Rationality as a Combination of Cognitive Empathy and Intelligence, and Low Disgust

Rationality as a Combination of Cognitive Empathy and Intelligence, and Low Disgust

Cognitive empathy has been seen as a trait that confers conformity and is opposed to rationality to a degree (e.g., Crespi & Badcock 2008). This assumption comes from multiple areas, but largely from the observation that more extraverted and sociable people are more conforming, which has inaccurately been conflated with cognitive empathy. Social skills have differing correlates from cognitive empathy (Cloudfindings 2024b), and do not predict better understanding of human variation. I have previously argued that cognitive empathy is associated with aspects of higher rationality, such as non-conformity and less moral absolutism (Cloudfindings 2023a)(Cloudfindings 2024a) and these hypotheses were supported by a study I conducted (Cloudfindings 2024b). Andersen (2022) put forth similar hypotheses suggesting cognitive empathy (in opposition to autistic traits) is associated with less conformist worldviews. In this post, I argue and show with evidence that rationality requires both cognitive empathy and intelligence, and conformity is associated with both low cognitive empathy (but better social skills) and low intelligence. Disgust also acts to impair cognitive empathy, intelligence, and rationality.

But Aren't Autistics Super Rational and Free Thinking?

The association with autism with being rational, scientific, and non-conformist has largely been a result of a cultural telephone game. Rather, autism is associated with enhanced mechanical, precise logic, which is good for areas like mathematics, engineering, programming, physics, etc - but not good for forming independent and coherent worldviews which require theory of mind, holistic thinking, imagination, and linguistic abilities, which are reduced in autism (Andersen 2022). In regards to belief systems, autism seems to be associated with more conformist belief systems that are less founded by rationality and more so by disgust and normality (Cloudfindings 2023a). This does not mean autistic people will always be conforming to the general norm, but may pick up belief systems that are morally rigid and involve anti-rationality or authoritarianism, sometimes on the guise of being counter culture, which may appeal to autistic individuals, especially if they are identity based (Cloudfindings 2022a)(Cloudfindings 2022b). Cloudfindings (2024b) showed that autistic traits were associated with lower rationality and higher moralized worldviews, likely due to the deficits in cognitive empathy. Autistics may be considered non-conformist in the way their behaviors and expression differ from the norm, but not non-conformist in the sense of worldviews.

Cognitive Empathy, Bias, and Moralism

Cognitive empathy has shown to negatively relate to ingroup bias (Hoyo et al. 2019)(Yu et al. 2016)(Sudo & Farrar 2020)(Cloudfindings 2023a)(Cloudfindings 2024a)(Cloudfindings 2024b). It is strange to me that some would think the opposite - why would understanding other people better lead to believing that groups different from your own are bad and behaviors different from your own are bad? Why would it lead to judgment and bullying of people who are considered "bad" and not in your group, as people with ideologies of moral superiority and anti-rationality typically do (Cloudfindings 2024b). Introspection (self reflection) is an ability that emerges as a precursor to cognitive empathy, in such a way that understanding one's own mind is required for understanding others (Gonzalez et al. 2018). Understanding how minds vary indeed associates with cognitive empathy, as well as intelligence (Conway et al. 2020) and the degree to which a person accurately answers questions on beliefs about human differences in line with empirical literature (e.g., if women are less likely to be promiscuous) is shown to correlate with cognitive empathy, and negatively with anti-rational and moral absolutist beliefs (Cloudfindings 2024b). Metacognition, the awareness and act of understanding one's own thought processes and causes behind them, is associated with high cognitive empathy (Bonfils et al. 2019). Lack of metacognition is demonstrated to impair rational thinking (Fielder et al. 2023). Imagination is shown to underpin the abilities of metacognition (Burns 2024) and cognitive empathy (Nahal et al. 2021). Those high in cognitive empathy are more forgiving (Giammarco & Vernon 2014), and more concerned about justice for others (Decety & Yoder 2016). It's very hard to find studies on empathy towards criminals (Vasiljevic & Viki 2013) likely because academia is full of moralists (Charlton 2009)(Clark et al. 2023). However, the humanism factor in (Cloudfindings 2024b) which measured the tendency to empathize with people who are considered "bad" or "weird" and unconditional empathy and forgiveness to people who have hurt them or are different, correlated very highly with cognitive empathy, as well as intelligence and rationality. Cognitive empathy negatively relates to disgust sensitivity (Imaizumi et al. 2016)(Cloudfindings 2023a)(Cloudfindings 2024a)(Cloudfindings 2024b), and low disgust sensitivity relates to reduced dehumanizing and less punitive attitudes towards criminals (Stevenson et al. 2015),  - dehumanization of criminals being a type of group bias (Vasilijevic & Viki 2013). Disgust has an impairing effect on cognitive empathy and intelligence (Cloudfindings 2024a), and actively prevents cognitive empathy and logical processing when an individual is disgusted. Overall, this shows that cognitive empathy and rationality have similar underpinnings, and both have similar correlates. 

Evolutionary Psychology Acceptance & Understanding as a Marker of Rationality

I argue that evolutionary psychologists, and those who can come up with accurate evolutionary hypotheses intuitively (“folk evolutionary psychology”) are likely to have the highest levels of rationality out of all branches of social science, and high levels of cognitive empathy and intelligence, underpinning this. People who are interested or major in psychology are found to have high levels of cognitive empathy (Svedholm-Häkkinen & Lindeman 2015). Most psychological research (while valid and important) typically takes a somewhat surface level, data driven approach, that, to some degree lacks insight into the true (not surface level) meanings of data and findings, without much critical reflection or synthesis with other areas of psychology (Crespi 2020)(Burke 2014). Evolutionary psychology is not a really a “branch” of psychology, but a union of psychology grounded in coherent theory that can be supported with a wide range of data from different fields (Barret 2008)(Del Giudice 2018). Evolutionary psychology is somewhat unpopular, and may go against conventional psychology ideas that are surface level and based on surface level data (Crespi 2020). Evolutionary psychological hypotheses likely stem mostly from logical thinking about evolutionary outcomes, and intuitive perception and understanding of human variation, typically taking a ‘top-down’ approach that is supported by synthesis of large bodies existing data that usually is not taken together (e.g., Crespi & Badcock 2008, Del Giudice 2018), suggesting that cognitive empathy and intelligence lead to accurate evolutionary hypotheses that can be supported by synthesizing a large amount of existing data (either empirical findings, or everyday observation). Evolutionary psychology is controversial, because it takes objective approaches to topics which are heavily moralized, such as sex differences, race differences, causes of traits and behaviors, etc (Badcock 2017)(Del Giudice 2019). Many take offense even to the idea that humans have mating strategies, that their behavior is not entirely motivated by moral superiority and rational decision making, and that outgroups behavior is not entirely motivated by moral inferiority and irrationality, etc, and people are more likely to deny evolutionary psychology when they have a personal relation to evolutionary psychology ideas that suggest something that is personally negative (Ward et al. 2021). Women with a high bias against men deny that biology can explain male behaviors (Cloudfindings 2024b), people high in sexual disgust sensitivity deny that legal minors can develop sexual behaviors and fantasies (Cloudfindings 2024b), people high in traditionalism deny that homosexuality isn’t a choice, etc. Religiosity and right wing authoritarianism have been shown as positive correlates of evolutionary psychology denial, and education as negative correlates (Jonason & Schmitt 2016), and those interested in evolutionary psychology tend to be extremely politically liberal, in contrast to the assumptions of politically correct authoritarians of it being biased by conservatives (Lyle & Smith 2012). Acceptance and understanding of evolutionary psychology requires a distinct lack of personal, moral, political, group, and conformity based biases and actively open minded thinking, as well as accurate intuitive understanding of individual differences (in reference to how individuals may reject an evolutionary idea because they haven’t perceived the pattern of individual differences and behaviors the idea explains), and a coherent and logical understanding of how evolutionary psychology works (which may be counter to common assumptions and conventional understanding of cause and effect) which require rationality, cognitive empathy, and intelligence. Models of human variation and behavior that focus on nurture are incoherent, surface level, and circular - society may enforce gender roles and lead to people following them, but where did the gender roles come from, and why are they so widespread? Following the vine to the root ultimately leads to the fact that evolved sex differences do exist, or that men randomly decided to dominate women for no reason, because obviously men can’t be more adept and oriented towards dominance due to evolutionary forces which produce heritable, biologically-based sex differences. The social enforcement of gender roles comes from people observing sex differences, sex differences becoming shared knowledge, and then enforcing conformity to them (Berenbaum 2017). Some may argue that things aren’t evolved and are rather just because people “like” them, but the explanation is at the top of the surface because it doesn’t explain why a person would like something, which when getting to the bottom logically, requires evolutionary reasons, that aren’t obvious at the surface level (e.g., humans did not evolve with social media, but social media reflects how humans did evolve). Some may argue that a behavior seems to be bad, so it cannot be evolved (e.g., “Men can’t be more short term oriented in relationships because of evolution, because it damages and traumatizes the child”) however it neglects to explain why people show that behavior and others don’t, at least in a way that is coherent, and assumes that evolution selects for happiness, rather than reproduction - if dying would benefit ones children in reproductive success, evolution would select for it. Rationality is associated with unconditional empathy, non-conformity, intelligence, understanding of human variation, lack of moralistic biases in thinking, low disgust sensitivity, and is negatively associated with ideas relating to denial of evolutionary psychology like political correctness and right wing authoritarianism (Cloudfindings 2024b). Ultimately, evolutionary psychology (in academics as well as the general population) is a reflection of high rationality, and high intelligence and cognitive empathy which lead to high rationality.

Relevance to Phenotypes and Psychiatric Disorders

Schizophrenia and psychosis mark a disconnection from reality and irrational fears or beliefs about physical reality (Crespi & Badcock 2008). Autism relates to a deficit in cognitive empathy and metacognition, which also leads to irrational beliefs, but about people and minds (Cloudfindings 2023a)(Cloudfindings 2024b). Imagination is increased in schizophrenia, but decreased in autism, and mechanical logic is increased in autism, but decreased in schizophrenia (Crespi 2016). Schizophrenia is associated with reduced creativity and intellectual disability in patients, but high creativity as well as scientific achievement in relatives with schizotypal traits, and a lack of intellectual disability in schizotypal personality disorder (Cloudfindings 2023b). Autism is associated with intellectual disability in patients, but higher socioeconomic status and technical careers in relatives, and a lack of intellectual disability in asperger syndrome (I know it's outdated, but it still refers to a particular phenotype on the autism spectrum that doesn’t exactly have another name) (Crespi 2016)(Crespi 2008). Individuals with autism like to study things and rules (Baron-Cohen 2005), and technical subjects, but not people (Svedholm-Häkkinen & Lindeman 2015). Individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders like to study people (Cloudfindings 2023b)(Stanghellini & Ballerini 2007), but not things (Campbell & Wang 2012). High intelligence combined with a psychotic-like hyper-associative thinking style predicts high intellectual achievement (Carson et al. 2003). Having higher autistic-like traits in schizophrenia is associated with better cognitive functioning, and vice versa (Cloudfindings 2023b). This may answer questions related to the questions of scientific creativity, which are largely not understood well in psychology - the “combination” of schizophrenia and autism is giftedness and intuitive understanding of minds, people, systems, and nature, and rationality, as has been predicted by models on autism and schizotypy (Crespi 2008)(Badcock 2019). The immense creativity, intuition, outside of the box thinking, and ability to logically synthesize vast ranges of data and ideas of many evolutionary psychologists, coupled with non-conformity (e.g., Crespi & Badcock 2008; Del Giudice 2018; Andersen 2022b) is suggestive of such a phenotype amongst talented evolutionary psychologists.

1. Crespi & Badcock (2008) Psychosis and autism as diametrical disorders of the social brain

2. Cloudfindings (2023a) Moral Absolutism as a Theory of Mind Deficit

3. Cloudfindings (2024a) The True Political Compass: A Hypothesis of the Underlying Psychology of Political Orientations

4. Cloudfindings (2024b) The Structure of Political Orientation and Underlying Psychological Causes: Part 1 - Statistical Extraction of a Psycho-Political Compass

5. Andersen (2022a) Autistic-Like Traits and Positive Schizotypy as Diametric Specializations of the Predictive Mind

6. Cloudfindings (2022a) Identity in Autism

7. Yu et al. (2016) Children's sharing behavior in mini‐dictator games: The role of in‐group favoritism and theory of mind

8. Sudo & Farrar (2020) Theory of mind understanding, but whose mind? Affiliation with the target is related to children’s false belief performance

9. Hoyo et al. (2019) Children’s individual differences in executive function and theory of mind in relation to prejudice toward social minorities

10. Gonzalez et al. (2018) Introspection plays an early role in children's explicit theory of mind development

11. Conway et al. (2020) Understanding how minds vary relates to skill in inferring mental states, personality, and intelligence.

12. Bonfils et al. (2019) Metacognition, personal distress, and performance-based empathy in schizophrenia

13. Fielder et al. (2023) Metacognitive myopia: A major obstacle on the way to rationality

14. Burns (2024) Imagining imagination: Towards cognitive and metacognitive models

15. Nahal et al. (2021) Cognitive empathy as imagination: evidence from reading the mind in the eyes in autism and schizotypy

16. Cloudfindings (2022b) Characterizing Repetitive Behaviors & Interests Specific to Autism: The Autistic Interests Scale

17. Charlton (2009) Why are modern scientists so dull? How science selects for perseverance and sociability at the expense of intelligence and creativity

18. Clark et al. (2023) Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda

19. Giammarco & Vernon (2014) Vengeance and the Dark Triad: The role of empathy and perspective taking in trait forgivingness

20. Decety & Yoder (2016) Empathy and motivation for justice: Cognitive empathy and concern, but not emotional empathy, predict sensitivity to injustice for others

21. Stevenson et al. (2015) Disgust sensitivity predicts punitive treatment of juvenile sex offenders: The role of empathy, dehumanization, and fear

22. Simon & Gutsell (2021) Recognizing humanity: dehumanization predicts neural mirroring and empathic accuracy in face-to-face interactions

23. Imaizumi et al. (2016) Trypophobia is predicted by disgust sensitivity, empathic traits, and visual discomfort

24. Vasiljevic & Viki (2013) Dehumanization, moral disengagement, and public attitudes to crime and punishment

25. Svedholm-Häkkinen & Lindeman (2015) Testing the Empathizing-Systemizing theory in the general population: Occupations, vocational interests, grades, hobbies, friendship quality, social intelligence, and sex role identity

26. Crespi (2020) How is quantification of social deficits useful for studying autism and schizophrenia?

27. Del Giudice (2018) Evolutionary psychopathology: A unified approach

28. Badcock (2017) Male Risk of Autism: No One Expects the Spanish Inquisition

29. Del Giudice (2019) Ideological bias in the psychology of sex and gender

30. Ward et al. (2021) Physical attractiveness predicts endorsement of specific evolutionary psychology principles

31. Jonason & Schmitt (2016) Quantifying Common Criticisms of Evolutionary Psychology

32. Burke (2014) Why isn't everyone an evolutionary psychologist?

33. Barrett (2008) Evolutionary psychology is a union of fields, not a subset

34. Lyle & Smith (2012) How Conservative Are Evolutionary Anthropologists?

35. Berenbaum (2017) Beyond Pink and Blue: The Complexity of Early Androgen Effects on Gender Development

36. Crespi (2016) The Evolutionary Etiologies of Autism Spectrum and Psychotic Affective Spectrum Disorders

37. Cloudfindings (2023b) Schizotypal fact sheet (version 2)

38. Crespi (2016) Autism as a disorder of high intelligence

39. Baron-Cohen (2005) Autism «Autos»: Literally

40. Campbell & Wang (2012) Familial Linkage between Neuropsychiatric Disorders and Intellectual Interests

41. Carson et al. (2003) Decreased latent inhibition is associated with increased creative achievement in high-functioning individuals.

42. Crespi (2008) Genomic imprinting in the development and evolution of psychotic spectrum conditions

43. Badcock (2019) The Diametric Mind 

44. Andersen (2022b) Predictive processing and relevance realization: exploring convergent solutions to the frame problem