The fair-world fallacy and the creation of nerds
There is a common belief that, for every positive trait a person has, there is an equal negative trait: that is, the belief that no one can be better than anyone else. Call that the fair-world fallacy, by analogy to the just-world fallacy.
Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences is an excellent example. Actual intelligence is something that some people naturally have more of than others, so there must be other intelligences (and we have to call them intelligences!) that those others can have more of. The supporters of this theory, unconcerned by its lack of empirical validity, claim that “the idea of multiple intelligences is important because it allows for educators to identify differing strengths and weaknesses in students”—ducking the fact of general intelligence and its implication that some students will be generally stronger than others—or, more revealingly, that:
Different intelligences, life requirements and environments also support the idea of diverse learning styles. Therefore, the acceptance of multiple intelligences presents a legitimate challenge to established traditional educational models. If you accept the idea that a person can combine a unique array of specific intelligences, or abilities, you would also need to accept that there is a place for a wide variety of learning approaches to enable each individual to realize his or her potential. In my view diversity in learning styles requires taking into account the specialness of each individual.
By “established traditional educational models”, the author means those based around IQ. (Never mind that these are becoming ever more de-established as the fair-world fallacy takes hold.)
It’s interesting to note that Gardner’s model has taken hold in education, a typically progressive and Blue-Tribe field. The fair-world fallacy is probably a great deal more Blue than Red; this could easily arise from political differences.
A purer example of the fair-world fallacy, one that I’ve seen many times from Blues, is the belief that every positive quality must have a corresponding negative quality, and vice versa. People who are physically fit must be stupid and boorish, people who are attractive or sexually successful must be assholes (note that internet-PUA was popularized by blogs from one specific location, and that location is Washington, DC), people who are mentally deficient in some way must be nice and pleasant to be around, and people who are intelligent must be incapable of social interaction—that is, nerds.
I have even heard, from a Howard Gardner-reading Blue Tribe relative, that all intelligent people are autistic. (This manifestation of the fair-world fallacy may be a factor in the popularity of the awful not-even-comedy The Big Bang Theory: she is a devoted fan of that show. From what I’ve seen of it, it does its very best to reinforce that preconception.)
The article linked above, which defines the Blue and Red tribes, comes close to defining a third, but rejects it in a revealing way:
There is a partly-formed attempt to spin off a Grey Tribe typified by libertarian political beliefs, Dawkins-style atheism, vague annoyance that the question of gay rights even comes up, eating paleo, drinking Soylent, calling in rides on Uber, reading lots of blogs, calling American football “sportsball”, getting conspicuously upset about the War on Drugs and the NSA, and listening to filk – but for our current purposes this is a distraction and they can safely be considered part of the Blue Tribe most of the time.
It later un-rejects it, claiming that (its own) criticism of Blues for hating Reds may be motivated by the narcissism of small differences: as Freud said, “it is precisely communities with adjoining territories, and related to each other in other ways as well, who are engaged in constant feuds and ridiculing each other”. As it is in the Balkans, the Middle East, and Communism, so it is in America—but why are Greys, a group-referent that was immediately taken as a synonym for ‘nerds’, so close to Blues?
The characteristic feature of nerds is a self-perceived inability to fit in. Nerds, it is said, are awkward and introverted, preferring to avoid social interaction and group activities, which they have no talent for, in favor of purely solitary activities. They are also intelligent, and a common belief is that it is because of their intelligence that they are awkward and introverted—that intelligence itself leads naturally to awkwardness and introversion. Which is exactly what the fair-world fallacy would say, and which does not fit with the existence of smart rednecks as a type. Where are the Blue or Grey smart rednecks, and where are the Red nerds?
I grew up in the cracks of the tribal system. Most of my family is Red, but there are a few Blues. In school, I had three distinct groups of friends: one was solidly Grey; one was Red of the military sort; and the other wouldn’t fit into the tribal system at all, since I was the token white guy.
Looking back, I notice two things. First, the Reds did not fall victim to the fair-world fallacy at all; second, different groups have different beliefs as to what correlates with intelligence, and those expectations create social roles that are difficult to escape. That is true as a general principle—it’s easier and less painful to do the expected or the thedish than the unexpected or the elthedish—but it may hold even more strongly in the case of social networks that one cannot (as in the first eighteen or so years of life) or usually should not (as in the case of close family) leave.
The intelligent Reds I knew were physically fit, socially capable, and introverted; the intelligent none-of-the-aboves (yes, there were some) patterned with the Reds; but the intelligent Greys I knew were physically weak, socially awkward, and introverted. Then they went to college, far outside the reach of their previous social context, and mostly shaped up.
If ‘nerdiness’ is inherent and immutable, this cannot be explained, and the absence of nerds among Reds and none-of-the-aboves cannot easily be explained. But if ‘nerdiness’ arises from the crippling of the intelligent by Blue-Grey fair-worldism, it all makes perfect sense. The reason that trait is far more common among Blues and their cladistic descendants is that that environment is the only one that contains the fair-worldism that motivates the role-assignment that gives rise to it.
If, believing in fair world, one concludes that high IQ applicants to one’s college are nerds, and one wants future movers and shakers, one will deliberately select low IQ applicants.
Of course really one should select the children of the rich and powerful, but that is a no no, and one probably has some fair world rationalization as to why they will turn out bad also.
jamesd127
October 20, 2014 at 00:12
(Never mind that these are becoming ever more de-established as the fair-world fallacy takes hold.)
haha no. Fair-world was what people talked about when I was in elementary school. It’s quietly dying as even hardcore marxists privately recognize the utility of IQ.
peppermint
October 20, 2014 at 01:18
Isn’t one of Conquest’s laws about that?
nydwracu
October 20, 2014 at 12:58
[…] Source: nydwracu […]
The fair-world fallacy and the creation of nerds | Reaction Times
October 20, 2014 at 03:56
This is wrong… I’ve seen too much of this “nerdiness,” and the most prominent examples that spring to mind – my mother (and to a lesser extent my father) fit the bill far too well and grew up totally outside of the Red-Blue divide.
There’s an interesting thing that people did when investigating gender differences: every time one is pointed out, it is explained away as socialization by certain people. Well, they took *babies,* and showed them images of faces and of mechanisms – the boys spent more time looking at the mechanisms, the girls more looking at the faces. This, I think, gets to the heart of something very deep – thing orientation vs people orientation.
*That’s* the separating point – some people are very thing oriented, and we sometimes call them “nerds.” And the bad things that go along with being a nerd have *nothing* to do with Red-Blue divides – if it was the result of Blue ideology, then of course it would get much much worse in college, but that doesn’t happen. The bad things are the result of generally colorless social predators.
People who do badly, socially speaking, in high school often act like they *outgrew* something. In fact they *escaped* something – an environment where people are forced together with no common purpose, where social status becomes the only universal value. A place where those who are deft enough at navigating the social waters can tear you asunder, and you’d better be people-oriented enough, or they will pay no price for doing so. In other words, the real world.
Nerds, thing-oriented as they are, flee the real world and never look back. And because of a quirk of modernity they are allowed to do so. They look back with scorn at what they once feared – easy to do, when you’re safe from it.
>But if ‘nerdiness’ arises from the crippling of the intelligent by Blue-Grey fair-worldism, it all makes perfect sense.
College is the Grey-Bluiest place I have ever fucking seen. It’s *amazingly* Grey-Blue. Your theory is *completely* contradicted here! No, I have seen far too many people who are obsessed with non-social things and as a result fit the “nerd” bill to one extent or another. This is very clearly extra high thing-orientation which results in increased vulnerability to social predation, which becomes much more toothless in college because people get to set their own agendas and have their own shit to do, and are far more segregated. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Blue ideology.
Now, what might have something to do with Blue ideology is something that is clearly wrong, but also actually helps the “nerds,” is the fair world fallacy you mentioned. Because of the fair-world fallacy, people sometimes assume that because someone isn’t people-oriented they are smart. The sad reality is that you can be thing-oriented and also stupid: these people aren’t noticed because they’re invisible to both people looking for interesting thing-discussions and people looking for good social partners. They aren’t invisible to social predators, though.
An aside: keep in mind that social predators can have a huge influence on behavior without direct attacks. The fish you see swimming away from a shark hasn’t had to be eaten by a shark in order to change their behavior in response to shark presence.
So in conclusion the fair world fallacy is wrong, and possibly on the whole bad, but it can’t be behind this phenomena because then we’d see the precise opposite of what we see wrt college changes in behavior. It probably only helps so-called “nerds” by making some people assume that they must have intelligence if they don’t have social skill.
Ilk
October 20, 2014 at 07:59
Then you haven’t seen much. Do you really think a party college full of wiggers, an engineering college in California (engineering tends Red and the West Coast tends to be less uptight, probably even about social roles, than the East), or anything like that is more Grey-Blue than a household full of technical contractors for the government?
My college wasn’t Grey at all, and most of the students were hardly even Blue. But it was the sort of place where the alumni complain that it’s becoming “too academic” and get them to build a bigger football stadium.
You can’t make cultural generalizations about all colleges, except insofar as the culture of every college is affected by the fact that it’s a college. Bob Jones University is different than Reed, and both are different than the University of Delaware, and so on.
I know what high thing-orientation looks like. There was a guy in high school who solved calculus problems in his head for fun. Carried around a calculator and some textbooks all the time and so on. Only time he talked about anything else, as far as I can remember, is that he once said something about how jazz is the best form of music because it’s the most complex. So there’s at least one person who probably really is thing-oriented enough to be socially inept: he didn’t give a damn what anyone else was doing, because he preferred to sit around and do math problems.
And — where’s the Blue version of the smart rednecks?
nydwracu
October 20, 2014 at 12:06
>You can’t make cultural generalizations about all colleges, except insofar as the culture of every college is affected by the fact that it’s a college.
I sure can, having looked at election maps and seen stark blue in the middle of red areas that happen to coincide with college towns! Colleges are blue as FUCK. Exceptions exist – the rule is very strong. You don’t get to call generalizations bad because exceptions to them exist. Hell, *most* of the time running across the street without looking won’t get you killed – somehow people don’t get all het up about me telling people not to run across the street without looking! Generalizations only have to be generally true, or even just *more true for the thing in question than for things generally,* to be useful. Colleges being BlueGrey pass the first bar with flying colors and disintegrate the next.
>So there’s at least one person who probably really is thing-oriented enough to be socially inept: he didn’t give a damn what anyone else was doing, because he preferred to sit around and do math problems.
Um, thanks for sharing an example that helps my point!
Ilk
October 20, 2014 at 19:02
There’s a difference between a general statement about a pattern that shows up in a type of thing and a statement about every instance of a thing. ‘Racist’ general statements about blacks (lower IQ, higher crime rate, higher impulsivity, etc.) tend to be true, and if you use those general statements to predict things about groups of blacks or individuals about whom you don’t know much other than that they’re black, you’ll be right more often than not — but that jazz guy is black, and the students at my college were mostly Red.
Also, ‘Blue’ abstracts away from differences within the tribe. There are probably groups of Blues who don’t fall prey to the fair-world fallacy at all — there are even Blues of the same psychological type as the British imperialist or the Randroid caricature, like Sam Biddle.
Fair-worlder Blues probably tend to be older and/or female. College environments, for men, tend to consist of men and abnormally masculine women — and they almost always consist of college students, who are drawn from certain age groups. (Or grad students, for whom the same applies.)
And no, my example doesn’t help your point. Out of all the people I knew who would be read as nerds, only one of them was as thing-oriented as you seem to be saying all nerds are. I’m not denying the existence of the type; I’m saying that that’s only one of the things behind the type, and probably not a major one, since, almost by definition, one does not often run across the really thing-oriented types.
nydwracu
October 20, 2014 at 21:00
Alternate hypothesis: Among the very smart, there are people who are socially ept, and socially inept. This mostly patterns with people-oriented vs thing-oriented. The socially ept don’t fetishize their intelligence, and don’t make a point of being smarter than their less-smart peers, and so aren’t noticed for being particularly intelligent. (Whether they do this to camouflage themselves, or to be nice to the less smart probably depends on how Blue or Red they are.) The socially inept are more likely to fetishize intelligence, because it’s *the* thing they have going for them, and are likely to be resentful of the success of the less-intelligent-but-more-socially-ept, especially if they belong to the Blue Tribe. Those who belong to the Red Tribe will be less likely to be resentful because they see people around them *openly* valuing traits other than intelligence.
Anthony
October 20, 2014 at 19:52
You don’t think smart rednecks can be noticed for their intelligence?
I suspect that the causation there runs the other way: fair-worlders and the resentful and socially inept write off the intelligent and socially ept, saying that they couldn’t possibly be intelligent because they’re not socially inept, and intelligent people are supposed to be socially inept. But it’s more likely to run both ways — resentment and so on.
I doubt social skill is as innate as you’re implying: skill caps and necessary effort to level up could be innate, but a lot of it still comes down to practice. Someone with average innate potential at, say, playing guitar won’t be able to get to the level of the best guitar players in the world, but they won’t be able to get anywhere if their social environment expects them to forgo even owning a guitar. Same thing for intelligence and social skills: fair-worlders say that intelligent people couldn’t possibly ever develop social skills, so a sufficiently large number of fair-worlders in the social environment will hinder the intelligent from developing social skills. Reverse Pygmalion effect.
nydwracu
October 20, 2014 at 21:10
Fluid intelligence is very much general, while crystallized intelligence is as much specialized as the personal history of its bearer allows for, IMO.
Exfernal
October 22, 2014 at 09:59
Reblogged this on ElderofZyklon's Blog!.
Cj aka Elderofzyklons Blog
December 9, 2014 at 09:01