The Irrational Side?

[Runt]

I am finding that statement extremely hard to accept. Is it not 'irrational' for a girl and boy to have unprotected sex ? If both had their 'rational' hats on, they would realize just how much danger they are putting themselves in, by the act (ie Pregnancy, danger of contracting STD's)..............

more debatable and definitely 'murky', but would it be rational for a human who is trying to commit suicide by drowning, to deny the impulse to breathe ? - and yet, we can't.

There are so many 'inherrent inbuilt reflexes' that, in my view, are irrational hard wired into us. Do you still disagree?

In the example of the 'sex' example given above, as you and I both know, it doesn't seem to matter how often you get the message accross to youngsters of the inherrent dangers of sex, that they will still indulge. That would further indicate that some irationality cannot be unlearned.
; or at the very least, can only be unlearned through lengthy periods of hard disciplining.

I agree that humans are, at times, irrational. However, I think we behave rationally far more often than we behave irrationally. I think many of our daily activities---even small things that at first glance we don't seem to think about---involve rational decisions. For example... I am sitting here on my laptop, talking to you at 2:11 in the morning. I don't feel tired yet, but I rationalized that this is because I've grown accustomed to staying up late these last few nights. At about 2am, I thought briefly about going to bed despite the fact that I am not tired, rationalizing that if I DIDN'T go to bed, I was going certainly going to feel tired tomorrow. Then I rationalized some more, and decided that because my body requires either 4, 5, 8, or 9 hours of sleep to feel well rested in the morning (based on my sleep patterns), I could therefore stay up until 2:30 am, get into bed, have a good 1/2 hour to fall asleep, and still get the maximum number of hours of sleep that leaves me feeling rested the next day. Thus, I finally made a rational decision; to log off the computer and go to bed at 2:30. This entire thought process only took about 1/2 a second; however rational thinking and a corresponding rational decision did occur---even for a small decision like when to get off the computer...

 

[michel]

I agree that humans are, at times, irrational. However, I think we behave rationally far more often than we behave irrationally. I think many of our daily activities---even small things that at first glance we don't seem to think about---involve rational decisions. For example... I am sitting here on my laptop, talking to you at 2:11 in the morning. I don't feel tired yet, but I rationalized that this is because I've grown accustomed to staying up late these last few nights. At about 2am, I thought briefly about going to bed despite the fact that I am not tired, rationalizing that if I DIDN'T go to bed, I was going certainly going to feel tired tomorrow. Then I rationalized some more, and decided that because my body requires either 4, 5, 8, or 9 hours of sleep to feel well rested in the morning (based on my sleep patterns), I could therefore stay up until 2:30 am, get into bed, have a good 1/2 hour to fall asleep, and still get the maximum number of hours of sleep that leaves me feeling rested the next day. Thus, I finally made a rational decision; to log off the computer and go to bed at 2:30. This entire thought process only took about 1/2 a second; however rational thinking and a corresponding rational decision did occur---even for a small decision like when to get off the computer...

Don't misunderstand me, I am not advocating that we have no rational behavour in us; I just wanted to make the point that there are irrationalities within us, that I honestly cannot see us overcoming.

Your example about feeling tired; How irrational ias it for a car driver to fall asleep at the wheel (because of a desire to 'get there faster'); O.K, the desire was not out of irrational behaviour; more irrational thinking. But the falling asleep at the wheel is about as irrational as you can get...because that self same human ignored the rationale of you are getting tired?.........

You gave me the idea, BTW, was that irrational of you? (concerning the discussion we are in?)

 

[Booko]

I've seen some of the same sort of "evidence" in my own family. Most of the individuals on my father's side of the family are highly intelligent despite having had few opportunities for education. My sisters and I are about as smart as our father (I think my little sister may be even more intelligent, but sometimes it is hard to tell because she doesn't apply herself academically). On our mother's side of the family it is very different. Most of the people there are of average intelligence (as far as I can tell) except for two of my uncles, both of whom share a father that is different than that of the rest of their siblings. Also, I have two cousins who are of 170+ intelligence (I know one is 174 and I think the other was a little lower than that) and whose father is also highly intelligent (although not as intelligent as his sons, at least as far as I can tell).

All this would seem to suggest, to me, that intelligence is---at least in part---hereditary. I do, however, believe that environment plays a big role in the development of intelligence---for example, if I recall correctly, a child's IQ is not set until the age of about 10; early stimulation of the mind, upbringing, education, and other factors can influence how much of a child's inherent potential is actually achieved. After that point, an individual supposedly just learns to use the natural tools that they have, but do experience any increases in IQ (although I guess with age they can experience decreases). Some of this information is available in the papers and articles I gave Victor.

It occurs to me it might be worth raising the question of what is intelligence anyway?

Our society values the sort of learning style I have and the sorts of abilities I have, so it regards me as intelligent. I score very well on IQ tests. I could join 999 society and Mensa if I cared about such things, but I don't see much point.

My brother ends up being above-average on intelligence, but if you measured his "people" or "musical" intelligence he would be far above me. Those kinds of intelligence are not tested for nor valued.

My mother tests out as average intelligence, and my experience with people like her (atheletic, physical learning style) is that we often regard such people as much less intelligent than they really are.

Yes, I've read info about early stimulation of the mind and its effect on the IQ. I consider myself lucky to have been given to a family that was involved with the kids, and we were read to constantly as well. Small wonder both my brother and I could read at a very early age.

 

[Sunstone]

It occurs to me it might be worth raising the question of what is intelligence anyway?

Our society values the sort of learning style I have and the sorts of abilities I have, so it regards me as intelligent. I score very well on IQ tests. I could join 999 society and Mensa if I cared about such things, but I don't see much point.

My brother ends up being above-average on intelligence, but if you measured his "people" or "musical" intelligence he would be far above me. Those kinds of intelligence are not tested for nor valued.

My mother tests out as average intelligence, and my experience with people like her (atheletic, physical learning style) is that we often regard such people as much less intelligent than they really are.

Yes, I've read info about early stimulation of the mind and its effect on the IQ. I consider myself lucky to have been given to a family that was involved with the kids, and we were read to constantly as well. Small wonder both my brother and I could read at a very early age.

What do you think of Howard Gardner, Booko?

Like Gardner, I think we have multiple intelligences. This immediately implies at least two things to me: First, we need to pay attention to others, especially others who have developed greater skills in certain intelligences than we ourselves have, to get a completer truth of something than we can get on our own.

Second, decency and kindness are human attributes that seem possible for everyone. Perhaps we should for that reason, among others, place a bit more value on those things than on intelligence.

Lastly, it now occurs to me that the notion we need each other might jive rather well with your religion? Is that a sound guess?

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Well folks,

Victor tipped me off to this thread in a PM, and asked that I read it and weigh in. Thanks for letting me know about this one, my friend, and the short answer to what I think on this subject is that I find myself, almost completely if not totally agreeing with Sunstone's position.

I personally have observed people, including myself, behaving both rationally and irrationally. I know anecdotal evidence is not worth much, statistically speaking, but it can be instructive at times, and I feel compelled to tell a story of irrational behavior from my own professional past.

4 years ago, almost to the day, I tried my last criminal defense case (been doing civil since then) and was representing a man who was facing his 5th or 6th felony conviction. Now, in Oklahoma, your 3rd and subsequent felony convictions make you eligible for a MINIMUM OF 20 YEARS IN PRISON and you must serve 85% of your Department of Corrections time. Meaning if you get sentenced to 20 years you must serve 17 1/2 calendar (real life) years.

I tell you that info, to give proper background to this story. My hero (criminal defense slang for Defendant) was offered due to the hard work of his attorney (lol), a sentence of 10 years with no 85% (meaning he would serve 4 to 5 years) in exchange for pleading guilty to the charge of burglury of a dwelling.

Now this guy knew full well he did the crime he was accused of doing, and he knew full well that the least amount of time he could get from a jury was 20 years, up to life imprisonment, and yet, in spite of all this information, he held to the completely irrational belief that the victim (a former girlfriend, as it turned out) would not show up to testify against him. Well, long story short, she did show up to testify, not once, but twice. Once at the preliminary hearing, after which I was still able to get the D.A. to offer 10 years, amazingly enough, and once again at the trial. Both times the only person in the room shocked when this gal showed up was the Defendant.

This man, IMHO, acted completely irrationally and in a way which was definately against his own best interest. Now he acted rationally in many other ways in his life. He ate food because he was hungry, drank water when he got thirsty, came indoors when it rained, and so forth, but in this context, when his own liberty was on the line, he acted in a manner completely contrary to rational thought.

As an aside, we tried the case, we lost (due, IMO, to a poor ruling by the judge after the jury was out, but that is a rant for another thread) and he ended up getting sentenced to 21 years when he could have had less than half that. Such is the nature of the rational vs. irrational mind.

As a further aside to a question posed by Victor earlier re: whether it is rational to beleive in something without evidence (gross paraphrase there, sorry), I personally do not feel it is rational to beleive in any particular thing without convincing evidence in favor of that particular thing, whatever that thing may be.

I would love to go into this further, and will no doubt revisit this thread, but I have to run, as I am in danger of being late to my next appointment.

B.

 

[Sunstone]

...the short answer to what I think on this subject is that I find myself, almost completely if not totally agreeing with Sunstone's position.

Yes, but is it rational of you to agree with my position??? I find myself thoroughly alarmed at this disconcerting news.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Yes, but is it rational of you to agree with my position??? I find myself thoroughly alarmed at this disconcerting news.

When Sunstone posits such a thoroughly well thought out and clear opinion, one which is no doubt more eloquent than a similar point MdmSzdWhtGuy could posit on his own, then he/I have no choice but to rationally and logically conclude that I/he agree/agrees with Sunstone. (did I just write something in the 4th and 5th person?)

In other words, ditto what Sunstone said.

B.

 

[Quiddity]

From Yale University Physchology Department, Neurobiology of Intelligence :
..there is no reliable evidence for intelligence as a unitary, rankable, genetically based, and minimally alterable thing in the head...

There does seem to be some quarrel on the topic and no doubt some links to genetic material. But it is to be noted that intelligence is measured in the sense of reasoning and novel problem-solving ability. Some would contend that is not solid enough to even conclude such a link, others disagree.

I'm not done with reading the article but just thought this would be useful.

http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/PDF/nrn0604-GrayThompson.pdf

~Victor

 

[Booko]

What do you think of Howard Gardner, Booko?

Like Gardner, I think we have multiple intelligences. This immediately implies at least two things to me: First, we need to pay attention to others, especially others who have developed greater skills in certain intelligences than we ourselves have, to get a completer truth of something than we can get on our own.

Oh, I find Gardner's work fascinating. I can't for the life of me understand why I should be considered so "intelligent" just because the things I do well involve mathematics and language. Um...so what? That was "intelligence" for the Space Race maybe, but what about everything else?

The idea that only mathematics and language count in intelligence is, imo, a cultural phenomenon and has not even been universal across Western culture through time. I recall reading several old texts about music pedagogy written around the late 1700s early1800s whose assumptions about the importance of music in life and the ability of small children to learn the subject would be unintelligible to most of us.

Likewise, there are cultures where to be musically unable is to be retarded. A acquaintance of mine who works with the CDC doing research on HIV in Africa reports that if a child is slow to learn music, the elders lay him over their lap and literally drum the rhythms into him until he gets it. It's that important to them.

And what about the "intelligence" of people skills? My brother would be a genius, if this is what we measured on an IQ test. I would be an idiot, I'm sure. I've seen my brother meet someone once at a party and talk to them for 5 minutes. 10 years later they meet, and he knows their name, family members, hobbies, work, beliefs, you name it. It's absolutely astounding to watch. Needless to say, his career has put him a place where this is a necessary thing. He's the Prez of a union now, and not because he even tried to get there -- he just sorta fell into it. People with this intelligence often end up in sales. But where do you go to "school" for that? College will teach you none of this.

Second, decency and kindness are human attributes that seem possible for everyone. Perhaps we should for that reason, among others, place a bit more value on those things than on intelligence.

Haha, well now that you mention it:

"O people of God! I admonish you to observe courtesy, for above all else it is the prince of virtues."
(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 88)

Given the choice between educating a child to be courteous and educating a child to be academically smart, courtesy should be the choice. Of course, both are important to a real education.

Lastly, it now occurs to me that the notion we need each other might jive rather well with your religion? Is that a sound guess?

I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll take a stab at it anyway. My religion, while finding unity essential, finds uniformity to be unwise. All of the abilities of humanity need to be brought forth in order for us to progress. When we get out of balance, we don't progress as we should, and sometimes it seems we even go backwards in places.

How will we get through this period in humanity's development, if we only have people who have capacity in mathematics and grammar to do the work?

Who will be the people who relate to and understand people unlike them? Who will be the peacemakers? Who will form the bridges to other cultures? Who will be able to make international business work? People like me? That's a laugh!

How will we move ahead without people who rely on intuition as a major force in their lives? Who will be the mystics who make the leaps to realization that our beliefs are not so dissimilar as we make them out to be, and that there is only one humanity?

And yeah, when it comes to those with physical intelligence, c'mon, will the world get very far if we don't have people who know how to fix the plumbing??? A society of elites can't last for long.

And how do we communicate to people's deeper levels to create better understanding if we don't have the arts to do it with?

Everyone is needed, and everyone should be valued for the capacities they have.

 

[Sunstone]

Excellent post, Booko! I'm sadly out of frubals at the moment. But I'd like to comment that the question I raised in my post was beautifully answered by you in your post.

It's my understanding that humans are social animals, and the clear implication, I think, of our having evolved differing mixes of intelligences is that having individuals with different "specialties" somehow helped us survive as individuals and as a species most likely because we made effective use of those intelligences as a cooperative band or group. Especially after language developed and we could better communicate our different insights to each other.

I would like to qualify what you've said on this topic. In my view, the educational system, the sciences, the engineering fields, the medical fields, and so forth reward analytic thinking and to various degrees grammar. But I don't think society overall is so narrow in what it rewards. It is easy to see how people of differing intelligences are rewarded by different sectors of society, I think.

To return this to the OP, do you think that a group having people who have varying mixes of intelligences might in some cases ameliorate the effects of that group taking a too narrow view of things, and thus becoming irrational in its member's behaviors? In other words, would a group composed of people with varying mixes of intelligences have a tendency to take a more rational, reasonable, even realistic and workable view of things?

 

[Quiddity]

To return this to the OP, do you think that a group having people who have varying mixes of intelligences might in some cases ameliorate the effects of that group taking a too narrow view of things, and thus becoming irrational in its member's behaviors? In other words, would a group composed of people with varying mixes of intelligences have a tendency to take a more rational, reasonable, even realistic and workable view of things?

It all depends on where the "narrowness" lies.

 

[Sunstone]

It all depends on where the "narrowness" lies.

To take an extreme, imagine a group of fanatics who feed off each other's agreement with their narrow, one dimensional view of things for self-validation. Contrast that with a normal assembly of a community, such as a New England town meeting, a church congregation discussing church policy, or even a gathering of diverse friends to hash out the pros and cons of various sports teams and players. Are the diverse opinions in the latter groups more likely to lead to rationality and away from irrationality than the uniformity of view in the former group? What do you think?

 

[Quiddity]

To take an extreme, imagine a group of fanatics who feed off each other's agreement with their narrow, one dimensional view of things for self-validation. Contrast that with a normal assembly of a community, such as a New England town meeting, a church congregation discussing church policy, or even a gathering of diverse friends to hash out the pros and cons of various sports teams and players. Are the diverse opinions in the latter groups more likely to lead to rationality and away from irrationality than the uniformity of view in the former group? What do you think?

I would say yes. But that is only because you are able to identify narrowness in the first group and not the latter. I think you can find "narrowness" in every group depending on who is looking at it.

 

[michel]

To take an extreme, imagine a group of fanatics who feed off each other's agreement with their narrow, one dimensional view of things for self-validation. Contrast that with a normal assembly of a community, such as a New England town meeting, a church congregation discussing church policy, or even a gathering of diverse friends to hash out the pros and cons of various sports teams and players. Are the diverse opinions in the latter groups more likely to lead to rationality and away from irrationality than the uniformity of view in the former group? What do you think?

Yes. I was going to leave it at that; but seriously, I agree. To have a fully 'rounded' concensus, I think you need an mixture of both male and female (oh I was tempted to say the males being the intelligent.............but even I couldn't make a joke like that without worrying that someone might think I meant it that way.

No, intelligent, and unintelligent, emotional and practical attitudes would provide the perfectly balanced view.

 

[Sunstone]

I would say yes. But that is only because you are able to identify narrowness in the first group and not the latter. I think you can find "narrowness" in every group depending on who is looking at it.

I think so to some extent that any group that comes together for a common purpose or agenda, and keeps to that agenda, necessarily is narrowing its range of views. But despite that, there are obviously great differences in the degree of narrowness between some groups and others. And some groups (typically extremists) select their members for their narrowness of view, their unwillingness to deviate from the group's orthodoxy, and the similarity of the new member's views to that of the existing member's. I think such groups are more prone to irrationality than broader based, more inclusive groups.

 

[Runt]

Don't misunderstand me, I am not advocating that we have no rational behavour in us; I just wanted to make the point that there are irrationalities within us, that I honestly cannot see us overcoming.

Don't worry, I'm not misunderstanding you. I recognize that we both believe humans can be both rational as well as irrational at times, and I agree that sometimes irrational behavior can overcome rational. My point was merely that I think we're rational more often than we're irrational. I honestly don't believe we'd be able to survive if it were otherwise. Well, sex can at times be irrational, which helps our species survive, but you know what I mean. (At least, I hope you do).

Your example about feeling tired; How irrational ias it for a car driver to fall asleep at the wheel (because of a desire to 'get there faster'); O.K, the desire was not out of irrational behaviour; more irrational thinking. But the falling asleep at the wheel is about as irrational as you can get...because that self same human ignored the rationale of you are getting tired?.........

Yes, I agree that this is irrational behavior, and I agree that irrational decisions like this are made---by all of us---at times. But I think we make rational decisions more often than we make irrational ones. I know I've been tired to the point where it is dangerous to drive many times in my life, and made the correct decision to just spend the night wherever I was at the time.

You gave me the idea, BTW, was that irrational of you? (concerning the discussion we are in?)

Why on earth would it be irrational of me to give you an idea that sparks further discussion?

It occurs to me it might be worth raising the question of what is intelligence anyway?

Our society values the sort of learning style I have and the sorts of abilities I have, so it regards me as intelligent. I score very well on IQ tests. I could join 999 society and Mensa if I cared about such things, but I don't see much point.

My brother ends up being above-average on intelligence, but if you measured his "people" or "musical" intelligence he would be far above me. Those kinds of intelligence are not tested for nor valued.

My mother tests out as average intelligence, and my experience with people like her (atheletic, physical learning style) is that we often regard such people as much less intelligent than they really are.

Yes, I've read info about early stimulation of the mind and its effect on the IQ. I consider myself lucky to have been given to a family that was involved with the kids, and we were read to constantly as well. Small wonder both my brother and I could read at a very early age.

Oh, I definitely believe in the theory of multiple intelligences. I also believe that other kind of intelligence---social, musical, emotional, etc---can be hereditary. Perfect pitch, for example, is supposed to be hereditary.

From Yale University Physchology Department, Neurobiology of Intelligence :
..there is no reliable evidence for intelligence as a unitary, rankable, genetically based, and minimally alterable thing in the head...

There does seem to be some quarrel on the topic and no doubt some links to genetic material. But it is to be noted that intelligence is measured in the sense of reasoning and novel problem-solving ability. Some would contend that is not solid enough to even conclude such a link, others disagree.

I'm not done with reading the article but just thought this would be useful.

I was very confused for a moment there, trying to figure out where in that article you found the Yale quote.

I agree that there is a lot of quarrel on the topic. Part of the problem---as many of the articles point out---is defining intelligence. We've been talking a little about that here in this thread as well. When we say "intelligence", do we refer to mathematical, logical, lingual, emotional, social, or other abilities? What, biologically, is happening in an individual to make them more or less mathematically, logically, lingually, emotionally, or socially adept? When studying the link between intelligence and genes, what exactly should researchers be examining? Whether or not an individual and their close family members can solve a complex math problem? How quickly they can understand and choose the next image in a visual pattern? Whether or not they have perfect pitch? Whether or not they have a similar brain structure or something in common that influences their intellectual abilities?


Yet there has been some research done---admittedly in a very fragmented way---suggesting that some of these elements that are believed to attribute to "intelligence" are hereditary. I think the studies of identical twins raised in different environments are the most compelling.

 

[Booko]

Excellent post, Booko! I'm sadly out of frubals at the moment. But I'd like to comment that the question I raised in my post was beautifully answered by you in your post.

Thanks, Sunstone. It's good to know that I was actually adressing the post instead of just going off on another of my random babbles.

I would like to qualify what you've said on this topic. In my view, the educational system, the sciences, the engineering fields, the medical fields, and so forth reward analytic thinking and to various degrees grammar. But I don't think society overall is so narrow in what it rewards. It is easy to see how people of differing intelligences are rewarded by different sectors of society, I think.

Fortunately, that's so, though the rewards given by society because of types of intelligence do have their idiosyncracies.

To return this to the OP, do you think that a group having people who have varying mixes of intelligences might in some cases ameliorate the effects of that group taking a too narrow view of things, and thus becoming irrational in its member's behaviors? In other words, would a group composed of people with varying mixes of intelligences have a tendency to take a more rational, reasonable, even realistic and workable view of things?

That has been exactly my experience serving on Local Spiritual Assemblies and in other Baha'i groups as well. LSAs are made up of 9 members, and the odds of any LSA being comprised of people from the same mix of intelligences is not at all likely.

How many times have the "intellectuals" in the group reasoned their way at a problem, only to have someone else blow them away with a comment that cuts right through the over-intellectualization? And how many times has someone comes from the pov of their intuition, only to have someone (haha like me) kindly suggest maybe we should look up a cite and see what it says? This sort of thing happens all the time, and a members serving on a good LSA will learn to appreciate the strengths of other members and play off them to come up with a better decision than could have been reached by debate or politics.

I would go even further than to claim that such a mixed group would be more likely to come to a decision that is more rational, realistic and workable. They also have a better chance of coming to decisions that are compassionate and just.

 

[Sunstone]

I would go even further than to claim that such a mixed group would be more likely to come to a decision that is more rational, realistic and workable. They also have a better chance of coming to decisions that are compassionate and just.

That's very interesting. Groups can, of course, turn into mobs under the wrong circumstances, but I think you're right from what I've seen working in small groups that, if they are diverse, they can arrive at decisions that are more compassionate and just than more narrowly based groups.

Somewhat related to this: There's a classic experiment that is often done in graduate business schools. A jar of marbles is place on a table before a class of about 30 people. Each person in the class is then asked to write on a piece of paper his or her estimate of how many marbles are in the jar without consulting anyone else. The slips are collected, totaled, and averaged. Now here's what happens: Individually, no one comes within 5% of the actual total, and the estimates typically range up to 30% or more off the actual total. But when the estimates are averaged for the group as a whole, the number is consistently within 5% of the actual number of marbles in the jar.

Why such consistently accurate results as a group? Who knows, but a wild speculation might be that our intelligences evolved in such a way that we are more realistic critters when we work together to solve a problem than we work individually.

I think if we were largely solitary animals, like bears, we might all have essentially the same kind of intelligence. But because we are social animals, we have evolved to make the best possible use of cooperative behavior by evolving different approaches to complex problems, each approach a potentially valuable piece of the puzzle. Does that make any sense?

 

[Booko]

Somewhat related to this: There's a classic experiment that is often done in graduate business schools. A jar of marbles is place on a table before a class of about 30 people. Each person in the class is then asked to write on a piece of paper his or her estimate of how many marbles are in the jar without consulting anyone else. The slips are collected, totaled, and averaged. Now here's what happens: Individually, no one comes within 5% of the actual total, and the estimates typically range up to 30% or more off the actual total. But when the estimates are averaged for the group as a whole, the number is consistently within 5% of the actual number of marbles in the jar.

Some people tend to overestimate and some tend to underestimate. When I was doing software engineering I had my fudge factor for estimating how long it would take to do something: 1.2 x what I really though. It worked very well.

It's funny you mention the marble story. One day while consulting about a budget issue, in a fit of just being tired of going on about the whole thing, I jokingly suggested we all just write a figure on a slip of paper, average them, and then vote on it. They took me seriously. We ended up doing just that, and it worked out pretty well. What was getting in the way of moving the consultation was individuals feeling like they were "deciding" something for other individuals, but tossing a slip of paper in the bowl seems to have got everyone detached from the idea they were deciding things for other indivuduals. The decision ultimately worked out pretty well, too.

I think if we were largely solitary animals, like bears, we might all have essentially the same kind of intelligence. But because we are social animals, we have evolved to make the best possible use of cooperative behavior by evolving different approaches to complex problems, each approach a potentially valuable piece of the puzzle. Does that make any sense?

Yes, it certainly does.

 

[Quiddity]

I think so to some extent that any group that comes together for a common purpose or agenda, and keeps to that agenda, necessarily is narrowing its range of views. But despite that, there are obviously great differences in the degree of narrowness between some groups and others. And some groups (typically extremists) select their members for their narrowness of view, their unwillingness to deviate from the group's orthodoxy, and the similarity of the new member's views to that of the existing member's. I think such groups are more prone to irrationality than broader based, more inclusive groups.

Agreed......But how far do you think tolerance should be stretched?