When someone claims they are just as smart as Einstein, they aren't making a legitimate claim because we have no actual measure of "how smart that exactly is," nonetheless, people will dash & jump in, and claim it...
Why?
For the human biological behavioral trait of dominance asserting, what difference would we see if the trait had been designed versus what we see from the evolved trait?
When humans evolved the traits of dominance asserting, defensiveness, and Dunning-Kruger, since they were evolved, are they perfect in use and application?
A person will uphold that a random, sad-looking, Dollar General banana is "the answer to the universe," and will even get defensive and nasty about it.
What, biologically, is the root of this behavior?
As a preventative to having personal ideology challenged, many people use Relativist Fallacy to push away any potential threats to "their facts."
Why that kind of lying?
You can state a fact that completely tears down someone's stance, and yet they will readily lie "to disagree with you," what is really going on here, biologically?
If we view the common habit of people thinking they're "just as smart as Einstein, but just don't know the math," under the lens of the hardwired human and animal aversion to being backed into a corner, what does this tell us?
Some people will obviously outright lie in front of all because their brain interprets being called out for being wrong is the same thing as being surrounded by predators...
Is this perhaps the strongest instinct of them all?
How can we get modern people to get away from the hardwired instinct that being wrong about something is not the pleistocene equivalent of being backed into a corner?
Yesterday, a number of people scoffed at the idea that there are people who see themselves just as smart as Einstein but just don't know the math.
But many people do.
Why?
