Why are smart people probably dangerous?  Because they can fool us.  They are better than average people are at lying, and hiding their true intentions.  Intentions that most likely relate to dominating the rest of us.  (How could they not?  I mean, wouldn't you use that brain-power to subjugate others if you could?  Grab the reins of the world? )

"This sounds a lot like anti-intellectualism", say a few of you.  And to that I answer "Of course it does!  Smart people — intellectuals, if you will — are dangerous[1]!".  This is a well-known fact.

The Khmer Rouge, for example, would target people who wore glasses.  Because if you wear glasses it's likely you can read.  And if you can read, you can basically make yourself smarter.  Becoming exponentially more dangerous.  A vicious cycle.

One might state: "This 'reading' of which you speak, sounds much like browsing the internet— a process many of us use to learn things in the 21st century!"  Indeed, it does! Ergo, the internet is also leading the world down an ever more dangerous path!  Perhaps even more so than reading— since it also combines visual and auditory stimuli!

"So how do we limit the danger?" I hear a few people asking one another, rather worriedly, and to that I say, the answer is obvious: anti-intellectualism!  Strict control of information and educational resources.  It's the only safe path.  Because intelligent people are dangerous people.  And the more intelligent they are, the dangerouser they are.

  1. ^

    Here we drop the "probably" because if something can be dangerous, ipso facto, it is dangerous

New Comment
1 comment, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I got minimal value from the article as written, but I'm hoping that a steel-man version might be useful. In that spirit, I can grant a narrower claim: Smart people have more capability to fool us, all other things equal. Why? Because increased intelligence brings increased capability for deception.

  • This is as close to a tautology as I've seen in a long time. What predictive benefit comes from tautologies? I can't think of any.

  • But why focus on capability? Probability of harm is a better metric.

  • Now, with that in mind, one should not assume a straight line between capability and probability of harm. One should look at all potential causal factors.

  • More broadly, the "all other things equal part" is problematic here. I will try to write more on this topic when I have time. My thoughts are not fleshed out yet, but I think my unease has to do with how ceteris paribus imposes constraints on a system. The claim I want to examine would go something like this: those constraints "bind" the system in ways that prevent proper observation and analysis.