Can you be too intelligent?

Post Reply New Topic

Read this article online and thought it raised some interesting questions.

Can you be too intelligent

I also felt like CBT didn't work for me. It just seemed like a waste of time because I'm too analytical. I definately think I'm too analytical to be positive. I always think, but what about this and what about that? I feel like my brain hates me.

One cannot be too intelligent; there's always something new that you can learn. When it comes to learning something, it's not too few nor too much.
Your brain doesn't hate you. You just think about all the possibilities that could be available.

CPT is very effective for me because I, too, am analytical to a fault. I can look at my beliefs and fears and look at them from a rational perspective.

I ask myself, is this fear likely to happen? No? Then is there a way that I can plan a reaction to it and "store" that reaction in my reactionary database? The answer is almost always yes. Then once I check that box as "situation has a thorough and effective plan stored", I can let that fear diminish until the situation actually arises.

With beliefs, I look at my belief, then I look at evidence supporting and opposing it. I then decide how logically supported that belief is. If it is irrational, then I force myself to start dismissing it and to move towards a more realistic belief. If it is rational, then I maintain it.

It's not a lack of processing-based intelligence (IQ, or whatever you want to refer to it as). I am excellent at problem solving, but I can also assess logic and probability. Is it POSSIBLE that the car that has made the last three turns behind me is another rapist coming for me? Yes. It is LIKELY? No. All the same, I keep an eye and if a car follows me for a significant period of time, I'll drive up to and park at a police station so that they leave (had to actually do that once). I have that plan in place, but I don't let the thought become more than caution and progress to fear until it is relevant.

Maintaining an understanding of probability when looking at one's problems is essential, in my opinion, to effective CPT.

From the article:

"You could, of course, say that intelligence, properly understood, is a combination of wisdom, good judgment, logical dexterity and factual knowledge, and by definition you can't have too much of that. I'd like to agree, but I fear it is already too late to reclaim the word "intelligence" for this well-rounded cognitive amalgam. Intelligence has been broken down into small parts, and we can rely on each one to excess."

On this question I get lost in the definations. To me intelligence is the sum of all things (mental abilities). It is what seperates us from other animals, for example. But the article seems to say it is something else, closer to cognitive skills. But I have a hard time accepting that idea, which to me is like saying thinking without overall thought.

Anyway, the mind does not work with such narrow definations, but as a system with the other elements such as judgement, experience, insight. Problems can certainly occur when the mental system is not balanced and at least some of all the elements are present. But to say a certain element (ie cognative skill) is too great of itself, as in it surpasses some useful limit would take much more then the article offers to prove

Most people I know don't even know a simple question such as the population of Earth. To quote my cousin's girlfriend's answer, "124 million".

Intelligence.. people!

I've always said that intelligence is knowing stuff, but WISDOM is knowing how to apply intelligence in real life.

A lot of people are intelligent but lack wisdom.

I think the article is correct. Experience will teach you that knowing things doesn't mean you will be prepared for life because a lot of what will get you ahead in life isn't found in a textbook to be read. Rely too much on "brain smarts" and you don't go very far because you lack other just as important areas of thinking to deal with life.

Even when using the narrow definition of intelligence, I still don't think you can be too intelligent. You can lack wisdom or social skills to go along with the intelligence, but that's not a flaw of intelligence itself.

No, I don't think you can be "too intelligent". More precisely, I don't think there is any point where becoming more intelligent would lead you to make worse decisions. (Though I suppose it can make you more aware of how bad the world really is or how bad your specific situation is, which would make you feel worse.)

I'm not impressed with the article. It makes some bold claims, but fails to back them up. At least the author says that he's talking about "a very specific form" of intelligence, which he calls "cleverness". We're kind of playing with definitions here, but I'd say "intelligence" encompasses the ability to tell what's relevant and which problems matter. If someone is good at solving logical puzzles, but not good at applying rational thinking to real-life situations I would not call them "intelligent" in the usual sense.

A rationalisation is, by definition, wrong. If the person was sufficiently intelligent they could see the flaw in their reasoning. So the problem here is insufficient intelligence, not too much of it. Sure, if he had less intelligence he also might not have come up with the rationalisation, but that doesn't mean the problem was "too much". Rather, it's a case of "a little intelligence is a dangerous thing" - he happens to be at just the wrong level of intelligence to run into this particular problem.



That sounds like the start of an interesting argument, but unfortunately the article leaves it at that. Why doesn't it work in practice? Where theory doesn't translate into practice it's either a case of insufficient information or flawed reasoning. I can't see either of those being caused by too much intelligence.

part of the problem with "intelligence" is that different intelligences are appreciated in isolation. If you are an amazing physicist and can do calculus in your head you are certainly mathematically intelligent. But if you make 20K$ a year as a researcher and cant convince anyone that your talents are more equitable than that, you are socially unintelligent. If you stub your toe every time you walk past the doorway then you might be physically unintelligent i.e. not dexterous. Conversely you could be an Olympic gymnast who can't add 2 + 2 and be physically intelligent but not mathematically intelligent. Some people hit the jackpot and get multiple intelligences and others do fairly well with half-measures in each rather than a single focused intelligence.

I think there can be a case made for being too intelligent if the knowing of too much stuff gets in the way of using what you know. A good mechanic doesn't have to know everything there is to know about cars, about all the models made, all the options they could be bought with, how much they sold for, what all people use them for. A good mechanic needs to know how to go about fixing them, what it takes to get them running again. Intelligence is the mechanism for acquiring knowledge, but it is also the method of applying that knowledge to doing what needs done. Is it better to know six different ways go about fixing something if you can't decide which is the better one and the end result is that you don't use any of them?

Intelligence is the ability to take what you know, whether you know enough or not, and do what needs to be done. A hard drive on a computer can contain lots and lots of data, none of which does any good at all unless it is accessed and used. If it is never accessed, it may as well never exist at all.

Last edited by Scotsman on 28 Dec 2013, 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It always amazes me the things that people don't know that you think that should be common knowledge.
I always like those "man on the street" interviews where they ask people simple questions like "why are we celebrating the 4th of July?" or "Where is France?"

CBT relies on the suggestibility of person undergoing therapy. the therapist places a suggestion in the clients mind and then broadens the initial suggestion over numerous appointments. it is a simple trick.
if you have eyes to see and ears to hear, why would you not shake with anxiety. the world i see is absolute horror. wisdom comes when we accept this, look the revealed world in the eye and weep.

too many shrooms

As a biologist and data analyst, I was able to get over catastrophizing by simple amortizing possible outcomes. Amortization in this context is application of substantiable estimations of probability to chains of events. Thus, while all sorts of horrible things could happen to me due to any given act, fuller analysis of chains of events including probabilities of outcomes generally demonstrates that worst possible outcomes are so very unlikely as to be rational to ignore.

It has been my observation that people who wallow in negativity are actually irrationally refusing to be analytical. If they were fully analytical, they would realize that a rational analysis of most situations would suggest greater probabilities for relatively neutral outcomes than for disaster.

Constant negativity is not rational. Constant negativity is not analytical. It is irrational and emotional. However, since our society propagandizes that only "intuitive" people can be happy while "analytical" people MUST be miserable, it is easy to lie and retreat into a fake analytical persona. When I force myself to be fully logical about outcomes, including substantiable estimates of probability, it is very difficult to be relentlessly negative.

I had someone try to CBT me out of being autistic.
No, my communication difficulties are not just because of "anxiety", or "the wrong attitude", and they will not go away by "confidence" and "thinking positive". f**k you, person.