I am not sure that intelligence has much to do with it. To learn many of the things discussed requires more than intelligence. A person can lie to themselves regardless of intelligence. Overcoming an addiction, or a 'programmed' or 'conditioned' behavior, is not really a matter of intelligence. Placing faith in someone is not exactly a matter of intelligence. Your claim is that people are 'programmed' or 'conditioned' to do what exactly... to uncontrollably get angry and decide to react, to say something or do something as a result of it? With that belief a person has justified every criminal act, and made every victim a criminal. Domestic violence cases: She drove him to it. Rape: She should have known his 'programming' and 'conditioning'. Theft: The victim should have hidden their valuables better, and not tempted the 'programming' and 'conditioning' of the perpetrator. Murder: The victim should not have pissed him off. The simple rule: Do unto others as you would that they do unto you, has effectively been thrown out the window for being uncivil, because all 'do' has been replaced with a knee jerk, socially programmed or conditioned reaction. It is hypocrisy, because the 'button pusher' could plead the same escape: he was 'programmed' or 'conditioned' to push buttons, and because everyone who posts is truly a 'button pusher' putting words on display in front of the world. Innocent, and guilty: both, depending on one's hypocrite point of view. A person naturally decides for themselves that they are innocent, and decides that everyone else is an ass. 'Naturally', right? You have a case: people with a strong sense of self preservation, I suppose. Intelligence really has nothing to do with it. There are other ways to try to show it: How rational is it to claim to know the 'programming' and 'conditioning' of another person? I don't think anyone here has the foresight of having walked in another person's shoes. Do you suggest otherwise... do you truly know someone who has walked in someone else's shoes? Or, is that an assumption or a projection onto another person. If it is programming or conditioning that is claimed as the culprit for a person's behavior, then walking in another's shoes is what it would take to really know someone else's programming and conditioning... unless of course you are God. Yet another avenue to try to expose it: I could write a computer program that cries, 'ouch, bloody murder', and 'oooh, thank you' every time that certain keys are pressed. A video game. Do you think that a person who presses the keys is just trying to be the center of attention by pressing them? A 'button pusher', right? You going to try to convince me that I am guilty of hurting the computer when it says 'ouch, bloody murder' and of seducing it when it says, 'oooh, thank you'? I just wrote some words down on a piece of paper sitting next to me. Well over half of the people here, I believe, will get angry if and when they see the words. I'd prefer that they not get angry, but many rest assuredly will. You can claim that it is my preference that the people get angry, but that is your conjecture. You have no proof. You don't even know what I wrote. If it is the words that cause a person to react, then know that somewhere in the world and in the minds of people those words do exist, and so this world and the internet is really just a minefield for them. A person is responsible for what they say... I would say that a person is responsible for every single word. Most people I know favor honesty, and disfavor deception. How exactly though, Paladin, did you come to believe and claim that a person is not responsible for reacting to what they hear? Blame it on society? You throw out that responsibility, then you have thrown out the responsibility for speech too. You keep the one and not the other, then I see the gears of double standard. Any person could easily say that their words have a good intent, and someone elses had another.