Anti-Intelligence: 4 Components of General Intelligence

Intelligence is the single defining trait of humans that sets us apart from other animals; it is thus that while humans can accept low measurements of physical attributes like strength or speed, they find it difficult to accept low evaluations of intelligence, e.g. via IQ tests.

Luckily, now people count many types of intelligence - some have created lists of 8, 12, or more types - ranging from logical intelligence to emotional intelligence to musical intelligence to visual intelligence or even sexual intelligence; hopefully we all can be scored highly in at least one type.

However, when measuring general intelligence, it is important to consider not only the additive intelligence traits, but also the subtractive anti-intelligence traits. The ancient Greeks noted that humans have the unique trait of logical reasoning (logos), but also retained the emotional, impulsive, desire-based aspects of animals (thymos) as well - the idea being that we struggle in between these aspects, but as humans we should orient ourselves toward our human nature, not our animal nature.

So what are the additive intelligence traits?

• The first is pure intelligence - logic, reason; we can call its measurement "IQ," the Greeks called it "logos."
• The second is sensory sensitivity - qualities like empathy, tactile sensitivity, a good eye or a good ear, etc. - we can call its measurements "Sensory Quotient" or "SQ." While not the ability to reason per se, it is an information source that is key in order to understand related concepts, etc. Most "intelligence types" found in lists popular today can be found here: such as EQ or visual intelligence or spatial intelligence or lingual intelligence. EQ is particularly important if only because emotions are so ubiquitous in life.

The additive intelligence traits are your "base" intelligence potential at any given time. You can also work at increasing these (it is easier to increase a specific SQ trait than the general IQ trait). Unfortunately, most of us are plagued by subtractive anti-intelligence traits that "turn off" our intelligence in many situations, stimying our potentials. These traits are ultimately facets of what the Greeks called "thymos" - the animal traits.

So what are the subtractive anti-intelligence traits?

• The first is groupthink susceptibility (in-group signalling) - from our tribal, pack-like animal heritages, we have various levels of susceptibility to groupthink; in other words, we have a tendency to "give up" our reasoning ability and simply follow the pack's rules, slogans, and ideologies. This is how an accomplished doctor or physicist can also be a raving racist or suicidal zealot or card-carrying Nazi - the result is that the IQ is used only selectively, while it is turned off when the groupthink susceptibility takes over. We can call the trait to resist this "Groupthink Independence Quotient" or "GQ."
• The second is self-bias (unconscious self-deception) - this is the tendency to favor decisions that benefit the self over others; basically, this is control by desire, another main "thymos" trait. This is how an accomplished engineer or architect could also be entirely convinced that his beautiful secretary is the best choice to hire, or that of course he should be the one allotted the biggest pool of bonus money this year. It is why people treat you differently based on your role and possible positive benefit to them. Since humans have both reasoning and desire, what happens is that desire takes over the decisions, while reasoning works to make excuses to justify those decisions - after the fact. The counter to self-bias is morality and ethics - the ability to understand the virtue of doing what is good for all, not just good for oneself. We can call the trait to resist self-bias "Virtue Quotient" or "VQ."

So, overall we now have 4 traits: the additive intelligence traits of IQ and SQ, and the traits of resisting subtractive anti-intelligence being GQ and VQ. Another way to think of these are that we have 2 "yang" traits and 2 "yin" traits. The yang traits are visible and obvious, while the yin traits are invisible and unseen - yet their effects are clear. We can also think of the yin traits as wisdom traits - matching the idea that while intelligence aids the adding of knowledge, wisdom is the paring down of the dross in order to allow the wisdom to emerge.

Overall, this gives us generally 4 domains of general intelligence, as follows:

Intelligence (action/yang): IQ (Intelligence Quotient), SQ (Sense Quotient)
Wisdom (non-action/yin): GQ (Groupthought Independence Quotient), VQ (Virtue Quotient)

• IQ is a general measure of how quickly and deeply your mind works; it is generally difficult to change. Basically, this is potential.
• SQ is a general measure of various senses that you have acquired; it includes aspects such as EQ, etc. Basically, this is sense organs. As there are numerous senses (including combinations), each should be gauged separately (EQ - emotions, MQ - music, AQ - art, LQ - language, NQ - nature, etc.); there is no "total" SQ. (One can be well-rounded by working at least one for each sense category though, e.g. visual, audial, tactile, olfactory, )
• GQ is a general measure of how resistant you are to group susceptibility, i.e. the unconscious absorption of the groupthink and then belief in groupthink as if it is your own thinking. Basically, this prevents "hacking" of the mind via the group bias. People with low GQ are susceptible to groupthink and conformity, tend to be loyal and patriotic, cannot distinguish their own beliefs and their group's beliefs, and will join idiot mobs.
• VQ is a general measure of ethical foundation, basically wisdom and compassion and understanding and being able to explain wisdom and compassion consistently; it is also a general measure of how resistance you are to self bias, i.e. the unconscious replacing of logic with self-benefit in decisions and thought. This prevents "hacking" of the mind via the self bias. People with low VQ are selfish and Machiavellian, do not understand morality and cannot consistently describe it. Their minds are focused on themselves, and cannot encompass others within it.

Examples of high and low scores of each are as follows:

• High IQ: good at math and logic, quick thinkers and learners, high curiosity, many interests.
• Low IQ: struggle at math and logic, slow thinkers and learners, low curiosity, few interests.
• High SQ: keen senses for certain specific skills (perfect pitch, empathic, etc.)
• Low SQ: dull senses for certain specific skills (tone-deaf, daft at reading emotions, etc.)
• High GQ: independent and not really identifying with a group; ideas are own and not adopted from an identity group
• Low GQ: strong group identity, ideas parrotted from group subconsciously due to inner desire to identify, speaks in slogans
• High VQ: decisions and beliefs not linked to own desires, ethical beliefs and interpretation consistent
• Low VQ: decisions and beliefs from desires, beliefs are interpreted loosely to justify desires

Universal Ethics

The various religions and philosophies have vastly different moralities; from Christianity to Buddhism, Islam to Daoism, capitalism to socialism, Zionism to libertanianism, few share the same definitions of these complex (and changing) terms, and thus debates are usually unfruitful and meaningless, yet most of the time we focus on futilely fighting with each other.

Generally, ethics can be compared both quantitatively and qualitatively.

• Quantitatively: How many people are benefited by the morality?
• Qualitatively: In what way are they benefited?

So the quantitative part means, for this religion or philosophy, to whom are we do be kind to?
And the qualitative part means, for this religion or philosophy, how do we act in order to be kind?

And the quantitative part is simple to compare - as it is just a type of magnitude. In the quantitative sense, "more" is "better."
The qualitative part is more complex to compare, but regarding the qualitative part, generally we find that there are certain rules that appear to be universal or near-universal - our universal ethics.

A short list is:

1. Don't kill
2. Don't rape
3. Don't steal
4. Don't lie

This is thus a short list to "test" your ethics and morality - if, for example, you are killing somebody in the name of your religion, philosophy, or other -ism, you are using it to justify your committing those heinous acts.

Of the above, the 4 universal crimes are, of course, not of equal weight.

1. Killing is the worst, because it is permanent (a killed person can never be revived and is gone forever).
2. Raping is the 2nd worst, because it is sometimes permanent (can result in the birth of new life, as well as lifelong trauma).
3. Stealing is the 2nd least, because it is sometimes reversible (stolen goods can often be returned by the thief).
4. Lying is the least, because it is reversible (lies can be corrected, by the liar or even others with evidence).

In other words:
Life > Love > Value > Truth

But all of these virtues (the reverse of the crimes above) all stem from one "mother" virtue: compassion - the core attribute that we need to live harmoniously with others. Conversely, the "mother" detect is selfishness, from which apathy towards the harming of others is born.

The above list of four is simple to learn and simple to follow. Simply do not do those things. Use the list as a simple "evil test."

If evil is being committed, analyze it using the Evil Triangle.

Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence was popularized by author Daniel Goleman in 1995 as a counter to the then-popular IQ test for measuring general intelligence. Goleman argued that emotional intelligence was even more important than IQ for success in professional life, and those with low IQ scores were of course overjoyed to be vindicated. Today, corporations continue this same message, but if EI is more important than IQ in professional life, that perhaps is more a problematic symptom of corporate systems where politics and favor are more important than intelligence and skills.

Nevertheless, EI is an important skill to have in such environments. Unlike IQ, which is a score designed to assess general intelligence, EI is a specific subset of skills relating to emotions, which can be improved with practice (unlike IQ, which is difficult to increase). In Goleman's model, emotional intelligence involves the following skills (paraphrased):

• Self-awareness - observing one's own emotions
• Self-control - controlling one's own emotions
• Empathy - observing others' emotions
• Social skill - controlling others' emotions

The above model is reasonable and complete; however, Goleman also adds a fifth skill: Confidence - which is redundant and unnecessary, as this is part of self-control for many of us, and a character trait for a few of us. (Actually, Goleman himself removed the fifth skill in his current EI model, too.) It is also important to remember that, like IQ, EI is an ability measurement and not related to personality; both high IQs and high EIs can be used for good or for evil.

With the complete 4-Part Model, we balance two axes: self and others, and observation and control. (The observation aspects can be thought of as sense organs.) This model focuses on these aspects only, removing character traits, which should be studied separately. Thus, EI survey questions that relate to personality (e.g. enthusiasm about goals - which is related to temperament, not EI) are removed as well.

So, the burning question remains - what is my emotional intelligence score?

Use the levels below and click the button at bottom to calculate your EI score. (This is a self-evaluation, so try to be humble and objective with your answers.) Like IQs, this score is normalized to have average scores of 90-110, with higher and lower scores indicating various levels of superiority and inferiority. In addition, separate scores are given for the 4 different skills as well, so that test takers can then resolve to make individual improvements on skills found to be weaker. (Right-click the generated graph to save as an image for reference.)

I can explain my actions in detail

I can explain my strengths and weaknesses in detail

I can accurately describe my emotions as I feel them

I can accurately predict what I will do in what situations

I know how to stay calm in difficult situations

I know how to manage frustration or misery into positive actions

I know how to avoid losing my temper

I get carried away and do things on a whim

People have told me that I am a good listener

I easily sympathize with others' plights

I can easily read others' emotions

I am sensitive to the feeling of a group's atmosphere

I am good at organizing groups

I am comfortable talking to any type of person

I can predict how others will react in a situation

I am good at somehow smoothing out emotions when conflict appears

My EQ is:

Your browser does not support canvases.

Group Idiocy

Group Idiocy is the phenomenon where people unconsciously yet voluntarily forgo their own independence of thinking and reasoning, in order to submit to and join with others; often this leads to the phenomenon of idiot mobs, the control of which are in turn are fundamental to politics (group power) and organized religion (political religion).

This idea was first described by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran pastor who staunchly and bravely opposed the German Nazi regime, paying for his heroic acts with his life when he was hanged in a concentration camp, just 2 weeks before its liberation. Bonhoeffer simply called the condition Dummheit ("stupidity"), but here I rename it to distinguish from other forms of stupidity.

The "stupidity" referred to here is a state where reason is voluntarily given up to be replaced by groupthink. (In philosophical terms, specifically, practical reasoning ("what to do?") is discarded, while speculative reasoning ("how to do it or explain it?") is retained - the latter of which is generally activated to imagine justifications for the actions decided by the groupthink).

It is a form of stupidity unrelated to IQ or other types of intrinsic intelligence; many seemingly "intelligent" folks are group idiots - e.g. doctors, engineers, etc. who nevertheless were willing Nazis, cultists, or the like. It is thus important to distinguish group idiocy stupidity from low-IQ stupidity, as they are independent traits that should be observed separately.

Group idiocy can also be called slave mind, as such minds are effectively "switched off" for matters decided by the groupthink. People with higher extroversion and stronger group identity are higher in group susceptibility, a key risk factor for group idiocy. Conversely, those who are low in group susceptibility are more likely to have independent mind, with minds still active, objective, and independent - not (voluntarily) enslaved to some group. This form of intelligence is arguably the most important of all, far more important than IQ, EQ, or the like, in that it has a major role in preventing mass atrocities; the greater the ratio of independent minds in a population, the less chance that idiot mobs will form to wreak atrocities. (The ability to resist this anti-intelligence factor is GQ.)

The difference between slave mind and independent mind is stark and easy to see: an example is the 9-year old who points out contradictions to the adult who identifies with a religious organization - the 9-year old's mind is still undeveloped, yet his mind is already "active," curious to know why and how, while the older adult, despite having a more developed mind, has a voluntary "slave mind," active only to concoct explanations within the bounds that his organized religion has allowed him; he is unwilling to think outside of those bounds.

Some of the symptoms of group idiocy are as follows:

• Hive mind: somehow one's beliefs "coincidentally" very closely match that of their group identity.
• Strong group identity: the "us vs. them" mentality naturally leads to group idiocy; basically, the desire to belong to a group pushes one to discard inconvenient independent thought that would naturally result in differences with the group.
• Catchwords and slogans: group idiots copiously use convenient, prepared words that they parrot from their group. These allow the group idiot to remain in shallow thought, with no chance to diverge from the group by actually thinking deeply and independently.

Group idiocy is particularly dangerous in that it unfortunately cannot be reasoned with.

• Minds Switched Off: one cannot argue against it, as arguments will not be believed or just ignored; generally catchwords and slogans will be copiously thrown in response.
• Emotions Reign: as the reasoning mind is turned off in favor of bias (emotions), emotions reign and thus idiots are easily angered and goaded, especially as the rational mind that would normally seek caution is turned off. (Compare with intoxication.)
• Obliviousness: as an unconscious phenomenon, group idiots are unaware of their state and cannot be convinced of it. Unlike outright evil, people do not get a feel of unease from it; group idiocy is devious and sneaky by nature. Once the group idiocy reaches a peak and the idiot mob appears, mass violence and other outright evil ironically is unseen as the mob is blinded to it.

Introverts are less likely to become victims of group idiocy than extroverts, simply because they are less influenced by groups and thus more often remain masters of their own minds. Those who are more invested in group identity (group susceptibility) will of course be more willing to voluntarily (yet unconsciously) give up their independent thinking to bask in the "safety" of the groupthink instead. Unfortunately, those who cherish membership in the groupthink are exactly the sort of people who choose to become politicians (harnessing groupthink is the core of political skill), thus group idiocy of course becomes the norm in that class of people.

We see group idiocy in many situations:

• Corporate yesmen who find that they "coincidentally" yet wholeheartedly agree with everything the executives decide
• Political mobs whose opinions happen to exactly match with their chosen group identities
• Religious zealots whose beliefs are perfectly aligned with each other but not with their holy canon (which they don't read independently, anyway), yet nobody seems to notice

As human beings, our greatest power is the ability to reason; yet ironically the vast majority of us have voluntarily turned this power off.

In the many upheavals, massacres, and so forth of history, we consistently see mobs of people who have surrendered to group stupidity and served as the mindless tools of the powers that both controlled and goaded them. Religion is a common example of a group that easily is used for group stupidity (often leading to mass killings), but is by no means the only type. Sadly, idiot mobs are a natural form of "policing" to ensure that the group idiocy remains in power.

How can we cure society of group idiocy? It is never easy, but some methods to start are as follows:

• Knowledge: if people know what it is, they have a better chance to recognize it, which is the first step to possibly control it.
• Liberation: liberating people from the group power hierarchies that pressure them to voluntarily forego ownership of their own minds will also naturally lead to less group idiocy.

Evil Triangle

The Fraud Triangle (created by criminologist Donald R. Cressey) is commonly taught regarding why fraud occurs: when the three elements of pressure ("I need money"), opportunity ("I manage the company's money"), and rationalization ("I deserve it, because I work so hard") occur together, fraud occurs.

Actually, this simple concept can be expanded to apply to any kind of evil, not just fraud.

The Evil Triangle thus explains why evil acts occur. When all three of the elements of "want," "can," and "justify" occur, the restraints preventing one from doing evil acts are undone, and the perpetrator goes and steals, rapes, murders, and so forth.

• "Want" is desire.
• "Can" is ability and opportunity.
• "Justify" is making excuses.

"Want" is the simplest of the three, and is an emotional need (for love, sex, money, etc.).

"Can" is a physical ability to do the deed. Often this is from power: A school bully "can," because he is bigger and stronger than the other kids; a corporate executive "can," because he has hierarchical power over other employees. Other times it is due to skill or access: a fraudster "can," because of his access to and skill using financial systems; a cat burglar "can," because of his skill at thieving and scaling walls.

"Justify" is the most interesting of the three, and is a mental exercise to create excuses as to why the evil act is in fact not wrong, and reflects the need for individuals to think of themselves as just and not evil. (Even the Nazis thought of themselves as just and doing good deeds, as reflected in their private diaries.) (It can also be a legal exercise, which allows governments to similarly legitimize and codify evil as "good" if desired.) Ideologies, laws, and religions are often used as convenient tools in this process of justifying atrocities. Modern leniency toward religions enables many to use religion for this purpose most easily: "It is a part of my religion, thus it is okay!" (Justification is necessary for obvious crimes that everybody can see, but for individual crimes often it suffices to simply hide the crime.)

Applying the Evil Triangle

1. Understanding Evil

The Evil Triangle helps us to understand evil. For example, from history - why did Nazis attempt to eradicate the Jews in the Holocaust? Because they wanted to (antisemitism), they could (government power, power of numbers), and they justified it (nationalism, racist ideologies). Why did European nations invade and colonize the New World? Because they wanted to (desire for gold, spices, land), they could (greater military power, infectious diseases on their side), and they justified it (Christianization of the pagans). Sometimes the last aspect - justification - is even not needed, e.g. during idiot mob violence or absolute power, where people stop caring about even resembling good. However, most ideologies are usually developed in order to assuage this desire for justification.

2. Preventing Evil

The Evil Triangle is also important, because it gives us a clear path to preventing evil acts: one needs to only remove at least one of the three elements; or even better, for greater effect, we can try to remove all three.

• Want: This is most complicated to remove; as despite causing many ills, desire is fundamental and strong. The difficulty of desire is that simply increasing it ever more does not necessarily lead to happiness. Many ancient sages tackled the conundrum of desire in the past, so a good place to start is to teach philosophy, e.g. Stoicism or Epicureanism from the Greeks, Buddhism from India, or Daoism from China; a modern choice may be Positive Psychology. The world media should do its part as well, by responsibly choosing programs that focus on happiness, and avoid fostering envy ("Lives of the Rich").
• Can: The ability to do wrong should be removed. Many mitigations are straightforward, e.g. flattening power structures, restricting access to systems, etc. (Corporations already do the latter, but are still resisting the former - letting go of power is not easy for people to do.) Loopholes where one is "above the law" should of course be removed, too. For example, the best way to prevent hiring discrimination is to just make all applicants anonymous.
• Justify: The use of laws, religions, and ideologies as excuses for atrocities should be prevented. Laws should be interpreted via the "spirit of the law," and not the "letter of the law," which creates loopholes to allow heinous acts. Constitutionalism should not excuse evil acts, either - a constitution is not a holy writ, although many treat it as one - it could be (gasp!) wrong. Religion and culture should not be a "free card" for anybody; basic univeral ethics like not stealing, raping, or killing should be a litmus test of religion or culture. If a religion espouses stealing, raping, or killing - it should be treated as a dangerous cult. (Religions and cultures often espouse things like human sacrifice, headhunting, etc. - it does not make them right.) Ideologies are only caricatures of philosophies, and should be treated as such. Intoxication should never lessen the sentence of any perpetrator - as this empowers would-be perpetrators to commit those acts, knowing that they will face lessened punishments.

3. Predicting Evil

Another important use for the Evil Triangle is to predict evil acts. If you have a politician who loves illicit sex, and he is given total power over a group of female prisoners, and he also happens to follow an ideology that preaches abuse of women as holy revenge - what do you think he will do?

All three applications are linked - by understanding, we can predict, and by predicting, we can prevent (by changing the conditions that would have allowed evil to happen).

Bias

Bias is how humans make decisions. More specifically, bias is the phenomenon where thought diverges from logic due to emotion. Humankind makes decisions (including judgments) almost solely based on bias. This is easily illustrated by looking at politics - if a politician named "Donald" makes a speech, and both Republicans and Democrats watch the same speech, they nevertheless will have completely opposite responses to watching the exact same thing: Donald was amazing, perfect, eloquent, etc. vs. Donald was terrible, laughable, embarassing, stunting, etc. (We would see the opposite for a different politician - let's call him "Joe.")

This is a serious problem (are opinions based on reality at all?) - and not limited to politics. This happens in all parts of society, e.g. in school grading, in corporate promotions, in sports judging, in media "lynchings," etc. This happens even with apparent high levels of intelligence in the perpetrators. It is ubiquitous, fully permeating human existence.

There are many sorts of this, from nepotism ("my son is the smartest person I know!") to cronyism ("my buddy is the most amazing worker here!") to tribalism ("I am 100% convinced that the party line is true"); groupthink, or following the beliefs of a group, is an extremely common form of bias. Homo sapiens means "wise man" - but it is clear that most humans are not using their capabilities for rational thought at all.

Red flags to spot this sort of bias are simple - just think from the reverse direction. "Do I think that my children or friends are better than others?" (self-bias) "Do I agree with everything that my political party says?" (group bias) And so forth.

18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume said, "Reason is...the slave of the passions." What we find is that in general, we make decisions based on our "passions" - then, we use "reason" to justify it to others. In other words, we do not use our vaunted intelligence to actually make decisions, we only use it to make excuses as to why we made those decisions... which were made solely from bias. Bias is really powerful, don't underestimate its power.

What follows is that controlling biases is a very useful tool for the powerful. Thus, much effort goes into controlling the media, which can be used to control biases.

Another result of bias is - our stations in life are more a result of people's biases, as opposed to merit or real achievements. So it is good to be satisfied with our lot and not dwell too much in comparison.

In the meantime, let us all try to observe our biases so that we can recognize them as such and negate them. If we do so, we can begin to see glimpses of evolving into the true homo sapiens.

Finally, another use for understanding biases is to predict decisions - almost everyone will invariably select the choice that will benefit them most (self-bias). This can also be used to identify and examine biases.

Bias is a critical and ever-present part of almost everything that humans do; thus, always be aware of it.

Confidence

Confidence is an oft-considered "virtue" that is unique in that its effect (positive or negative) depends on its direction and magnitude. This contrasts with actual virtues which follow "the more, the better." Specifically, confidence and unconfidence are borne from lack of knowledge - this lack of certainty creates a gap, which is then mentally filled; its direction (bias) is based on temperament. The direction and magnitude create various forms of confidence and unconfidence, which directly influence action or non-action.

Despite confidence being a type of bias (toward self or others), and normally biases are seen negatively, confidence is a strange exception that exhibits cognitive dissonance.

It is also confusing in that there are many kinds of confidence - and so the term causes much confusion when saying things like "confidence is the most important attribute for a leader!" What does that even mean?

Actually, "confidence" is a confusing word, because it is a "word of convenience" that uses one word to encompass many different meanings, both positive and negative.

For example, we can use different names for different kinds of "confidence" by degree, e.g.:

• Self-Doubt (very low)
• Diffidence (low)
• Equanimity (neither low nor high)
• Confidence (high)
• Arrogance (very high)
• Narcissism (pathologically high)
• Hubris (extremely pathologically high)

Certainly we would not want a leader who has self-doubt, but on the other hand would we want a leader with narcissism, either?

We can name different types of confidence by aspect, e.g.:

• Vanity (confidence in one's physical appearance)
• Snobbery (confidence in one's economic class)
• Elitism (confidence in one's social group identity)

We can also name different kinds of confidence by target, e.g.:

• Self confidence (confidence in one's own abilities)
• Self esteem (confidence in one's own integrity)
• Belief in others (confidence in another's abilities)
• Trust in others (confidence in another's integrity)

For example, we may see a leader who appears confident in his own abilities, but looks down on others' abilities. What sort of effects might this have on his team?

We can also name types of confidence by the internal mechanisms, e.g.:

• Belief in self (appearance of confidence reflecting true self-belief, such as due to experience)
• Bluster (appearance of confidence hiding deep self-doubt, such as due to sensitivity to expectations)

Generally, confidence is antagonistic to humility (another term that can have multiple meanings). As a bias, confidence obstructs objectivity. Equanimity, or the lack of confidence and unconfidence, allows one to be free of this bias, and thus listen to new information and to appraise situations objectively. Confidence biases one towards oneself; lack of confidence biases one against oneself. Neither confidence nor lack of confidence aid us; both are hindrances that restrict our objectivity.

The other effect of confidence or lack of confidence is to affect performance or the perception thereof. This is of course what most people are interested in, but we need to keep in mind the potential negatives as well, and adjust to reap the benefits and not the traps.