Intelligence isn’t Everything, Belief is…

Have you noticed that there are very intelligent people on both sides?

Very intelligent people believe in God.  Very intelligent people do not believe in God.  There are intelligent Republicans and there are intelligent Democrats (yes, it’s true).  No one side: left or right, conservative or liberal, faith or non-faith, has a corner on intelligence.  (I might add of course that there are enough idiots to go around for all sides to claim their fair share of them.)

In actuality, we use our intelligence to explain, justify, and defend our thinking and our beliefs, usually after we’ve made a commitment to said cause, party, or belief.  That is, intellectual reasoning, deduction or induction, is really not the primary motivating factor when we decide to commit ourselves to a particular cause or belief.  Please note the word, “commit.”

People commit themselves to a cause, because of personal experience, feelings, relationships, and/or inner personal dynamics that feed into their thinking and reaction to a cause or belief.  And so, people are passionate about their beliefs and positions mostly because of their personal commitment to it, they have become personal stakeholders.

For example, most people are either Democrat or Republican, not because they have first studiously and coolly analyzed the history of each respective political party and have carefully studied the party’s overall impact on the nation—analyzing its voting history, and its premises, programs, and policies—such study, if it ever happens, and the knowledge gained from it, usually comes after one has already committed him/herself to the party for reasons other than intellectual analysis.

The initial commitment is usually based on relationships, feelings, experiences, and the influence of others that one trusts and respects.  Meanwhile, one’s basic assumptions and presumptions go untested, remain unquestioned and avoid analysis.  Thus, intellectual defense, explanation, and justification (applied intelligence) follows commitment and rarely precedes it.

This is one reason why religious and political discussions become so heated and may ruin family dinner parties, or may even cause good friendships to breakup.  One’s personal commitment, and therefore one’s person—one’s personal view of reality, truth, meaning, and relationships—is threatened by opposing positions or contrary committed belief-systems.

This is also why political-ads full of negative mud-slinging, half-truths, and outright lies against the opposing side, actually do work.  In effect, we do NOT want real intellectual insight—truth, good reasoning, knowledge and understanding—what we want is reassurance.  We want our chosen party to reassure us that our assumed commitment to a certain set of beliefs and convictions will hold firm—regardless as to whether or not they stand the test of intellectual scrutiny.

Thus, “Don’t confuse me with the facts!” is our real attitude.  Facts do NOT speak for themselves.  We interpret them according to our liking, our way of thinking, our presumptions and assumptions.  And when we come across facts that do not add up with our beliefs or assumptions, we dump them for half-truths and innuendos that do support what we want to hear, what we already believe.

We all believe in something.  We all assume.  We all commit.  But just how much real intellectual thinking goes into our beliefs, our assumptions, and our commitments?  If we’re smart, I mean, if we really want good solid reasoning, thinking, knowledge, and truth to influence how we vote and what we support, perhaps we need to ask ourselves: By being committed to this particular position, party, place, or cause, what is it that I am not willing to see or accept—what are my blind spots?