Some abilities are very useful and we keep stressing its importance. Say, ability to ask questions and ask right questions. but, what I want to talk about today is not this useful ability to ask question. It is something infinitely more useful ability of ours.
So useful that we have been wise enough to not leave its control to conscious manipulation. Its kind of hard coded so we cant damage it using our intelligence. I am talking about our ability to NOT ask. Our ability to accept things without requiring to ask why? how?. If we could not start learning without first understanding all 'why's wrt everything we learn, we probably could never learn anything.
Usually, even though we have not asked 'why/how' at initial stages of learning something, in course of time, we end up knowing answers to most 'why/how's.
For questions where our intelligence is sufficient on stand alone basis, we would know full answer, in some other cases, we rely on collectively validated intelligence of others and have a feeling of knowing answer when those trusted people/groups know it.
We are also pretty good at discarding/weeding out a lot of concepts we had acquired without asking once we have sufficient information showing them as incorrect/irrelevant /past its useful life. But, probably this mechanism of discarding/weeding out is not as efficient as original mechanism of acquiring concepts. (simply because its much less critical in comparison, I believe.) and it can create some funny problems for us.
Let me give you an example. I, like others around me, had encountered 'face/par value' as a required feature of equity share - and it was accepted without asking any question whatsoever. It continued to claim its validity well past the point where I had enough knowledge to see its irrelevance. It still existed simply because there was no trigger to see if it was a candidate for weeding out.
But one day, the trigger came. I learned that in some parts of the world, they issue equity shares without face value. There was an immediate opposition as it clashed with long existing concept (and so much of terminology weaved around it). But of course, there was very clear set of information gathered since accepting 'face value' as required feature that the moment that 'accepted without questioning concept' was put to test, it immediately stood out as completely useless - and got weeded out. So far so good. but then comes the funny part. After my own enlightenment, in most of the cases where I happened to point this out to others still thinking face value as useful concept, I met with a very strange reaction - most of them simply couldn't see its irrelevance. I actually thought it was irritating (rather than just strange) reaction. It was not that they lacked any of the information required to see it. and still, they simply didn't see it. I till now used to think it was simply lack of intelligence (even as they displayed much better level of intelligence in other issues.) but now I think it was something else.
So, what decides which concept will enjoy immunity and which will be exposed to challenges of the reason? As I write, I want to revise my visualisation from a clear cut zones of concepts with/without immunity to concepts enjoying different level of inertia. More the number of occasions when its challenged, less the inertia and vice varsa and, reasoning armed with intelligence is like a force challenging the old concept. I also think that the first factor (inertia) can be very decisive in the battle.
But this also means that after all, mechanism to weed out 'wrong' concepts also isn't as inefficient as it sounds. at the end of the day those wrong concepts that you are never going to use wont harm as much and nature is much more perfect than some of us who try not to be perfectionists, but often fail.
P.S.
In above, I have used the word 'intelligence' to mean what actually is two things. 1) Our preferences (free will) + tool that we have to reach our goal -called intelligence. When we look at these two things as two things and not one, self harming / not in one's best interest behaviour by 'otherwise intelligent' can be understood better. Related thoughts here..
https://ekakinchan.blogspot.com/2023/04/is-natural-intelligence-aligned.html