In 1959, Eugène Ionesco published one of his most famous plays. Entitled Rhinoceros, this work depicts the proliferation of a whimsical epidemic: rhinoceritis, which transforms all the inhabitants of a town into rhinoceroses. Metaphorically, this disease embodies the spread of totalitarian ideologies that swept through Europe on the eve of World War II. Being a rhinoceros therefore means, according to the author, blindly adhering to any belief without taking the trouble to evaluate its value beforehand, which the central character of this story firmly opposes.
To achieve this, he confronts the social pressure exerted on him by his entire entourage. At the end of the play, seeing that all his loved ones have become rhinoceroses, the character stands up and declares, « I am the last man, and I will remain so until the end. I do not capitulate. » This cry from the heart highlights the importance of preserving oneself from social norms.
Nonconformity and Freedom
Ionesco is a committed author. The ambition of his work is to convince us that nonconformity protects us from the harmful influence of the worst ideologies. Just like the hero of his story, we are invited to emancipate ourselves from social norms that hinder our ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, as well as right from wrong. Essentially, this message aligns with what almost all Westerners have believed since the second half of the 20th century, as evidenced by the following injunctions you have undoubtedly heard before: « Think for yourself! », « Make your own opinion, think for yourself, don’t be a sheep! »
Perhaps you have even said them yourself, for almost paradoxically, nonconformity has become our norm. I note in passing that those who are the most fond of these injunctions are generally convinced that they escape the sheep-like nature they denounce. They believe themselves capable of evaluating the relevance of any information, and if someone happens not to share their conclusions, they will hasten to blame the influence of some deceptive ideology that skews the judgment of their opponents. « People don’t think, » they say, and without really admitting it, they want you to think that their opinion is founded, considered, and weighed, unlike that of others.
It seems difficult under these conditions to believe in the sincerity of these declarations, which in most cases turn out to be nothing more than a disguised way to comfort oneself in one’s own opinions while denigrating those of others. The funniest thing is that our societies are filled with individuals convinced they have understood the world better than anyone else, and when these people confront opinions different from their own, it is easy for them to believe they are the only ones capable of thinking correctly. The problem, as Perret sang, is that we are all « someone’s fool » who considers themselves more legitimate than us in the art of distinguishing truth from falsehood. Could it be, under these conditions, that we are all ultimately « fools, » each in our own way? It is probable, as evidenced by the following lines of thought.
The first consists of reminding us that we are not sufficiently endowed with intelligence to rationally verify all the beliefs we adhere to. Some have indeed convinced themselves of the contrary. It is therefore important to try to understand why so many Westerners believe they are capable of forming a lucid opinion on everything.
The technological advances we collectively demonstrate are probably not unrelated to this: our many technical and scientific achievements testify to a particularly developed human intelligence. As members and representatives of such an ingenious race, everyone can easily believe they are endowed with a formidable intellectual potential.
Yet, numerous studies show that the individual intelligence of members of our species is almost indistinguishable from that displayed by some animals. Ravens, for example, are capable of solving puzzles that would leave many of us perplexed 1, as evidenced by the work of Mathias Osvath and Can Kabadayi 2. The famous gorilla Koko, known for mastering sign language, was evaluated at nearly 80 IQ 3. This is more, by way of comparison, than the average IQ of a country such as India or Algeria 4.
The most comprehensive study on the matter is that of Esther Hermann and Mike Tomasello 5, two eminent researchers from the Max Planck Institute of Anthropology, who quantified human intelligence to compare it to that of many other species. Their finding in this context was unequivocal: our spatial, quantitative, and causal evaluation abilities are almost indistinguishable from those of orangutans and chimpanzees. Ultimately, humans only stand out from other species when they use cognitive concepts they did not develop « by themselves, » but inherited through education, such as geometry, math, and algebra.
Human Intelligence is Social
Human intelligence is social. It depends on our ability to learn and teach things we would not be capable of developing ourselves, but that others have intellectualized for us. The number Pi, for example, or the list of planets in our solar system are notions that we have mostly learned without any prior verification. This means that the vector of our intelligence is social. It is language, unique to humans according to Descartes, which conditions our ability to transmit and assimilate knowledge. That is why the level of development of populations is generally linked to their level of communication skills.
Evolution of Communication Means, Collective Intelligence, and Individual Cognitive Specialization
The first human societies appeared at the same time as oral language, which allows complex information to be encoded in the form of sounds. It is efficient, but one must remain within reach of the interlocutor to address them. This spatial and temporal constraint long limited the degree of development of populations to very modest levels: if you have ever played the game of « telephone, » you know that information is lost when repeated many times.
To emancipate ourselves from this constraint, we had to invent other means of communication such as writing, which allows information to travel farther in space and time. Thanks to it, we can still read many texts that have survived through the centuries since antiquity. This feat is inaccessible to animals. When an old raven dies, it takes with it the fruits of its own discoveries as well as all the conclusions it drew from them. The species of ravens is therefore condemned to constantly rediscover what has already been discovered in the past, like an eternal return to the starting point.
In other words, the members of the human species are not necessarily more intelligent, but thanks to language, they are capable of transmitting knowledge that accumulates over generations: what the elders know, the younger ones will learn. The latter can therefore dedicate themselves to new discoveries and other advances, which they will in turn transmit to their own children. In this respect, we can consider that humans « outsource » their own understanding of the world to those who have died.
It is an incredible chance. Just imagine, if we had to constantly rediscover the inventions of the past. We would never finish. Let us take the example of the wheel, which results from a cognitive process spanning several centuries that we would be incapable of catching up with alone. We would probably be even more embarrassed if we had to rediscover « by ourselves » the value of Pi, which we believe we know to a few decimal places without mastering the mathematical demonstration, which means that this value is based, for most of us, on simple social beliefs that we cannot demonstrate. These are, of course, mathematically justified beliefs, but they are still « beliefs, » as long as we are not capable of personally verifying their accuracy.
Like this number, most of the things we think we know are actually based on social beliefs to which we conform. Rest assured: nothing is more normal, as Tocqueville already affirmed in 1835 6:
« If man, » he wrote, « were forced to prove to himself all the truths he uses every day, he would never finish; he would exhaust himself in preliminary demonstrations without ever advancing; as he does not have the time, due to the short span of his life, nor the ability, due to the limits of his mind, to act in this way, he is reduced to taking for granted a multitude of facts and opinions that he neither had the leisure nor the power to examine and verify for himself, but that more skillful people have found or that the crowd adopts.
It is on this first foundation that he builds his own thoughts. It is not his will that leads him to proceed in this way: the inflexible law of his condition forces him to. The sociologist adds: there is no great philosopher who does not believe a million things on the faith of others, and who does not suppose many more truths than he establishes himself. This is not only necessary but desirable. A man who would undertake to examine everything by himself could only devote little time and attention to each thing: this work would keep his mind in perpetual agitation, preventing him from delving deeply into any truth and settling with solidity in any certainty. His intelligence would be both independent and weak.
Therefore, among the various objects of human opinions, he must make a choice and adopt many beliefs without discussing them, in order to better delve into a small number that he has reserved for examination. »
That is why we are forced to specialize intellectually: we choose our studies, our school path, and our professional field of expertise. In doing so, we devote most of our time to a segment of specific skills that our « small » brains will be able to assimilate. It is under this unique condition that we truly give ourselves the means to think « for ourselves »… within the limits of our own specialization. The problem is that we always end up supporting our demonstrations with other notions that escape our skills. The « knowers » and « scholars » are therefore primarily « believers, » compelled, like us, to outsource an essential part of their own understanding of the world.
I believe it is necessary to state it very clearly here: when a human speaks to us, it is actually centuries of history that express themselves through him. This unique faculty within the animal kingdom is both our luck and our misfortune. It allows the emergence of the most beautiful civilizations while condemning us to credulity, for humanity needs to « believe » and learn without verifying. The question is not whether this is desirable or not. It is even less about whether we should avoid it. The question could be, however: why do we conform to a particular belief, since we are not capable of personally verifying its accuracy? And to what extent could this harm us?
This chapter is extracted from a book entitled 01-Tradition: Escaping the Social, Ecological, and Migratory Catastrophe.
Order this book on 01-tradition.fr or on Amazon.
- Esther HERMANN et al., « Ravens parallel great apes in physical and social cognitive skills, » 2020.
- Can KABADAYI and Mathias OSVATH, « Ravens parallel great apes in their planning abilities, » 2017.
- Francine PATTERSON and Eugene LINDEN, The Education of Koko, 1981.
- Richard LYNN and Tatu VANHANEN, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, 2002.
- Esther HERMANN et al., 2008.
- Alexis de TOCQUEVILLE, De la démocratie en Amérique, 1835.
- Esther HERMANN et al., « Ravens parallel great apes in physical and social cognitive skills, » 2020.
- Can KABADAYI and Mathias OSVATH, « Ravens parallel great apes in their planning abilities, » 2017.
- Francine PATTERSON and Eugene LINDEN, The Education of Koko, 1981.
- Richard LYNN and Tatu VANHANEN, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, 2002.
- Esther HERMANN et al., 2008.
- Alexis de TOCQUEVILLE, De la démocratie en Amérique, 1835.
