I'm smarter than you!!!

[Koroviev]

As a pretty new member of the FDR board, I've been disappointed and a little surprised to see the number of times the argument "I'm smarter than you" has been used. In fact in two of the discussions I've had and one I've followed someone has said it. Now it's not always in this form, the first time I saw it was "I'm older than you and it's hard being young." The second was "I know more than you because I've taken some college classes and gotten all A's and A+'s," but I'm sure you get the picture. Either way it's very offensive, unacceptable, and definitely not an argument.

 

Anyway, I mostly wanted to point this out to make sure people are aware of it, but also curious as to what others do to combat this and different ways people handle running into this situation. My tactic is to back away...slowly. 

 

Cheers!

[MMX2010]

 Either way it's very offensive, unacceptable, and definitely not an argument.

 

 

It's offensive just using those two examples, or offensive using every possible example? 

[Koroviev]

It seems to me like any form of this is offensive. It seems to me like it completely discounts anyone else in the conversation, and more often than not changes what was or could have been a great discussion into, well, meaningless bickering.

[MMX2010]

It seems to me like any form of this is offensive. It seems to me like it completely discounts anyone else in the conversation, and more often than not changes what was or could have been a great discussion into, well, meaningless bickering.

 

My argument is that the bickering happens because you think it's always offensive to remind someone that you're smarter than them - even when it is true, you're saying this statement is offensive. 

[st434u]

It's a good signal that you're not supposed to have a friendly conversation with the other party.

[Koroviev]

My argument is that the bickering happens because you think it's always offensive to remind someone that you're smarter than them - even when it is true, you're saying this statement is offensive. 

Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to say I get offended and run off and cry myself to sleep because someone I don't even know said they were smarter than me. I mean really what do I care. Simply that there are better ways of showing you are smarter than someone than flat out saying "I'm smarter than you," (not to mention how do you know for sure you're smarter than someone?) because how are you supposed to respond to that other than some form of "No you're not," which then leads to bickering about nothing.

 

It's like going to a weightlifting competition and saying you're stronger than everyone there instead of competing.

[MMX2010]

because how are you supposed to respond to that other than some form of "No you're not," which then leads to bickering about nothing.

 

 

By self-reflecting and being open to the possibility that they are, indeed, smarter than you. 

[Koroviev]

By self-reflecting and being open to the possibility that they are, indeed, smarter than you. 

 

I absolutely agree that people should be self reflecting and realizing that they aren't the smartest people out there, but if they aren't already does me saying "I'm smarter than you" ever change that?

[Blackout]

From Dilbert's Logical Fallacies:

 

15. CIRCULAR REASONING

Example: I’m correct because I’m smarter than you. And I must be smarter than you because I’m correct.

[MMX2010]

I absolutely agree that people should be self reflecting and realizing that they aren't the smartest people out there, but if they aren't already does me saying "I'm smarter than you" ever change that?

 

People don't say "I'm smarter than you" in order to get other people to self-reflect.  They say it because they sincerely believe it's true. 

 

People don't have the positive obligation to help others self-reflect. 

 

 

From Dilbert's Logical Fallacies:

 

15. CIRCULAR REASONING

Example: I’m correct because I’m smarter than you. And I must be smarter than you because I’m correct.

 

That never happens, though.  What always happens is that someone gives at least one argument, which is rejected by the other person.  In frustration, the original arguer says, "I'm smarter than you." 

[Koroviev]

 

People don't say "I'm smarter than you" in order to get other people to self-reflect.  They say it because they sincerely believe it's true. 

 

People don't have the positive obligation to help others self-reflect. 

 

This is exactly my point though if it gets to a point in the discussion where the "I'm smarter than you" argument feels necessary then what good is it doing for you, the other parties involved, or the argument itself, especially if you aren't saying it to try to get someone to self reflect? In that case isn't it just like saying "my dad is bigger than yours?" 

 

*side note this is a great time for someone to say "I'm smarter than you," and it would prove how it kills a discussion 

[Blackout]

That never happens, though. What always happens is that someone gives at least one argument, which is rejected by the other person. In frustration, the original arguer says, "I'm smarter than you."

And what is the point of that? Either it's an ad hominem implication that the other person's argument is inferior because the person's intellect is inferior. Or it is implying that you are correct because you are smarter and you are smarter because you tend to be correct.

 

If someone is not going to accept your well reasoned argument, why not just leave it at that? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

[MMX2010]

And what is the point of that?

 

The point is that the person saying it believes it to be true. 

 

 

 Either it's an ad hominem implication that the other person's argument is inferior because the person's intellect is inferior. Or it is implying that you are correct because you are smarter and you are smarter because you tend to be correct.

 

 

You are free to aesthetically react in either (or both) of those ways, but your reaction is a choice - not an inevitability.  There are other possibilities that you didn't name, such as: (1) The person saying it is frustrated because his argument is correct, but the other person's inability to research the topic before developing strong (and wrong) opinions about it makes the listener impervious to reason. OR (2) The person is actually smarter, and is non-emotionally stating a fact that the listener should accept. 

 

 

If someone is not going to accept your well reasoned argument, why not just leave it at that? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.          

 

 

You are free to behave this way, but no one is required to behave this way. 

 

Refusing to behave this way is a choice, not an inevitability.  And there are multiple reasons for refusing, only some of which make the refuser aesthetically ugly.

[Koroviev]

I think the fundamental question is, does the "I'm smarter than you" argument bring anything useful to the discussion?

[MMX2010]

I think the fundamental question is, does the "I'm smarter than you" argument bring anything useful to the discussion?

 

Useful for whom?  I assume that it's useful for the person saying it, otherwise he wouldn't say it. 

 

Do you disagree? 

[Blackout]

There are other possibilities that you didn't name, such as: (1) The person saying it is frustrated because his argument is correct, but the other person's inability to research the topic before developing strong (and wrong) opinions about it makes the listener impervious to reason.

 

Why not just say that instead?

 

OR (2) The person is actually smarter, and is non-emotionally stating a fact that the listener should accept. 

 

And what does that have to do with the rationality of either argument? Since the statement in response to someone's refusal of an argument wasn't "I sleep in on Saturdays", I assume the words were chosen for effect.

 

You are free to behave this way, but no one is required to behave this way. 

 

Refusing to behave this way is a choice, not an inevitability.  And there are multiple reasons for refusing, only some of which make the refuser aesthetically ugly.

 

Nope, nobody is required to behave that way and everyone chooses to interpret a statement one way or another. I'm just making the point that reasonable people may interpret such a statement in those ways and they may be turned off to the discussion because of it.

[Koroviev]

Useful for whom?  I assume that it's useful for the person saying it, otherwise he wouldn't say it. 

 

Do you disagree? 

 

Good point! Useful for the discussion as a whole. I agree it may change the subject and others may not be able to respond to it, but it does not help the discussion. Rather it seems a lot of the time to be a scapegoat used when someone gets frustrated from the others not understanding and/or when they cannot respond to a strong counter argument.

[Troubador]

I think it depends on how it is used. First of all is it a massive problem if someone is smarter than you? I personally am very happy that I'm just smart enough not to be intimidated by other folks smarts and indeed value friends and acquaintances who are obviously brainier than I am. If your not constantly worried about not bieng the smartest person in the world (or even the room!) you can stand to learn a great deal.

 

The issues stem from people wanting to appear to be the smartest person in the room, and use smoke and mirrors to bully and silence people. I must confess trully smart people I've come across rarely tend towards "I'm smarter than you" to try and win an argument. Prodigious intellects tend towards a benign frustration if I'm trully failing to grasp something they are trying to get across, but that's just my experience.

 

Where I can see the OP's original frustration is on occasion with a buddy I had at Uni we were doing degrees in different fields and often we'd argue and sometimes these arguments would touch on a topic one of us was studying, oftentimes he'd shut down anything I had to say with "yeah well this is my subject so I know I am right and you are wrong" which who knows may have been right on each and every occasion, but I wouldn't know as effectively I had to take on faith he had the right of it. When discussions strayed onto my field I was loath to shut down discussion as, well to be frank I'd rather my ideas and mechanisms for expressing them were sound on their own, however on one occassion just out of curiosity I threw it back at him and announced as this was my subject I had the right of it and he was just going to have to take my word on it. His response was to get emotional, flounce off in a strop and fume at me for a few days. Which I think says it all really.

 

Grand scheme of things there really is a colossal amount of knowledge out there, and perhaps magnitudes more bullshit besides. I think trully staggering intellects are aware of this fact and realise no matter how much they may know, it's always going to be a drop in the ocean of what there is to know, and that puts their own ego into perspective. My own personal pet peeve which isn't necessarily intelligence based but rather knowledge based is that when I'm exploring a subject with someone, and I know my knowledge is limited, and it starts to become rapidly apparent that their knowledge base is roughly even or perhaps even less than mine, and they sally forth as if they are a bloody authority on the topic!

 

End of the day though we all have to sift through and seperate the bullshit from truth in our own heads, and we can only do that with the tools we have available. Some people have shiny sleek superbrains they can do this with, the rest of us have to make do with what we have. However you can keep an open mind, and work tenaciously at expanding your knowledge base, and acquire new modes of thinking. That is a tool at your disposal you CAN improve through sheer hard work and tenacity. Sure smarter people may be able to get there faster but most people of reasonable intelligence can get there if they apply themselves.

[MMX2010]

Good point! Useful for the discussion as a whole. I agree it may change the subject and others may not be able to respond to it, but it does not help the discussion. Rather it seems a lot of the time to be a scapegoat used when someone gets frustrated from the others not understanding and/or when they cannot respond to a strong counter argument.

 

There's no such thing as "the discussion as a whole" - (just like there's no such thing as "society") - so you can't appeal to it to make your arguments. 

 

I get that it's annoying to be on the receiving end of "I'm smarter than you!", but I know what it's like to be well-researched in a subject only to have some uninformed fool with a very strong opinion expect me to logically walk him through what took me months to understand.  And subjects that take me months to understand cannot be condensed into 100-word essays that uninformed people can instantly grasp; they have to be studied slowly and humbly. 

 

I'm not saying everyone who has said, "I'm smarter than you!" was going through what I go through.  They could very well be a jerk.

 

But you'd be better served providing them empathy, even if that empathy isn't designed to change their behaviors.  In other words, you can empathetically walk away. 

[Koroviev]

I think it depends on how it is used. First of all is it a massive problem if someone is smarter than you? I personally am very happy that I'm just smart enough not to be intimidated by other folks smarts and indeed value friends and acquaintances who are obviously brainier than I am. If your not constantly worried about not bieng the smartest person in the world (or even the room!) you can stand to learn a great deal.

 

Just a point of clarification in case my original post came off this way, I have no problem with others being smarter than me, that is the whole reason I came here, my only issue is using "I'm smarter than you" as an argument.

 

Other than that fantastic way of putting it, much appreciated!!

[Kevin Beal]

I've heard this too with things like self awareness and emotional insight, like "I've done more work on developing my sense of self, therefore..."

 

Yea, it's really disappointing. It's usually in place of any kind of argument. I'd rather see this wisdom demonstrated.

 

To me it's either immediately dismissed as boloney, or it's like a ninja master who says how great they are at martial arts, but won't show off his moves. >sad face< (Usually it's the first, for me though).

 

And it's not unimportant that there is such a thing as the Dunning-Kruger effect which causes people to over estimate their competence in something with the degree that they are ignorant of it. Knowledge makes humility.

 

-------------------------

 

I've had this experience a bunch of times (apparently unable to learn my lesson) where I think to myself that I'm this amazing programmer. Then I stumble across entirely new areas of programming knowledge where other people's knowledge makes me look like an infant in comparison. I both know and easily forget just how little I actually know.

 

And, really, even if that person is smarter, it doesn't make what they are saying true. Some of the stupidest things I've ever heard have come out some of the most sophisticated minds.

 

On a philosophy forum, it shouldn't really mean anything to say that this person or that person is smarter, what matters is reasoning up from first principles.

 

Also, ...please don't feed the trolls. They only get more sophisticated in their trolling when you do that.

[Frosty]

While it's sometimes true, I don't think it's an effective way of arguing a point. If you've made a valid claim which has valid premises and valid inferences and thus must have a valid conclusion and someone rejects it then you focus on what they've rejected as a means to settle the debate. I'm fairly sure that I've never seen anything good come out of "I'm smarter than you" as an argument.

[MMX2010]

It's frightening and not-at-all surprising that you've all concluded that "the real problem" is that super-smart people get frustrated and then lash out by saying, "I'm smarter than you!"  But the real problem may very well be (and often is) that ignorant people expect to be taken as seriously as intelligent, well-informed people. 

 

Kevin Beal says, "And it's not unimportant that there is such a thing as the Dunning-Kruger effect which causes people to over estimate their competence in something with the degree that they are ignorant of it. Knowledge makes humility." as a way of lampooning anyone who says, "I'm smarter than you", but he doesn't use it to lampoon the recipient of those words. 

 

Troubador's excellent post says, "The issues stem from people wanting to appear to be the smartest person in the room, and use smoke and mirrors to bully and silence people." as a way of lampooning anyone who says, "I'm smarter than you!" - but he doesn't use his words to lampoon the recipient of "I'm smarter than you!"  (Haven't you figured out that ignorant people who want to be seen as equally intelligent as well-informed people will deliberately provoke a frustrated response from a superior intellect, and then complain about that frustrated response in order to gain sympathy from the masses?)

 

Frosty adds, "If you've made a valid claim which has valid premises and valid inferences and thus must have a valid conclusion and someone rejects it then you focus on what they've rejected as a means to settle the debate." as a way of lampooning anyone who says, "I'm smarter than you!" - but that tactic only works when the ignorant person is open-minded enough to rationally and reasonably consider any argument. 

 

The bottom line is that you're all emotionally preferring an egalitarian, non-hierarchical debate structure, but that doesn't necessarily work.  Worse, egalitarian, non-hierarchical debate structures are always preferred by r-selected individuals, some of whom will be simultaneously ignorant, closed-minded AND highly skilled in emotionally manipulating crowds of people through complaints of being bullied and oppressed. 

 

The most effective way to counteract r-selected bad behavior is through K-selected rules, but very few people in modern societies are familiar with K-selected rules, (and most people in FDR actively oppose K-selected rules).  K-selected rules inevitably produce non-egalitarian, dominance hierarchies, which are precisely the point - because Truth/Falsehood is a dominance hierarchy, and Best Truth / Less Best Truth is also a dominance hierarchy. 

 

The best K-selected dominance hierarchy I'm familiar with is the Roosh V Forum, which separates "Likes" - (which are equivalent to FDR's upvoting/downvoting system) - from "Reputation" - (which does not exist in FDR).  Anyone can give or receive infinite "Likes" for any post, but each RVF member can only give or receive one precious Reputation-Point from each individual RVF member. 

 

"Likes" are given for anything ranging from a silly joke or meme, to a quick and correct answer to a trivial question, to a relevant link to a scientific study, to the most awe-inspiring, life-changing post you'll ever read.  But Reputation Points are the platinum currency of the Roosh V Forum, and they're only given for serious reasons - and you must explain why you're repping that poster.  The most esteemed RVF members have triple digit Rep Points, and enjoy a well-deserved status bump - which allows them to argue more passionately and reach out to help others more freely. 

 

Kevin Beal is dead wrong.  Knowledge doesn't create humility.  Competing in a dominance-hierarchy, losing badly, and having the decency to apologize without self-attacking creates humility.  Saying, "I'm smarter than you!" is one of many ways - (not necessarily the most effective) - to assert one's superior position in a dominance hierarchy.  And without a dominance hierarchy, you just get a free-for-all wherein everyone participates, but few people (if any!) are adequately recognized for their superior contributions.  This creates a "Why bother?" effect, wherein the best people leave for greener pastures. 

[thebeardslastcall]

[Koroviev]

@MMX2010 you seem to be missing the point. The point is NOT that some people are not, could not, or should not, be smarter than others, this claim would be ludicrous. The point is also NOT that people cannot or should not SHOW that they are smarter than others. The point is, simply, that saying "I am smarter than you" is not an argument and does not accomplish anything outside of completely killing the conversation, and leaving no room for further discussion. Almost every time when that statement is used the conversation degrades into a pissing match that is no better than someone saying "my dad is bigger than yours." As soon as someone says "I'm smarter than you" what is meant is it no longer matters what other arguments you may have they are automatically invalidated simply because you are less intelligent than I am. Not to mention a lot of people (hopefully none here) may see the "I'm smarter than you" and automatically side with that person, no matter how wrong that person may be.

 

For instance if I said I'm right because I have a masters in psychology, was the head of the Harvard Debate team, and have published numerous peer reviewed papers on this subject, also, I'm older than you so I obviously have more experience than you do, how would you respond?

[shirgall]

For instance if I said I'm right because I have a masters in psychology, was the head of the Harvard Debate team, and have published numerous peer reviewed papers on this subject, also, I'm older than you so I obviously have more experience than you do, how would you respond?

 

If you said you had a Masters in Psychology, were head of the Harvard Debate team, published a number of papers on a subject and then said that an assertion I had made was incorrect because it overlooks important relevant details that affect subsequent arguments, I would feel pretty compelled to listen what you said.

[Koroviev]

If you said you had a Masters in Psychology, were head of the Harvard Debate team, published a number of papers on a subject and then said that an assertion I had made was incorrect because it overlooks important relevant details that affect subsequent arguments, I would feel pretty compelled to listen what you said.

 

Yes, absolutely, but first off that last part is not usually included, and was purposefully left out of my example above. Second, it seems like "I'm smarter than you" is usually used when the "smarter" person does not have a strong rebuttal to a previous counterpoint. Third, yes you may be compelled to listen (as I agree the other person should be and I would be as well) and then go back over everything they said and find that you still have a strong case to make because the "smarter" person was wrong, or missed something. So what good has bringing their credentials into the conversation done. My main point is that "I'm smarter than you" not itself an argument, but a tactic used to show authority, whereas here we are concerned about reason and evidence not what authority figures tell us. It would be hugely more useful if the "smarter" person instead pointed to where the other person was wrong and showed evidence as to how the "smarter" person knew the other person was wrong. Saying "I'm smarter than you," or "I'm older than you," or "I'm bigger than you," does nothing but stop the conversation flat or change the topic to who's smarter leaving the original discussion to rot. Also, @MMX2010 argued above that "I'm smarter than you" is not used in order to get people to self-reflect. 

Edited July 10, 2015 by Koroviev

[ResidingOnEarth]

I've heard this too with things like self awareness and emotional insight, like "I've done more work on developing my sense of self, therefore..."

 

Yea, it's really disappointing. It's usually in place of any kind of argument. I'd rather see this wisdom demonstrated.

 

To me it's either immediately dismissed as boloney, or it's like a ninja master who says how great they are at martial arts, but won't show off his moves. >sad face< (Usually it's the first, for me though).

 

And it's not unimportant that there is such a thing as the Dunning-Kruger effect which causes people to over estimate their competence in something with the degree that they are ignorant of it. Knowledge makes humility.

 

-------------------------

 

I've had this experience a bunch of times (apparently unable to learn my lesson) where I think to myself that I'm this amazing programmer. Then I stumble across entirely new areas of programming knowledge where other people's knowledge makes me look like an infant in comparison. I both know and easily forget just how little I actually know.

 

And, really, even if that person is smarter, it doesn't make what they are saying true. Some of the stupidest things I've ever heard have come out some of the most sophisticated minds.

 

On a philosophy forum, it shouldn't really mean anything to say that this person or that person is smarter, what matters is reasoning up from first principles.

 

Also, ...please don't feed the trolls. They only get more sophisticated in their trolling when you do that.

 

I'm glad I popped into this forum this evening, just so I got to read your post!  You've expressed more wisdom in those 8 paragraphs than I've experienced all week while AFK.  I really need to surround myself with smarter people (not the kind this thread is talking about).

 

Also... your closing statement about trolls made me laugh.  Very true.  On most forums trolls probably just spend most their time feeding, but only slowly improve their troll-fu.  A philosophy forum must be like troll training camp where they get to feed less often (fewer people take the bate) but their troll-fu is very rapidly honed and improved.

[Slavik]

Well I will admit that I have been guilty of doing so myself on a few occasions.  I do agree with you that it stops the conversation completely, well I did use it in order to stop the conversation to begin with.  A few times when debating such things as spanking, I would first debate, then when I see that they are just throwing opinions out, I would ask them to tell me where is the opinion coming from, their background, so as to figure out if its an educated opinion or appeals to emotions.  But yes, it does tend to stop the conversation in its tracks.   

[MMX2010]

@MMX2010 you seem to be missing the point. The point is NOT that some people are not, could not, or should not, be smarter than others, this claim would be ludicrous. The point is also NOT that people cannot or should not SHOW that they are smarter than others. The point is, simply, that saying "I am smarter than you" is not an argument and does not accomplish anything outside of completely killing the conversation, and leaving no room for further discussion.

 

That's not true because the person saying "I'm smarter than you!" isn't necessarily leaving the conversation permanently, but the recipient who becomes so annoyed by this statement that he vows never to return to the conversation is leaving the conversation permanently. 

 

So it may be that: (1) They've both left the conversation at the same time.  (2) The person saying "I'm smarter than you!" has not left the conversation, but the recipient has left the conversation.  In this case, the recipient is responsible for stopping the conversation and leaving no room for further discussion.  (3) The person saying "I'm smarter than you!" has decided to permanently leave the conversation, but the recipient has decided to remain.  In this case, the speaker is responsible for stopping the conversation, leaving no further room for discussion.  (4) Neither party has permanently left the conversation, even though they're not going to post today. 

 

As you can see, this topic is much more nuanced than you think.  And I've noticed that you're trying to throw all of the responsibility on those who say, "I'm smarter than you!" 

 

So the only way to settle this is for you to provide links of people saying, "I'm smarter than you". 

[MMX2010]

Also, @MMX2010 argued above that "I'm smarter than you" is not used as a way to get people to self-reflect. 

 

You're misinterpreting me.  I didn't argue that "It's impossible for anyone who says, 'I'm Smarter Than You!' to get the recipient to self-reflect." - but I did argue that the primary motivation for saying, "I'm Smarter Than You!" is not to get the recipient to self-reflect. 

 

(I also argue that no one either morally or aesthetically obligated to get someone else to self-reflect.) 

Yes, absolutely, but first off that last part is not usually included, and was purposefully left out of my example above. Second, it seems like "I'm smarter than you" is usually used when the "smarter" person does not have a strong rebuttal to a previous counterpoint.

 

There are quite a few arguments that are so stupid that they cannot be rebutted.  And smarter people have neither the moral obligation, aesthetic obligation, nor personal talent required to rebut these terrible arguments. 

[Koroviev]

You're misinterpreting me.  I didn't argue that "It's impossible for anyone who says, 'I'm Smarter Than You!' to get the recipient to self-reflect." - but I did argue that the primary motivation for saying, "I'm Smarter Than You!" is not to get the recipient to self-reflect. 

 

you're right my apologies I should not have misquoted referring to above I should have said "Also, @MMX2010 argued above that "I'm smarter than you" is not used in order to get people to self-reflect." This has been fixed.

 

 

There are quite a few arguments that are so stupid that they cannot be rebutted.  And smarter people have neither the moral obligation, aesthetic obligation, nor personal talent required to rebut these terrible arguments. 

 

I 100% agree but that doesnt change the argument that saying "I'm smarter than you" does not add anything to the conversation, and is not a valid argument

[Koroviev]

I need to make another clarifying note.

 

This topic was absolutely not meant to be a personal attack against anyone, simply an observation that I'd made of many different posts which I felt should be discussed. I am terribly sorry if anyone has been offended, or if my wording of the topic came off otherwise.

 

This does not change my stance on the argument and counter points are still very welcome I just wanted to apologize to anyone I may have offended.

[Kevin Beal]

I told someone that I was smarter than them and soon after, the universe showed me proof that I was on the right path

 

[David Ottinger]

I try to point out that truth isn't a competition.