> What if what he says is true?

You mean you don't independently know one way or the other?

So you are taking it on his authority?

Because it was stated with confidence?

According to him, you must be one of those low IQ people.

Does that help to see the irony here, and why the original claim is not only clearly wrong but inherently elitist and insulting towards its own intended audience?

The alternative, the world that all intelligent people must live in at all times accordinng to the comment, is epistemic solipsism, that everything is presumed false, everyone is lying or erroneous, because there is no guaranteed way a priori to separate true statements from false ones.

> I doubt anyone is doing the research on it.

Not only is there research on it, this is like Psych/Journalism/Philosophy/Law/Communication 101 stuff. There are textbooks on it written over a century ago. It is the topic that the field of "Social Psychology" was invented to study.

The dominant theory is the Elaboration Likelihood Model, which describes and predicts based on situations when a person is more likely to doubt a claimed statement of fact, taking into account past experience with the source, cultural norms, motivation, time, concentration/nondistraction, and domain knowledge.

There is also tons of research specifically on the impact of intelligence on susceptability to persuasion by authoritative tone, and the reality is the *opposite* of what was claimed: smarter people who enjoy deep thinking are more likely to believe falsehoods (Price & Stone, 2004), because they perceive the overconfidence as exciting new information to think about, just like you are doing now.

So congrats, by uncritically believing the guy who incorrectly said you were low IQ for believing him, you actually provided evidence that suggests you are high IQ, because science shows that gullibleness is a trait of high-IQ people.

You could also be right-wing authoritarian, that's the other thing that strongly predicts gullibleness but I'm gonna guess you're smart instead.

▲

Chance-Device an hour ago | parent [-]

Jesus. That’s combative. Good luck with that.

	▲	hannasanarion an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Not trying to combat you, trying to combat the other guy, who is being elitist and condescending and also incorrect in very ironic ways. I'm guessing you didn't read what I wrote, or maybe I flubbed the communication in some ways because I was trying to be cooperative and complimentary towards you. Edit: ok, you might object to me saying you're gullible, but the point I'm making is that that's not a bad thing and is actually evidence in favor of intelligence, the opposite of what the other guy was saying. I'm gullible too. I'm also short, nearsighted, bad at communication, unable to bench over 90 lbs, and tend to spend way too much time researching fields irrelevant to my own work. Susceptibility to over-confidently incorrect messaging is a scientifically proven achilles heel of smart people. It's important for us to know that so that we can metacognitively account for it and hopefully avoid falling victim to it by way of scams, cults, and hallucinating AIs.