NationStates Jolt Archive

Now this is something i've toyed with personally for some time. I'm fairly certain we can all agree, that they're are more than a few personality types present in human beings, some somewhat more..... interesting then others. Personality traits simply encompass outgoingness, faith, loyalty, introversion, extroversion, etc.

And so the plot thickens. I have contemplated for much time, and I can't seem too formulate an opinion to the matter, which is why gents, I seek your input. Peoply are inherently gullible. If they do not adapt, or are expierienced to an up-bringing in an enviorment completely devoid of sacrcastic humour, they remain nieve and prone to believe what they are told.

Are people who have such a trait, a said "gullibility trait" make them of lower intelliegence? Intelligence is measured in many ways, but would gullibility signify a lack of intellect? Or simply a lack of devloped sensibility?

The same could be said for cynics and skeptics alike. Are the ever-present cynical bastards of our society of higher intelligence? Or do they simply have a differnt mantality towards social life? Its quite the question really, boiling down too a definition of either inteligence or personality, or if they go hand in hand in some respects.

I think gullibility is usually a trait of more trusting/over-trusting/optimistic individuals, whereas cynics/skeptics are generally wary/paranoid/pessimistic.

I don't know if intelligence is necessarily a factor. We all know the saying that 'everyone's a cynic'. Or not. Since I think the saying goes 'everyone's a critic'. However, for the sake of this thread, we shall use my revised version.

It doesn't matter, we're all going to die.

It doesn't matter, we're all going to die.

You can literally answer any thread on NSG with that very statement.

I applaud you.

Nope. Gullibility does not equal stupidity. Just because someone´s a bit naive doesn´t make him/her stupid.

Nope. Gullibility does not equal stupidity. Just because someone´s a bit naive doesn´t make him/her stupid.

You expect me to believe that?

You expect me to believe that?

Are you gullible?:D

It doesn't matter, we're all going to die.

Therin lies the question. This individual sees in an abrupt, simple, philophical sense, how we are all fated. Does his grime outlook make him of higher intelligence for him too be able to understand and accept this truth? Or is simply a trait of a pessimistic personality?

Well, a good friend of mine is incredibly gullible in things that often just make you want to slap her. She's also very... exuberant, i.e. indeed the very opposite of cynical.

She's also really fucking smart.

So while I want to go with option 2, I'll have to go with option 3 just based on knowing her.

Anecdotal evidence FTW!

I consider stupidity to be willed ignorance. In other words, someone does not simply not know something, but he tries very hard to make sure he never learns it.
I can't think of an equivalent term for willed gullibility, but I think of it similarly. If it is possible to work hard at staying naïve* then I would consider that person to be stupid.


*That's right, there's an ümlaut there. Make of it what you will.

Are you gullible?:D

Well, someone once told me it wasn't in the dictionary, but I looked it up anyway. Instead of being shocked that I proved her wrong, she just laughed at me.
That was when my gullibility stopped believing in itself.

Well, someone once told me it wasn't in the dictionary, but I looked it up anyway. Instead of being shocked that I proved her wrong, she just laughed at me.
That was when my gullibility stopped believing in itself.

LOL!
I think we all have our gullible moments. But that does not make us stupid. Or does it?

Now this is something i've toyed with personally for some time. I'm fairly certain we can all agree, that they're are more than a few personality types present in human beings, some somewhat more..... interesting then others. Personality traits simply encompass outgoingness, faith, loyalty, introversion, extroversion, etc.

And so the plot thickens. I have contemplated for much time, and I can't seem too formulate an opinion to the matter, which is why gents, I seek your input. Peoply are inherently gullible. If they do not adapt, or are expierienced to an up-bringing in an enviorment completely devoid of sacrcastic humour, they remain nieve and prone to believe what they are told.

Are people who have such a trait, a said "gullibility trait" make them of lower intelliegence? Intelligence is measured in many ways, but would gullibility signify a lack of intellect? Or simply a lack of devloped sensibility?

The same could be said for cynics and skeptics alike. Are the ever-present cynical bastards of our society of higher intelligence? Or do they simply have a differnt mantality towards social life? Its quite the question really, boiling down too a definition of either inteligence or personality, or if they go hand in hand in some respects.

Aw, did you get Rickroll'd? :( It's okay - it happens to a lot of people. Not to me, of course, but it happens.

LOL!
I think we all have our gullible moments. But that does not make us stupid. Or does it?

There's actually a fairly good believability test here (http://www.ofesite.com/hangar51/gull/test01.htm), and a similar personality test here (http://thesurrealist.co.uk/personality).

There's actually a fairly good believability test here (http://www.ofesite.com/hangar51/gull/test01.htm), and a similar personality test here (http://thesurrealist.co.uk/personality).

Surprisingly I have actually taken that first one already. Almost 100% not Gullible.
However, I thought this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU&feature=related) test was much better.

Surprisingly I have actually taken that first one already. Almost 100% not Gullible.
However, I thought this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU&feature=related) test was much better.

"That's funny, I didn't think that YouTube made tests and quizzes. I wonder what it could...Noooooooo!!!!"

There's actually a fairly good believability test here (http://www.ofesite.com/hangar51/gull/test01.htm), and a similar personality test here (http://thesurrealist.co.uk/personality).

http://www.ofesite.com/cgi-bin/personal/cert1.cgi

Well, someone once told me it wasn't in the dictionary, but I looked it up anyway. Instead of being shocked that I proved her wrong, she just laughed at me.

Holy shit gullibility really isn't in the dictionary.

Holy shit gullibility really isn't in the dictionary.

*pretends to not be tempted*

Holy shit gullibility really isn't in the dictionary.

You're right, it's not. But look, there's a twenty dollar bill between the pages where gullible should be! Hey, I wonder if all dictionaries have a twenty dollar bill put between those pages. Hmm, I wonder...

Gulliblity isn't in the dictionary.

*pretends to not be tempted*

It's my stock response to anyone who tells me that. I vaguely recall once getting someone to actually go check.

It's my stock response to anyone who tells me that. I vaguely recall once getting someone to actually go check.
I totally would. After you had left. New Limacon's post notwithstanding.

It's not even gullibility at that point anymore, it's more like morbid self-defeating curiosity.

I believe the evolutionary-biologist consensus is that humans have evolved to be fearful & suspicious of the unknown, which I would think would make us un-gullible as a general rule. (Too lazy to find actual journal articles, here's a good book review (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/27/060227crbo_books) summarizing the idea.)

I don't think gullibility has much to do with other measurements of intelligence. If someone tends to blindly accept assertions that it would be very easy for them to check up on, then their gullibility can indicate intellectual laziness or incuriousness, which is related to intelligence but not the same thing. In my experience gullibility is driven more by emotions than by reasoning -- people aren't confident enough to trust in their own reasoning, or they want to please the person making the assertion by agreeing with them.

I totally would. After you had left. New Limacon's post notwithstanding.

It's not even gullibility at that point anymore, it's more like morbid self-defeating curiosity.

Yeah. Even as I said that I had the urge to go and look, even though I know it's there.

Yeah. Even as I said that I had the urge to go and look, even though I know it's there.
:p

I believe the evolutionary-biologist consensus is that humans have evolved to be fearful & suspicious of the unknown, which I would think would make us un-gullible as a general rule. (Too lazy to find actual journal articles, here's a good book review (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/27/060227crbo_books) summarizing the idea.)


Heh. You won't find a more gullible group than evolutionary psychologists. :D

*That's right, there's an ümlaut there. Make of it what you will.

It's a trema (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umlaut_%28diacritic%29), not an umlaut! [/nitpick]

I can tell you if you're gullible or stupid but first, you'll have to send me your credit card number. *nod*

I believe the evolutionary-biologist consensus is that humans have evolved to be fearful & suspicious of the unknown, which I would think would make us un-gullible as a general rule. (Too lazy to find actual journal articles, here's a good book review (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/27/060227crbo_books) summarizing the idea.)

I don't think gullibility has much to do with other measurements of intelligence. If someone tends to blindly accept assertions that it would be very easy for them to check up on, then their gullibility can indicate intellectual laziness or incuriousness, which is related to intelligence but not the same thing. In my experience gullibility is driven more by emotions than by reasoning -- people aren't confident enough to trust in their own reasoning, or they want to please the person making the assertion by agreeing with them.


I hereby adopt said assertion as my opinion. You will be credited, Trans Fatty Acids, (Double entendre.... teehee.) with the assist, have no worry. I eel confidently equipped to bring said question up in future debate.

Although I wouldn't be surprised if some novelty store really sold dictionaries without the gullible in them. Seems like the natural course of action. I mean, Christ we have Pope bobbleheads!

To be serious for a moment (sorry!), I think gullibility has to do, not with overall intelligence, but with different areas of intelligence. Logical reasoning, vs. social intelligence, etc.

I think it also has to do with, let's say, the nature of the trickery. As both a fairly smart and quite honest person, I tend to assume that most people are being honest unless I have evidence to the contrary. This sometimes serves me poorly. However, I would not say that this extends to matters where ordinary common sense and prior knowledge contradict what someone says. So I've never fallen for the "gullibility isn't in the dictionary" thing because my common sense and knowledge of dictionaries tells me that's silly. But I tend to be more taken in probably by people who lie about themselves or other unprovable/untestable things, because I don't lie about myself or my life and so I assume others don't either.

I believe the evolutionary-biologist consensus is that humans have evolved to be fearful & suspicious of the unknown, which I would think would make us un-gullible as a general rule. (Too lazy to find actual journal articles, here's a good book review (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/27/060227crbo_books) summarizing the idea.)

I don't think gullibility has much to do with other measurements of intelligence. If someone tends to blindly accept assertions that it would be very easy for them to check up on, then their gullibility can indicate intellectual laziness or incuriousness, which is related to intelligence but not the same thing. In my experience gullibility is driven more by emotions than by reasoning -- people aren't confident enough to trust in their own reasoning, or they want to please the person making the assertion by agreeing with them.

It has also been shown that we evolve to be trusting of information from legitimised sources as this is vital to inter-generational transmission of knowledge/skills. I.e. when you are young will generally take what your parents say as being true, because they are a trusted source. However, we are more suspicious of information from what we perceive to be non-legitimate sources.

There can also be an issue of group-think and conformity involved in gullibility. That is is you are in a group where everyone agrees on the information, especially if it's something you are unsure of, you are more liable to take this as accurate (due to consesus). You can even get significant conformity effects when there is something you know to be factually inaccurate due to an unwillingness to go against the crowd, which will then be rationalised by the conformer. Have a look at The Asch Conformity Experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments) for more detail on the research. The wikipedia page is actually quite a good summary (it's one of the classic Social Psychology studies) but it also has links to the papers.

So no, gullibility is not related to intelligence, but it can be related to conformity, especially when lacking confidence in the relavent background knowledge to call BS, blind reliance on 'legitimate' sources of information or, often, a combination of both.

It's linked to social intelligence i think. I know some people who have got really good grades all their lives, got a degree and are still really gullible. So no gullibility isn't linked to intelligence directly, more to a lack of experience of a specific area of knowledge, be it which music is best, or film is good or medical knowledge etc

very smart people can be just as gullable as those of very limited intelligence when the ambient culture romanaticizes values which are more universally detrimental then bennificial.

precisely the phenomina we are seeing in todays world.

although it may also be being compounded by a decrease in average intelligence as total population increases.

it isn't entirely intuitive that the latter would be the case. more people, one might intuitively expect, would mean more of more intelligent people and even of higher levels of intelligence in the same proportion as more less intelligent and of even lesser intelligence. observation though, would seem to suggest otherwise.

we do have a big problem on our hands as a species on this planet. less and less intelligent people wanting to have more and more children when there's waaaay to many of us being born waaay tooo often in relation to natural attrition.

more and more of them dumb enough to imagine either wars, or expecting everyone ELSE to abstain to solve the problem.

as for gullability, it seems to be far more universal then pleases anyone's ego. but then that's part of gullability to, isn't it?

saying that children are gullable, while true, is also saying, that a portion of a larger population that has some condition also has that condition. which isn't exactly saying a whole heck of a lot. and certainly nothing that justifies setting some arbitrary age standard that has little or nothing to do with natural or physical chainges do to aging.

the dominant culture is itself gullible to many things. started out to be, and perpetuates them.

and when the dominant culture promotes and perpetuates gullibility including that of self deception and pretending not to be, well that makes expecting anything other then gullibility of anyone at any age not reasonable at all.

and yet, large numbers of people have been known to collectively wake up, on occasion. and todays population is likely heading for situations it is collectively creating itself, which may very well force this to happen. that or something rather frightiningly close to extinction under rather uncomfortable circumstances.

none of which is cast in concrete entirely so it will be interesting to see what comes about as it does.

one reason i wish i could live long enough to see more of it. because the time scale involved, while not as drawn out as a lot of other things, is somewhat greater then the average human lifetime, by a factor of two or three approximately.

=^^=
.../\...