Intellect Fallacy

[~[ Greased Gerbil ]~]

I pondered something a while back, and it just popped back into my head today. Have you ever had an argument with one of those people who are obviously of below average reasoning capacity, yet completely incapable of conceding an argument/discussion? It lead me to a nuance in reason.....

"It is impossible for one person to prove to another that they are smarter than that person"

Reasoning: In order to prove the argument, the first person must argue using methods, concepts and logic the other can comprehend. Therefore, they can only prove that their reasoning skills are, at most, equal to the other's. Alternatively, by using a "smarter" argument that demonstrates and relies on methods, concepts and logic that are beyond the other's ability to comprehend; one has fundamentally failed to satisfy the onus of proof - because the other has no cause to accept a conclusion they do not have the capacity to confirm or deny. Also, the other can dismiss any argument they don't understand as jibberish/nonsense/make-believe

Hmmm.... it sounded smart in my brain, anyway.

[Thriller]

I pondered something a while back, and it just popped back into my head today. Have you ever had an argument with one of those people who are obviously of below average reasoning capacity, yet completely incapable of conceding an argument/discussion? It lead me to a nuance in reason.....

"It is impossible for one person to prove to another that they are smarter than that person"

Reasoning: In order to prove the argument, the first person must argue using methods, concepts and logic the other can comprehend. Therefore, they can only prove that their reasoning skills are, at most, equal to the other's. Alternatively, by using a "smarter" argument that demonstrates and relies on methods, concepts and logic that are beyond the other's ability to comprehend; one has fundamentally failed to satisfy the onus of proof - because the other has no cause to accept a conclusion they do not have the capacity to confirm or deny. Also, the other can dismiss any argument they don't understand as jibberish/nonsense/make-believe

Hmmm.... it sounded smart in my brain, anyway.

The trick is to maintain the original premise of the argument your making, while translating it in a way that the person will understand.

If chimps can be taught to spell.You can translate your thought to less educated person. I'm sure you weren't explaining complicated concepts concerning fluid mechanics or molecular chemistry

Your experiencing a loss in translation,
or the person is screwing with you... i do the latter to "know it alls" sometimes

not being understood can be a very frustrating experience. It usually invokes a strong emotional reaction. You can use that response to manipulate people... which is basically what just happened to you.

[[KMA]Avenger]

not being understood can be a very frustrating experience. It usually invokes a strong emotional reaction.

tell me about it!

[agapooka]

It's simplifying the issue. If an argument uses airtight logic, which is admittedly rare, this logic can be broken down into more comprehensible chunks for those of lower reasoning capacity than the author. In a debate or intellectual argument, it is the job of each participant to find the fallacies present in the argument of his opponent.

I see little of that on this forum. Then again, and as an expression of my admittedly subjective beliefs, no one ought to take it upon themselves to prove any intellectual superiority, as intellect is too broad a thing and to attempt to simplify it thus would work against the author's argument.

The ability to reason is more specific and I'm glad that you mention it, although it seems you've ambiguously combined it with the more general term, "intellect", and I sought to clarify. Whilst it is true that one whose ability to reason is objectively lower than a logical argument's author may find it more difficult to parse that argument and grasp its logical structure, that individual's understanding is not required in order to prove their lack thereof - au contraire.

A pattern that I've noticed when an incredibly logical argument is dismissed is that it usually fails to pass the consideration stage. That is to say that the individual who, in that moment has a lower reasoning capacity, may not even be able to consider the argument at all. Evidence to this effect is found when this individual fails to identify the key points of an argument - be it the particular premises, which may not necessarily be true, or the manner in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from those premises.

Silly debates ought to be a good practice environment to remedy this reasoning handicap, as one is forced to argue a view that they and indeed the majority of people do not hold to be true. I propose that this would encourage one to distance themselves emotionally from their argument and put more effort in an attempt to wield the cutting sword of logic. Silly debates often rely upon an assumption or more to be true. The presenter's challenge is to hide the assumption, whereas his opponent's challenge is to find it. This is a great exercise in improving one's reasoning capacities.

In a serious, intellectual argument, however, one ought to focus more on finding and identifying assumptions, as this helps another strengthen their argument and perhaps even fundamentally change it. It challenges them to refine their own argument and get closer to discovering a truth. See, an intellectual argument isn't about "who's right", but rather, it is about coming closer to an objective truth.


Agapooka

[Quina Quen]

The answer to it all Pooks - (most) Humans are stupid.

[Hitchkok]

i found that usually arguments aren't concluded not because none of the parties can provide a logicly airtight argument to his point, but because the parties don't share the same axioms.
doesen't matter how tsrong your materials and how good of an engineer you are, if you build a tower over what the other person claims to be water, it won't stand.

[Ashu]

I pondered something a while back, and it just popped back into my head today. Have you ever had an argument with one of those people who are obviously of below average reasoning capacity, yet completely incapable of conceding an argument/discussion? It lead me to a nuance in reason.....

"It is impossible for one person to prove to another that they are smarter than that person"

Reasoning: In order to prove the argument, the first person must argue using methods, concepts and logic the other can comprehend. Therefore, they can only prove that their reasoning skills are, at most, equal to the other's. Alternatively, by using a "smarter" argument that demonstrates and relies on methods, concepts and logic that are beyond the other's ability to comprehend; one has fundamentally failed to satisfy the onus of proof - because the other has no cause to accept a conclusion they do not have the capacity to confirm or deny. Also, the other can dismiss any argument they don't understand as jibberish/nonsense/make-believe

Hmmm.... it sounded smart in my brain, anyway.

Actually its called the impossibility to quantify one's intelligence...In other words there are people who wouldn't know a thing about IQ tests and would receive sub-par results and in reality,their actual geniuses.Arguments can get so far...and as far as modern theoreticians have come to understand,they are fairly limited.