i think the theory is that prosperous societies need to be scientifically advanced societies. 3 issues that come to mind

1) science maybe a necessary condition for the prosperous society but it is not a sufficient one

2) scientific culture maybe an emergent property of a particular type of society, so trying to simply 'fund science' might not result in its flourishing if cultural and social conditions are not right

3) many of the people who are form the core of islamist organizations are scientists and engineers, in fact, a disproportionate number. bin laden is an engineer, his #2 is a doctor, atta was an architect (which at cairo university is part of the engineering dept. and has a structural bias). this point relates to #1 & #2, obviously korea is not producing terrorists, but without particular social conditions it seems possible that an extremely rationalized and axiomatic mind might draw nutso conclusions

many of the people who are form the core of islamist organizations are scientists and engineers

That is because many of these people, believe it or not, are idealists. As an additional example, Che was a med student. Scientists and Engineers hate the injustice they see in the world because they are used to seeing order and perfection where other people see chaos. They feel like they are smarter than those crummy politicians (and they usually are) that enslave the masses. Unfortunately, idealists are easily consumed by their passions and fall to the dark side. It is only a great scientific discovery on their part (which gets them fame and fortune), or falling for a girl (or guy), that can turn them away from their eventual life of crime. Sometimes even that is not enough.

That is because many of these people, believe it or not, are idealists.

ah, as opposed to hard-headed liberal arts graduates? :)

ah, as opposed to hard-headed liberal arts graduates? :)

EXACTLY, bitches! ;)

ah, as opposed to hard-headed liberal arts graduates?

I was being tongue-in-cheek of course :)
But liberal arts graduates can be hard headed.

It is only a great scientific discovery on their part (which gets them fame and fortune), or falling for a girl (or guy), that can turn them away from their eventual life of crime.

A-Unit, w00t!

I don't know how sincere Mushie is, but I know just the shirts for his new lovegeek corps to wear:

Achewood

Questionable Content

Razib & Abhi,

Absolutely correct about the intellectual thought-processes and idealism angle about the fundies.

The problem is that intelligence alone does not a nice person make -- especially if the people concerned become very arrogant about how smart they are (this can afflict many desis too, as we all know). This essentially becomes a negative feedback loop when their lack of humility and compassion begin to distort their judgement -- and unfortunately this is exacerbated further when their egos prevent them from considering their own logic and behaviour objectively & honestly, especially in the context of the possibility of them actually being wrong despite their much-vaunted intelligence.

Plus lack of empathy and lack of remorse are two key indicators of a psychopathic personality -- so when you have extremely smart people who are very arrogant and lack a sufficient degree of compassion (or find ways to rationalise/justify their cold-blooded attitude), it becomes a recipe for disaster.

The goal of promoting scientific advancement is a noble one if, in the context of Mushie's scenario, it is used to counteract superstitious behavior and attitudes based on scientific ignorance -- however, it's not necessarily going to make the fundies concerned nicer people, as explained above.

The problem is that intelligence alone does not a nice person make

well, the implication of 'alone' is that it is a necessary condition for 'niceness.' i think the correlation, if any, between the normal range of intelligence (standard deviations up and down, about 95% of the distribution) and 'niceness' is pretty low, if there at all. smart people can simply do and say dumb things faster.

since we are engaging in a little pop-psychologizing, i will lay down what i think the issues are here, that is, the concentration of islamists within depts. of science, and especially, engineering....

1) physical science + religious nutsoism is not an islamic phenomenon, the USA creationism movement (pre-ID) was dominated by engineers.

2) even if most islamist leaders have technical educational backgrounds, most people with technical backgrounds are not necessarily islamists. i.e., for a given person, technical|islamist >> islamist|technical.

3) the problem with technical people might be that they are geared to a system of education where axioms are taken, precise inferences are made, and a (for engineers) rough and ready implementation from those axioms are demanded. if you are looking at the koran in a naked and naive manner (or most 'holy' books), the implications can be pretty fucking nutso. that's why most religious scholars are careful to use analogy, metaphor and allegory liberally to water the wine, so to speak. but, i would argue that many of these scientifically literate people, driven through technical educational systems without any dose of liberal arts where socratic method and ambiguity can leaven their cognitive modalities, (remember, these might be german oriented technical institutes, not necessarily anglo-saxon universities where liberal arts basics are mandatory) do not 'dampen' their interpretations. i suspect that a large number simply reject religious systems altogether, because they do not cohere as a logical whole. but, a substantial number probably hew to bizarre fundamentalisms derived quasi-axiomatically from their perceptions of 'truth' within the scriptures.

4) there are some generalizations that i think one can make about men drawn to technical fields. i.e., they are less verbally and social ept than those who enter fields like law, where interpersonal contact and engagement with the world around you is a necessary aspect of the vocation. the relative social and intellectual isolation that is not uncommon for many 'nerds' might exacerbate the problems that occur when you mix creedal religions, with precise and fixed professions of faith and systematic theologies, with an educational background where system building and technology creation and use go hand and hand.

5) people with technical backgrounds can build bombs. easily. they may not kill with shakespearean grace, but they maim well enough for gov. work, and are likely to induce a body count to be on the safe side with the Big Inspector in the Sky.

Razib,

well, the implication of 'alone' is that it is a necessary condition for 'niceness.'

Exactly. There are some people, perhaps prevalent more amongst certain religious & cultural groups than others, who think that being a decent human being (especially in the spiritual sense) is all about intelligence. Compassion and humility don't factor into the equation as much as they should, assuming they're taken into consideration at all.

Following on from this, I agree with your points 1-5 -- although people from super-rational backgrounds (esp. in areas where interpersonal skills aren't the top priority) must still have an above-average understanding of human nature in order to be able to command a sufficient following and also to know where to "hit the enemy where it hurts" (not that they're immune to making catastrophic errors of judgement in this area, eg. the recent bombings in Jordan).

For example, Zarqawi (the head of AQ in Iraq) is also supposed to be both cold-blooded and (more pertinently) extremely adept at psychologically manipulating people.

OBL must also have what's known in the business world as "leadership presence" (and the associated people-skills) in order to be able to command loyalty and respect amongst his "troops" -- especially if people are actually willing to die for him and his cause, and do so voluntarily (ie. they're not exactly conscripts). In any case, such charismatic-yet-psychopathic leaders have existed throughout history.

Some would say that, in some cases, it's still a case of the one-eyed-man leading the blind ;)

Taking this back to your religious examples -- I think it depends on the specific religion. For example, Sikhism is not a spoon-feeding, complete "system" -- apart from the basics, eg. controlling one's ego and being compassionate, defending the weak & vulnerable, fair-mindedness etc -- and I can imagine how this would drive someone nuts if he really wanted to have everything handed to him on a plate, rather than having to figure things out using his own judgement, critical analysis and life-experience. It's also a combination of "art" and "science" in the sense of how 'emotional intelligence' (and the associated self-awareness) is regarded as being as important as more traditional "pure" intellectual-intelligence.

This is one of the reasons why music is so central to the Sikh faith -- it is said (and even as a relatively non-pious person I've experienced this myself) that one can only understand the Sikh scriptures if one listens to them in their musical form (kirtans), due to the sheer emotional impact of the powerful music. Ironically, and bringing this back to your own examples, this is diametrically-opposite to the most orthodox interpretations of Islam, where music is actually seen as sinful and a hindrance to genuine spirituality.

smart people can simply do and say dumb things faster.

That is truly a pearl of wisdom.