|
The OP is interesting. My own 2 cents:
1st cent:
Thinking intelligently requires intelligence...
But nobody owns the exclusive rights for stupid.
How much you are capable of thinking of something is not alone a good indicator for how much you'll be willing or inclined to think about it. Which is why you can have people who's plans and political strategies are very intelligent, and yet their beliefs and motivations behind their political agendas are under very little scrutiny.
2nd cent:
It is all too often that we define intelligence as an attribute for how much do people think like we do, not only because it compliments us, but because it's a stratagy to reaffirm our beliefs, generating our own social echo chambers in which what we say is confirmed by having the approval and agreement of those we view as intelligent... And we view them as such because we approve and agree with what they have to say).
When it comes to politics, ideology and social issues, where the questions and the various stances about them are often very long lasting, the chance that your political stance is a direct result of your intelligence or a demonstration for how intelligent you are is a very slim chance, simply because chances are, every side in the debate has had a very long time for a lot of people to invest a lot more thought and processing time then you have (Though often with an inverse correlation to how objective they are on the matter), including rationals for both your own stance and your opposition's. If someone is unintelligent because they disagree with you on such a matter, consider the likelihood that you might have generated a false feedback loop reaffirming your beliefs through a rather unintelligent understanding of intelligence (Please reference the 1st cent for a pat on the back).
|