely distorted "scholarly" conclusions can get. Much of that research suggests that social scientists who are obviously very intelligent and have extraordinary levels of knowledge and expertise express manifestly silly claims primarily to signal their intelligence (Charlton 2009;Dutton & van der Linden 2015). Because manifestly silly ideas are often presented in high-falutin and sophisticated-sounding language, they can appear rigorous and (to paraphrase Stephen Colbert) high in "scientificiness" and, therefore, can create an illusion of plausibility and validity. ...
... Another form of pathologically altruistic behavior that Oakley (2013) documents is self-righteousness, which may be increasing, consistent with secular trend data indicating elevated levels of self-regarding behavior among Western populations (sometimes called the narcissism epidemic; Twenge and Campbell 2009). This sort of behavior constitutes a key component of the clever silly phenomenon in which the embrace of counterfactual beliefs is used to leverage social status via virtue signaling (e.g., the conflation of moral equality among individuals, sexes, and populations with biological equality) (Dutton and van der Linden 2015;Charlton 2009;Woodley 2010). There may be a greater number of influential persons inclined to disseminate such beliefs, in that the prevalence of phenotypes disposed toward egoistic behaviors may have increased in Western populations (per Twenge and coworkers' research), and because egoists, specifically Machiavellians and narcissists, appear advantaged in the acquisition of elite societal stations (Spurk et al. 2015). ...
... He proposes the possibility that "smart people can be stupid just because they are smart" (p18), as they can detach from reality when using their intellectual abilities to create complex, albeit mistaken arguments to protect their own theories and opinions. In a more elaborate hypothesis, Charlton (2009a) introduces the model of "clever sillies", individuals with high-IQ having a tendency toward counter-intuitive thoughts and a lack of "common sense". Here, common sense is defined as being able to behave adaptively when dealing with basic human situations such as understanding, manipulating and predicting the behavior of others. ...
... The question of whether liberals or conservatives have higher average intelligence is contentious because of the most likely mistaken belief (Charlton, 2009;Woodley, 2010) that more intelligent people will generally adopt the "better" ideological value system. The results reported in Table 3 indicate that there is only a slight tendency for liberals to score higher than conservatives. ...
... A typical example of the former one is to view common sense as practical intelligence (street smart) [13]. In this perspective common sense is opposed to "academic intelligence," "book smart [13] (p.913) or "clever silliness" [25] (p.867). Those researchers made a conjecture that highly intelligent or well-educated people tend to be unable to solve practical problems due to lack of common sense or realworld experience (e.g. ...
... (As we will see below, the slightly lower psychoticism of academics, compared to artists, would predict better performance in formal education, something generally necessary to become an accepted academic.) We will examine the possibility that clever silly originators are close to the artistic genius type by looking at the originators of a number of ideologies, and as Charlton (2009) focused on Political Correctness we will begin with this. Political Correctness is understood to combine Marxism, Gramsci's "March through the institutions," cultural relativism, and aspects of postmodernism ( Ellis, 2004). ...
... One plausible explanation is that at this level of cognitive development, the most educated or intelligent sections of the population are able to construct reasons for those irrational beliefs that satisfy their emotional needs, are socially desirable, or promote their career ambitions. This phenomenon is known as the "clever sillies" hypothesis (Charlton, 2009;Woodley, 2010). ...
... This would imply that the period was marked by high prosperity and low inequality and it was the generation that adopted post-materialist values which presided over a rise in in- come inequality, despite maturing in a period of relative income equality. This being so, it might be suggested that political correctness (see Charlton, 2009), and other such egalitarian ideologies, are simply means of permitting their leading advocates to gain social status while fooling these advocates' followers into believing that equality is being pursued when, at least in an economic sense, it is not. So the environmentalist theory behind the rise of post-materialist thinking can be questioned on these grounds as well. ...
No comments:
Post a Comment