The answer to this question depends to some extent on the role in which the person is functioning. In a role that has high public visibility, such as a political position, the foolish know-it-all usually presents little danger because their incompetence becomes widely observable and their influence is therefore, minimal. We have seen examples of such people in the run up to the recent election in the U.S. Those advocating, with evangelistic intensity, some extreme unrealistic policy are usually winnowed out by the colleagues with the greater awareness that we call “common sense.”
Much more dangerous is the highly intelligent person who is naïve or lacking in “common sense.” Brilliant people like Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell were, in their early years, committed to pacifism. It took Hitler’s rise to power to cause both Einstein and Russell to accept the need to use power to quell aggression. Churchill, on the other hand, understood the “bully mentality” and knew that Britain and its allies had no choice but to fight. Prior to World War II, the British and German mathematicians were colleagues who shared ideas and met at conferences. Many of these very intelligent mathematicians, such as G.H. Hardy were sympathetic to the German cause and were opposed to entering a war with Germany. He believed that their common interest in mathematics transcended their national loyalties.
Dan Kahan of Yale University proposes those who have high numeracy skills develop biases and use their superior cognitive skills to discount the authenticity of information that conflicts with their beliefs. Characterizing this mode of thinking as politically motivated reasoning, he stated:
High numeracy—a quantitative reasoning proficiency that strongly predicts the disposition to use System 2 information processing [logical thinking]—also magnifies politically motivated reasoning. In one study, subjects highest in Numeracy more accurately construed complex empirical data on the effectiveness of gun control laws but only when the data, properly interpreted, supported the position congruent with their political outlooks. When the data properly interpreted was inconsistent with their predispositions, they were more disposed than low numeracy subjects to dismiss it as flawed. If this is how people use their reasoning proficiencies to assess evidence about contested facts in the real world, then we would expect to see exactly what observational studies consistently find: namely, a progressive increase in political polarization as individuals of opposing outlooks become even more proficient in critical reasoning.
In other words, politically motivated reasoning causes us to weigh more heavily the evidence that agrees with our current opinions and attribute less weight to evidence that challenges our beliefs. Furthermore, those who are most proficient in system 2 thinking tend to use their higher order cognitive skills to craft better arguments to support–rather than challenge–their current opinions
Such a person in a position of authority represents a significant threat because they win widespread support for their recognized intelligence, while lurking beneath their high intelligence there may be a naiveté or lack of common sense that results in poor decisions.
As the philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal observed:
The heart has its reasons which reason knows not. We feel it in a thousand things…We know the truth not only by the reason, but by the heart.”
