I think my favorite movie of all time is Forrest Gump. This, despite the fact that there are things that I hate about the movie. (For example, I think it would much more powerful if the athletic parts were realistic - not such a big change, he can still be good! My rule of thumb for a good movie: never ask for willing suspension of disbelief more than once.) But Forrest Gump is a celebration of the triumph of wisdom over intelligence, and though of course its events are exaggerated for effect (often comic), the fundamental message is one I agree with fully. Forrest Gump is a decent guy, with an IQ of 80, who succeeds in life by following his mother's wisdom. The movie contrasts Gump's life with that of his childhood friend, who has at least normal intelligence, but no who gets carried away by every passing fad, and ends up dying of a mysterious disease (AIDS, we presume).
Last week, I read this from Razib at Gene Expression (emphasis his):
Literacy and institutions devoted to intellectual pursuits2 bind together transcommunity information networks and have resulted in the rise of Civilization as we know it, but, these same forces often have an acidic impact on common sense notions of decency and proportionality mediated by insitutions and cognitive states shaped by our EEA. The "intellectual" is profoundly unnatural, and the notion that one would give up one's life so that someone on the other side of the world would eventually profess the same set of axioms about some theological or metaphysical construct likely seems bizarre to most people because it is rather bizarre.
I think Razib is saying here that it's in the nature of intellectuals to get carried away by their own beliefs. And while the existence of communication networks foster the advance (scientific, technological and ideological) to which we owe our development, it also serves to isolate intellectuals in an environment devoid of the normal checks and balances.
Is this why so many smart people are so dumb? I do think it's at least part of the answer (my previous ruminations here, here and here). I was once accused rather forcefully of being smart about books, but not about life. While in this case my accuser was talking about the US drug culture, which I still know little about (part of a little misadventure in which I tried, and failed, to help a sweet and highly intelligent kid from the other side of the tracks - I was thanked for it many years later), I have often wondered at how different I am from "normal people" - people who just want to have a good time with friends and family, and live life by the conventional wisdom.
The conventional wisdom - I have developed an unnatural appreciation for it over the years. Unnatural, that is, for me. I am constitutionally unable to believe something that doesn't make sense to me, no matter how stridently or universally advocated by others. Call it arrogance, or stubbornness - I have been called both, though neither make sense to me: How is it that people expect me to agree with them when I don't? In any case, it is what I am. However, I have realized, that, with some application, I can understand the logic behind the conventional wisdom (at least, the conventional wisdom of my society), and often even agree with it. Truth is more subtle than even the most intelligent minds, and the wisdom handed down by tradition has stood the test of time.
Which brings me to new idea (for me), or maybe a new angle on an old one: Could it be that a traditional religion can act as a counterweight to the bizarre behavior of intellectuals? Can it help to keep the individual's feet on the ground, while letting his mind soar? So much of intellectual life is self-destructive, while tradition, by its very nature, cannot be (if it cannot be passed down, it's not a tradition). Is tradition the future of the intellect?
Posted by David Boxenhorn at November 28, 2004 10:04 PMCould it be that a traditional religion can act as a counterweight to the bizarre behavior of intellectuals?
emphasis on the *traditional* remember, religion can be warped by intellectuals into really weird angles and conformations. new religions (like early christianity) are by their nature disruptive of the established order and ways. even established old religions can be distorted out of recongition by intellectual circumlocutions around ineffable truths.
let me give an example of how a un-traditional religion might cause problems: african culture often promotes polygyny. christian religion generally promotes monogamy. how do african christian men square the circle? they live officially monogamous lives with one wive but keep multiple girlfriends. this has, i believe, a negative effect on sexual networks since de facto secondary and tertiary wives need other men to chip in and support them. traditional african religious customs have no problem with polgyny so wealthy men can have several wives under one roof (so sexual access is not widely distributed). now, i know many african christians do have multiple wives, but the tension between the new 'modern' religion and the traditional culture causes problems.
we do have a control here: islam allows plural marriage, and the difference between HIV rates in mozambique between christians and muslims is very high. in fact, this has been observed through africa, muslim countries have rather low HIV rates. some, but not all, of this is due to circumcision (many christian groups in africa practice circumcision).
Posted by: razib at November 28, 2004 10:23 PM PermalinkThanks, Razib. Interesting stuff. Perhaps a better example (since I was thinking specifically of intellectuals) are terrorists, as you pointed out in your post. They are drawn primarily from the well-to-do and well-educated, and they practice a radical new form of their religion.
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at November 28, 2004 10:47 PM Permalinkwell, one argument that some catholics make is that the reason you need a church, something lacking in islam or protestantism, is to restrain elite and popular passions.
Posted by: razib at November 28, 2004 11:22 PM PermalinkI think you're right. But obviously intellectuals are not going to join religions because they promise to restrain them, and they won't get the idea that being grounded actually helps a mind to soar higher. I think we need a new wave of intellectual arguments for religion; reasons for opening one's mind and exposing oneself to it. Once that happens, the rest often falls into place.
I think there are internal contradictions in the intellectual mindset, that these can be exposed, and religion revealed to be more rational anyway. I also think the reason this tends not to happen is the "can of worms" effect (a good version! can't think of a more positive-sounding metaphor) whereby acknowledging one truth leads to the irresistible acknowledgemend of another 613 plus, thereby dramatically changing many things in a person's life. People somehow sense this coming, and put up barriers against it in advance, or something.
Great post by the way. I very much enjoy your blog.
Posted by: Alice at November 29, 2004 12:46 AM PermalinkRazib: I think that is right, but at the price of diversity. I value diversity enough that I'm willing to put up with an occasional jump off the deep end.
Alice: Thanks for your kind words. Note that engineers (and programmers like myself) are not usually considered intellectuals: They know that no matter how much they've worked on the theory (or design), the first time they try to put it into practice it won't work. Sometimes this means that their theory is wrong, for some reason that they had overlooked, and sometimes it means that while right, there are details which change the meaning of their theory with respect to the real world. The axiom of all programmers: If it isn't tested, it doesn't work. In other words: Reality is more complex and subtle than the best thinkers.
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at November 29, 2004 09:51 AM Permalink