Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-32452House OversightOther

Generic commentary on intelligence and political perception

The passage contains no concrete allegations, names, transactions, dates, or actionable leads involving any high‑profile individuals or institutions. It is a philosophical discussion about intelligenc Discusses perception of intelligence and judgment References Sarah Palin in a vague, non‑specific manner No mention of financial flows, legal matters, or intelligence agencies

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #023900
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage contains no concrete allegations, names, transactions, dates, or actionable leads involving any high‑profile individuals or institutions. It is a philosophical discussion about intelligenc Discusses perception of intelligence and judgment References Sarah Palin in a vague, non‑specific manner No mention of financial flows, legal matters, or intelligence agencies

Tags

politicspublic-perceptionhouse-oversightintelligence

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
154 Teaching Minds look like a genius. But what actually makes us feel that a scientist’s accurate predictions make him smart is the reasoning behind those predictions, the causal explanation. We can see how intelligence, or the lack of it, is perceived by people and we must begin to reconsider how intelligence should be measured by those trying to put numbers to mental abilities. And, we can see why those Palin supporters seem so dumb. Let’s look at one of them again: Interviewer: What do you think she would bring in terms of policy to office? Young woman: Good judgment. Interviewer: Any specifics? Young woman: I think she would control the out-of-control spending. This is a prediction. The question is what this prediction is based on. It is a good guess that the young woman cannot cite examples of Palin’s good judgment and has no idea whether Palin was able to control spending in Alaska. If she were able to cite examples, that is, if her predictions were supported by evidence that she clearly articulated, we would, in fact, think that the young woman was smart. Perhaps she is smart and perhaps the interviewer deliberately cut out those responses. It seems unlikely, given the weird “czar” remark that fol- lowed this, but the point is that we seek such evidence when we make a judgment about someone’s intelligence. What about planning? Those who make bad plans are usually laughed at. Criminals who get caught by doing something dumb are always made fun of by the press. Bad planning makes a person look stupid. Bad judgment, on the other hand, is more easily forgiven. When you make a mistake, you can always claim to have used bad judgment. Make the same mistake again and you begin to look stupid. So, if we are interested in making people more intelligent, as op- posed to more knowledgeable, it is clear that we need to redefine what we mean by intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to diagnose well, to plan well, and to be able to understand what causes what. To do this one must be able to reassess one’s belief system when new evidence is presented and

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.