Against Stupidity

Quoting tim wood

Stupidity: an affliction of all at one time or another, for most to a lesser degree, but for some a career.

Your manifesto would be more meaningful to me if I thought what you consider stupid and what I do are the same.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

The question, then, is how to fight the war to win it. Not just to fight it - that's a mug's game - but to win it.

Vote for rightwingers, obviously.

Quoting tim wood

But what do you hold to be the source of the greater dangers in the world, both to individuals and to society at every scale?

Greed and hatred, and believing that greed and hatred are good.

Quoting tim wood

what do you hold to be the source of the greater dangers in the world, both to individuals and to society at every scale?

Willingness to treat other people as objects.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood Treating people like objects might seem smart to you, but what if they prove to be alive and objectify you?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

Not to me

Pffft. My experience with you informs me otherwise.

Quoting tim wood

Not to me. Maybe to some people. The challenge to educate them that such is against both reason and their own self-interest.

Seems like you're just classifying anything you don't like as stupidity. Jamming reality into your stupid shaped boxes.

Reply to tim wood Brother Wood, don't be daft.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I get the impression that many peoples’ definition of stupid is “person who thinks enough opposite things to what I think”.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I suppose one way to start would be to try an identify a situation or a scenario which most people would consider stupid. If we can't agree on that, then there's a problem.

What, then, is universally stupid (most of the time)?

Reply to tim wood

I have criteria for arguing well and I consider someone stupid when they fall far short of it. I think I often overstate the extent to which people do though.

Quoting tim wood

Am I to infer that both of you prefer stupidity to reasonable alternatives, including reason itself, And have settled yourselves down to enjoy your ride to hell-in-a-handbasket, notwithstanding that in the years 2021 and following, perhaps for a thousand years, in taking that trip you take others with you, in short victimize them on your stupidity?

There you go, brother Wood.
Good luck with ruling the world!

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood

Yeah, I don't think people think they are intentionally making the world a worse place by doing what they do - not implying that you said this by the way.

It seems to me that that would then be an issue of what area of concern would be the one you should focus on improving, instead of stupidity, per se.

Reply to tim wood Your OP _is_ the messenger. You always talk about yourself, you set yourself up as the arbiter of wisdom, truth, whatever it is that you like. You're incapable of presenting and discussing a topic on a socially relevant issue without being an asshole.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I'm with Baker on this point. Platitudes are not opinions. They are lines in the sand. Or, as Gump would say, Stupid is....

The world we are born into tries to expropriate our identity. But that expropriation serves us as foil to who we rally are. It is only in distinction from that expropriation that we become and know who we are. But all too many of us fail to avail ourselves of this foil to convention and convince ourselves that we are who the world, community, neighborhood, family, etc., made us. And others of a different ilk threaten thaat facile self-knowledge. Stupidity is that failure to let ourselves be discerned from our upbringing. And he and she are smart indeed who use our cultural differences to ratify our distinction from our cultural similarities.

It takes a certain low cunning to realize greed, but not intelligence.

Well, this is going too fast for me.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

Or tell me why you are so concerned with assholes?

Because at the end of the day, they get to rule the world. And this makes me think that maybe, this is an evolutionary advantage, or the Truth About The World, and as such, not something to repudiate.

Dismissing stupidity as a mere social issue has been standard practice, and in most cases probably best - to dismiss it. I find the world a place where even that becomes a luxury no longer affordable, except at an unacceptable price. Or are you, where you live, lucky enough to be unaffected by such things, or at least to think you're unaffected by them.

This tells me you have great self-confidence.
I try to never confuse stupidity for what might very well be strategy. I find that people are generally strategic, not stupid. They just play dumb, because this can give them an advantage.

Reply to tim wood

Maybe add the h?

It's hard to know what ignorance is these days, when even the most expert source is largely ignorant of the broader details of his own field. Anyone with a cell-phone knows it all! But what can smarts do that AI can't? I was on hold the other day, and every so often a machine-voice would run through the same delay info, in the same voice. A living voice would make every repetition nuanced. Kierkegaard said repetition was impossible, and that this meant we are incapable of imitating Christ. But the variations we bring to life, even when repetition seems to be required, the avoidance of mechanical repetition, is one way we show what intelligence is, and what we know is so much more worthy of us than repeating the same.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

The OP resonates. Allow me a French tangent.

I used to love François Cavanna, a journalist and writer who spent a lot of time engaged in what he called "la guerre aux cons".

"Con" is a very common French slang for "stupid". Originally it's the same word and meaning as the English "cunt". There is a touch of perversion in the "con" concept: le con is not just stupid by lack of education, but stupid by choice. He rejects knowledge. Also he treats others rudely. E.g.: les Parisiens sont tous des cons.

Cavanna founded the magazines Hara Kiri and its successor Charlie Hebdo. He believed that in the war against stupidity, the media was a front line.

But he also said: Les cons gagnent toujours. Ils sont trop.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

"To be stupid, selfish, and have good health are three requirements for happiness, though if stupidity is lacking, all is lost."

Gustave Flaubert

I am a low level expert on stupidity.
My anti-stupid advice is pretty simple. But first, my favorite topic, malcontentment. Of which I am notan expert at, but... there is a tendency where the more one is attached to being content, the more malcontent one is. While the more one embraces contentment as ephemeral, the more contented one will tend to be. My advice is to apply this same principle when it comes to stupidity. Surrender trying to be smart.

Reply to tim wood

Merely suggesting that the most prevalent mode of stupidity in the world is obtusely misconstruing the stranger for fear of one's own alienation. It's the variations that come upon us even as we try to achieve consistency or continuity that create the terms by which intelligence grows. Stupidity is resistance against the stranger in us all.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Somebody in mind?

Quoting tim wood

Point here. I think you're exactly right. But against that I appeal to longer term interests. That is, they may be tactical, but lack strategic understanding. For humanity writ large, that may be fatal and soon.

So what? Man lives to please one's ego. One could be dying in the gutter and still feel satisfied with oneself, blissing out in righteous indignation.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

The stupidity of the law is that police, lawyers, and judges are required to apply a meaning of the law that belies its origin. When we stop at a stop sign we chafe a bit, from a rolling stop to an annoyingly full stop. The cop has his own standards, but each of us expresses our own in subtle ways and that subtlety, even if it doesn't come to explicit declarations or even political activism, effects the writing of the law, but not necessarily its enforcement, which may be entirely numb to the human controversy generating law. When the difference becomes intolerably confused the result is road rage. The legislator can't stand being judged. How stupid do you have to be to live under such a system?

Quoting Tom Storm

"To be stupid, selfish, and have good health are three requirements for happiness, though if stupidity is lacking, all is lost."

Gustave Flaubert

:smirk:

Reply to tim wood :up:

*

Because ...
[quote=Al Swearengen]You can't slit the throat of everyone whose character it would improve.[/quote]
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." ~Hanlon's Razor

Stupidity, n. A congenital species defect – the incorrigible misuse / abuse of intelligence, knowledge and/or judgment that inadvertently does harm to others and/or oneself (i.e. maladaptive conduct) – against which a cultivated intellect strives.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/475510 :victory: :mask:

[quote=Witty, PI §309]What is your aim in philosophy? – To show the fly the way out of the fly bottle.[/quote]
Against stupidity, philosophers (i.e. sisyphusian 'meta-cognitive hygienists' and/or 'dialectical rodeo-clowns') struggle in vain.

Nevertheless, it seems to me, the purpose of philosophy, especially for those who recognize that they (we) are congenitally unwise, may be (YMMV) to strive to mitigate, to minimize, the frequency & scope of (our) unwise judgments, conduct, etc via patiently habitualizing various reflective exercises (e.g. discussing philosophy, etc.) And in so far as 'wisdom' denotes mastery over folly & stupidity (i.e. misuses & abuses, respectively, of intelligence, knowledge, judgment, etc), I translate philosophy as the love of 'opposing folly & stupidity'.

"An intelligent hell would be better than a stupid paradise.” ~Victor Hugo

Quoting tim wood

Thought experiment: when on the basis of simple and plain evidence generosity is exhausted or even inappropriate, what then?

Then it's time to realize that one wasn't practicing generosity to begin with, but something else.
Be in the clear that you actually want something in return from the other person, and that this is why you're giving them something in the first place. That's not generosity, it's transactional thinking and acting.

Quoting tim wood

So what? Man lives to please one's ego. One could be dying in the gutter and still feel satisfied with oneself, blissing out in righteous indignation.
— baker

[Brother Wood replies with yet another derogatory remark intent on deflecting attention from the matter at hand.]

Nonsense. People are generally driven to please their egos, above everything else. This is hardly a novel idea.

Quoting baker

Nonsense. People are generally driven to please their egos, above everything else.

I can't agree more. And as long as you let other people act out their egos in freedom there is nothing wrong with that, though my lovely wife tells me repeatedly my talk and acts will get me in trouble. Well, better acting and talking as I like it and die than to conform and live. There are a lot of people who wouldn't give a hand if I were drowning. Jealous people mainly. I'm a pretty well-dressed guy (red velvet jacket, white T-shirt, blue-jeans, and brown cowboy boots) and I have things to say. Difficult to digest for some people, especially for my neighbor, a serious guy.

Reply to 180 Proof
In the key of "mitigating the unwise decisions", I have a theory of stupid that developed from working as a project manager for a long time.

Stupid is not only an absence of understanding or skill, it is an active principle that seeks ways to circumvent attempts to contain its effects.

If one puts stupid in a corral, it will keep a constant eye on the gate. If the gate is left open for too long, stupid will get out. To counter this agency, a concentric ring of other corrals are built so the results of failures to restrain stupid are minimized.

In times when many gates are open simultaneously, that is when the destructive capacity of the agency is greatest.

Stupid wants to be free.

Quoting Valentinus

Stupid wants to be free.

And never sleeps.

Quoting tim wood

But stupidity comes at a price. And perhaps starting with the invention of the Gatling gun, the price often has been too high.

"If you don't do it, somebody else will" which is an unfortunate fact that most pacifistic logic crumbles in the face of, not from animosity but from sheer hypocrisy of what it's foremost doctrine declares to prevent.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting 180 Proof

And never sleeps.

:100: :lol:

Quoting 180 Proof

And never sleeps.

:up:

That's true and yet seems paradoxical in that sleep is the very essence and condition of stupidity. Thus the common injunction "wake up to yourself". Selective attention perhaps?

Quoting 180 Proof

I translate philosophy as the love of 'opposing folly & stupidity'.

:100:

Quoting Yohan

Surrender trying to be smart.

Give up all aspiration for self-improvement? That seems like the zenith, or should I say nadir, of stupidity. If you had said 'surrender trying to appear smart' I could agree.

Quoting tim wood

an affliction of all at one time or another, for most to a lesser degree, but for some a career. Characterized by insistence on ignorance against reason, sense, evidence, experience, and all entreaties, appeals, and proofs.

I think you forgot the most important characteristic. It appears to the afflicted that they're perfectly healthy. Which is why the way to deal with stupid is not to point it out, but to entertain it fairly. When you point it out, it will seem to the afflicted that you're the one exuding stupidity, which will end all conversation.

Problem is most people don't so much want to remove stupidity, as much as they want to revel in attacking who they perceive to be stupid. Some people have developed a dependence on "Destroying idiots with facts and logic". It's sustenance to them, a requirement for their identity to remain intact. I was like that once, and occasionally catch myself falling into old habits.

Care that you are actually trying to mitigate stupidity, not simply trying to affirm your superiority. Because it's always one or the other, and we have too many doing the latter, which only reinforces the stupidity.

Disagree.

1. Stupidity is subjective.
2. Stupidity has always been a companion of mankind.
3. Stupidity has been necessary for mankind to thrive.
4. Stupidity is inevitable.
5. Stupidity is incurable.
6. Stupidity is not an issue.

Quoting Janus

Give up all aspiration for self-improvement? That seems like the zenith, or should I say nadir, of stupidity. If you had said 'surrender trying to appear smart' I could agree.

I'm an expert on stupidity, you are not. Don't question me.

Hanlon's Razor

[quote=Robert J. Hanlon]Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.[/quote]

I have issues, serious ones, with stupidity but then there's only one species which, on the whole, isn't stupid - homo sapiens - and look at the mess the earth is in? Brainless, stupid, plants and non-human animals seem, paradoxically, far, far wiser than humans.

The most appalling ignorance is that of individuals in regards to their own nature.

Most are willfully ignorant though, simply avoiding the confrontation with their true selves because this would require them to accept truths about what drives them that they would rather deny. Of course this also ensures they are unable to change.

To improve the world, one must start with oneself. Sadly, most skip this vital step. They would rather project their imperfections on the world around them and blame it on others.

What drives people to think they can fix anything if they are incapable of fixing that which is closest to them and they are most knowledgable about: themselves?

Hitler wasn’t stupid.

What a stupid thing to say.

[quote=Lao Tzu]When a wise man hears of the Tao,

he immediately begins to live it.

When an average man hears of the Tao,

he believes some of it and doubts the rest.

When a foolish man hears of the Tao,

he laughs out loud at the very idea.

If it were not for that laugh,

it would not be the Tao.[/quote]

Quoting Wayfarer

Hitler wasn’t stupid.

You said a good thing about Hitler! :rage:

Reply to Wheatley I said something about stupidity. Hitler wasn't stupid. Neither was Mao, nor Stalin. So I'm asking the question, if 'stupidity' is the enemy of the good, then how come these obviously dreadful human beings weren't just stupid?

Reply to Wayfarer Im being facetious.

There's an icon in Buddhism, of the pig, rooster and snake all pursuing each other in a vicious circle. The snake is hatred, the pig is greed, and the chicken is stupidity. These are the 'three poisons'.



So I'm saying that stupidity is only part of the picture. Sure, it's corrosive, and there's a lot of it, especially in Trump world - Trump being King of Stupid. But there's more to the plight of humanity than that.

Reply to Wayfarer We Americans have a totally different concept of stupidity.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stupid

Quoting Wayfarer

There's an icon in Buddhism, of the pig, rooster and snake all pursuing each other in a vicious circle. The snake is hatred, the pig is greed, and the chicken is stupidity. These are the 'three poisons'.

I'm shocked, stupefied that you got that symbolism wrong. It's actually,

The Three Poisons

1. Snake = Hatred
2. Pig = Ignorance
3. Rooster = Vanity

I guess the causal connection is like this: Ignorance (root cause) -> Vanity -> Hatred -> Ignorance (root cause). I'm not quite clear how hatred leads to ignorance. Perhaps, as some say, feelings (emotions) cloud one's judgment (hate being one of the strongest emotions out there).

Quoting Wayfarer

So I'm saying that stupidity is only part of the picture

Absolutely! :fire:

Quoting Wayfarer

Hitler wasn’t stupid.

Quoting Mike Godwin

Godwin's law, short for Godwin's law (or rule) of Nazi analogies, is an Internet adage asserting that as an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches 1

:point: Godwin's Law

This thread is, I suppose, fast-tracking Godwin's law.

Quoting Mike Godwin

Internet adage asserting that as an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Adolf

There ought to be another law about "Godwin"...

Quoting Wheatley

There ought to be another law about "Godwin"...

As an online discussion grows in the number of Hitler references, the probability of mentioning Godwin's law approaches 1?


Quoting Wayfarer

I said something about stupidity. Hitler wasn't stupid. Neither was Mao, nor Stalin. So I'm asking the question, if 'stupidity' is the enemy of the good, then how come these obviously dreadful human beings weren't just stupid?

Many stupid people engage in war. No war is started by a stupid person though.

:flower:

Quoting Wheatley

There ought to be another law about "Godwin"...

Quoting Hermeticus

As an online discussion grows in the number of Hitler references, the probability of mentioning Godwin's law approaches 1?

:lol:

[quote=Yuval Noah Harari (Sapiens), explaining why humanity is a scourge for the earth]Why did people make such fateful miscalculations? For the same reason people throughout history have miscalculated. People were unable to fathom the full consequences of their decisions.[/quote]

Yuval Noah Harari (Sapiens), explaining why humanity is a scourge for the earth:People were unable to fathom the full consequences of their decisions.

People have marshmellow brains.

Quoting TheMadFool

1. Snake = Hatred
2. Pig = Ignorance
3. Rooster = Vanity

Roger that. I had the pig down for greed - thought that figured - snake for hatred - check - and roster for stupid. Stand corrected but the basic point remains.

Quoting Hermeticus

As an online discussion grows in the number of Hitler references, the probability of mentioning Godwin's law approaches 1?

No.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/595014

It was a joke.

Quoting TheMadFool

This thread is, I suppose, fast-tracking Godwin's law.

I picked the wrong evil dictator to make an example out of! :yikes: Anyway, good to know about Mike Godwin, he seems an ultra-cool dude. :cool:

Quoting Wheatley

We Americans have a totally different concept of stupidity.

That’s how I understand the word also, here in Australia.

Anyway to try and get the discussion back on track - I sort of see the point of the OP, and I agree that American politics, in particular, seems characterised recently by large outbreaks of stupidity. I mean, Texas Governor Greg Abbott is a living breathing example of stupid, making it possible for anyone to carry a gun without a license but litigating against schools that want to get their students to wear masks. If that’s not a definition of ‘stupid’, then I don’t know what is.

But stupidity is not the root of all evil so much as one manifestation of it.

Quoting Wayfarer

picked the wrong evil dictator

Damn right! Choose Mussolini next time!

Quoting Wayfarer

Anyway, good to know about Mike Godwin, he seems an ultra-cool dude. :cool:

His name doesn't testify to this. :smile:

Quoting Wheatley

Damn right! Choose Mussolini next time!

Mussolini turned from anarchist to socialist to fascist, which was a very progressive futuristic movement. He was a big black rooster with hen attitudes.

Reply to Newkomer Due deference to the thread title, Mussolini was actually pretty stupid, wasn’t he?

Quoting Wayfarer

Due deference to the thread title, Mussolini was actually pretty stupid, wasn’t he?

What? How do you dare to criticize my duce! Non e stato stupido! He was just insane.

This thread is stupid... :yawn:

Quoting Wayfarer

Stand corrected but the basic point remains.

Indeed!

Quoting Wayfarer

Trump being King of Stupid.

:grin:

Quoting Wayfarer

Trump being King of Stupid

Quoting Wayfarer

Trump being King of Stupid

I can't agree more!

Quoting Wayfarer

Due deference to the thread title, Mussolini was actually pretty stupid, wasn’t he?

I don't think so. He was a brute alright, but not an idiot.

Quoting Olivier5

I don't think so. He was a brute alright, but not an idiot

My exact words! ?

Quoting Wheatley

This thread is stupid...

A stupid fact.

Reply to Newkomer
A stupid reaction!

Reply to Wheatley I always thought Peterson's support of Trump was the stupidest thing he ever did. Also note that he confidently predicted that Trump would win in 2020.

Reply to Wayfarer I need a marker to check all the stupid boxes!

Quoting Wheatley

A stupid reaction!

A stupid reaction to a stupid reaction! :grin:

Reply to Newkomer
Oh, look! A stupid game.

Quoting Wheatley

Oh, look! A stupid game.

With one stupid rule: repeat and add. You can make a computer program for it!

Yeah, yeah yeah... :roll:

Quoting Wheatley

Yeah, yeah yeah...

No, no, nooooo... :heart:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting Janus

And never sleeps. — 180 Proof


That's true and yet seems paradoxical in that sleep is the very essence and condition of stupidity. Thus the common injunction "wake up to yourself". Selective attention perhaps?

In that regard, it is interesting that the word comes from the Latin stupere, which means to be amazed or stunned as when hit on the head with a stick. That fits with my theory that the quality is not simply a deficiency pejoratively assigned to individuals but an agency that lives amongst people as trauma. Trauma has shown itself capable of reproduction.

In the context of trying to be less stupid in the performance of an art, it is more important to develop strategies to constrain some actions than try to eradicate the grounds of their existence. 400 blows was not enough for that.

Food for thought:

I recall reading in a book on critical thinking that one has to be logical, in other words, one mustn't be stupid if you want to, the book says, live a long, happy, healthy and meaningful life.

Needless to say there are stupids in our ranks, I myself among them probably.

Come now to the theory of evolution as per which life's a game of survival, survival of the fittest, fit in evolutionary terms means an ability to reproduce.

Thus, it seems, from all of the above, stupidity gives you some kind of reproductive advantage over intelligence. That, of course raises the possibility that insofar as life, in a broad sense, is concerned, it actually doesn't mind having a sizeable population of dimwits around.

Compare and contrast that to intelligence and its stereotypes such as nerds/geeks (peeps with high IQ but zero sex appeal).

You do the math!

Mother Nature knows best!?

@180 Proof, what say you?

Quoting tim wood

Stupidity: an affliction......

Quoting tim wood

recourse to irrationality......

Good.

Those reducible to deficiency of judgement (?) An affliction manifests in examples, but isn’t explained by them.

The way that the concept of stupidity is being used in this thread is not that of lacking an aptitude , knowledge or skill. That’s why there has been no mention here of the stupidity of children or animals. No, stupidity is being used as a moral accusation , a judgement of blame against whoever we deem deserving of the label.
We are angry at, disgusted with , condemning toward the ‘stupid’ one because we believe they knew or should have known better than to do or act or think the way they did. As Time Wood put it , “a person who without reason retreats from reason to some unreasonable position and maintains that position by recourse to irrationality against reason.”

That’s the essence of moral blame , our judgement that the other knew better and succumbed to a base or
irrational’ motive.

The whole edifice of the psychology of blame would crumble if the angry accuser were ever to come
to a realization that there’s is no such thing as irrationality, there are only different forms of rationality, and the blameful finger-pointer is unable to extricate themselves from their own worldview, or even recognize their rationality as a just one of a potentially infinite range of worldviews, each of which aims at the same moral end , but via an often profoundly different construal of empirical circumstance. So they have no choice but to see the one who violates their expectations as morally culpable , irrational, stupid. The irony here is that it would be the accuser who is being stupid here, but I would have to use that word in this context according to its innocent , non-moralistic sense. They don’t want to have to accuse anyone, but they lack the insight into how others think to avoid succumbing to hostility.

Quoting Joshs

irrationality against reason.”

One (wo)man's reason is the other's madness or stupidity. Same for rationality. Irrationality can be reasonable. Ratio can be unreasonable. Rationality merely means that you can give reasons. Which can be stupid for some and sane for others.

Quoting Joshs

or even recognize their rationality as a just one of a potentially infinite range of worldviews, each of which aims at the same moral end , but via an often profoundly different construal of empirical circumstance.

Can you say a little more about this point? Are you saying people aim at the same moral end?

Also, how do you locate this continuum of rationality in the context of intersubjectivity and the potential shared interests of society/groups?

Reply to Philofile Quoting Philofile

One (wo)man's reason is the other's madness or stupidity. Same for rationality. Irrationality can be reasonable. Ratio can be unreasonable. Rationality merely means that you can give reasons. Which can be stupid for some and sane for others.

That sounds like a notion of the rational which reduces it to an arbitrary set of relationships with no thematic or
implicative consistency. If this is the only way we can explain ‘rationality’, then what you say about it is true.

But in sense-making creatures like ourselves , reason is guided by normative cogntive-affective aims. We aim to anticipate events in as orderly a fashion as possible. Our ‘reasons’ are our best predictions about events. We only view others’ reasons as irrational when we fail to recognize the nature of sense-making. We don’t necessarily have to be able to translate the others system of anticipations into terms that we can understand, we only have to recognize in principle that this is how cognizing beings organize experience.

Quoting Joshs

We only view others’ reasons as irrational when we fail to recognize the nature of sense-making.

Exactly. There are different sense-makings. One(wo)man's sense is the other's non-sense. Regardless of the "normative cogntive-affective aims".

Reply to Tom Storm Quoting Tom Storm

point? Are you saying people aim at the same moral end?

Yes, the moral end for all of us is anticipation of all possible events in as parsimonious , multidimensional and replicative a way as possible. Social life happens to be the richest source of new events , so making sense of others and establishing the most intimate possible relations of understanding with others is presupposed.

Quoting Tom Storm

how do you locate this continuum of rationality in the context of intersubjectivity and the potential shared interests of society/groups?

I like George Kelly's Sociality Corollary, which states
that ‘to the extent that one person construes the construction processes of another, he may play a role in a social process involving the other person”. This spells out the organizational implications of a being-with-others defined and validated by the intimate assimilative processes of replicative anticipation.

We don’t just belong whole-hog to larger linguistic groups and cultures, we have to be able to make sense of their ways from within our own axes of understanding.

Quoting Joshs

anticipation

It's not all about that. It's just a small part of us (or animals).

Reply to Philofile Quoting Philofile

There are different sense-makings. One(wo)man's sense is the other's non-sense.

Another’s sense will never be my nonsense if I understand what I described above about the organization of cognitive systems. I may not be able to grasp its internal logic, so I could joke that it’s ‘nonsense
to me’, but I am still recognizing it as ordered.

My original post was about the basis of blame, accusation and hostility. I argued that such an attitude requires that I reject the idea that there is an internal order behind the behavior of the other I accuse. I will not need to blame if I recognize that the other is operating out of a moral worldview , even if I don’t quite understand its details at the moment.

Reply to Philofile

Quoting Philofile

It's not all about that. It's just a small part of us (or animals).

alrighty then

Quoting Joshs

alrighty then

A man of few words...

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting Yohan

I'm an expert on stupidity, you are not. Don't question me.

You cannot both be an expert on stupidity and stupid.

Quoting Wayfarer

Hitler wasn’t stupid.

Quoting 180 Proof

What a stupid thing to say.

:wink:

Quoting Janus

You cannot both be an expert on stupidity and stupid.

OK, then I'm an expert at being stupid.

Reply to tim wood Quoting tim wood

What do you mean? That the earth is sometimes flat, is always flat, is not flat, is flat if you "think" it is and not if you don't? It seems that according to you, whether the earth is flat depends on who is talking. Yes? No?

I’m making two points. First, as you know , at one time many believed the earth was flat , that all species descended directly from predecessors , that the Sun revolved around the earth. There are a multitude of competing theories floating around today in science(particularly the social sciences) and philosophy. Eventually , certain of them may become more widely accepted than others.
But I argue that the failure of individuals to embrace the current consensus is not a form of irrationality. Shifting one’s perspective is not simply a matter of being presented with evidence. It requires a gestalt shift and that can take time.

My second point is that many conflicts involving blame are like the above , where it is not a master of the other being irrational, but instead their being in the thrawl of a way of thinking that you have moved beyond , but don’t understand why they can’t see things your way. So you assume they are being stubborn, lazy, irrational. Instead, they simply haven’t made the ‘shift’ that you have.

Reply to Yohan Fairy nuff!

Quoting Valentinus

In that regard, it is interesting that the word comes from the Latin stupere, which means to be amazed or stunned as when hit on the head with a stick. That fits with my theory that the quality is not simply a deficiency pejoratively assigned to individuals but an agency that lives amongst people as trauma. Trauma has shown itself capable of reproduction.

So, not "selective attention" then but traumatically induced inability to attend? Makes sense!

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

And no mistake: some of us will suffer; some of us have suffered. Our children will suffer, and grandchildren suffer greatly. There is not the luxury of losing this war - and war it is. The question, then, is how to fight the war to win it. Not just to fight it - that's a mug's game - but to win it. Churchill again, "For without victory there is no survival," rather misery, death, and nothing beyond.

I'm reminded of one of my favorite educators, Carl Sagan:

“We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.” (Demon Haunted World)

Quoting Janus

Hitler wasn’t stupid.
— Wayfarer

What a stupid thing to say.
— 180 Proof

:wink:

Quoting Janus

?Yohan Fairy nuff!

Hehe, should I take that as a nickname?
From the way you talk, I get the impression you are a low level expert at problem solving.
Can you solve this? Isn't part of being stupid lacking self-awareness? Don't the stupidest people not know they are stupid?
What I'm wondering is, is it possible I am stupid but don't know I am? Am I accepting the label of being stupid without knowing what it means?
Can you infer from what you have seen from my posts if:
1. I am in fact stupid
2. I am aware that I am stupid (not just convinced the label fits me based on what other's have said.)
For the record, for me 'stupid' means, off the top of my head, doing something without good reason. I don't know why I do the things I do. I just follow impulse. I have thoughts which tell me 'this is the reasonable thing to do'. Which I follow, but I never know if my thoughts are telling me the truth, or if my thoughts are just justifying a preferred course of action. I think the latter is more likely.
Edit: I want to add one final clue. I am proud of my stupidity. I don't really know why, other than I feel like "reason" is against me getting what I want. I feel like I am going against Big Brother Reason in his attempt to stomp down on everyone's Natural Birth Right Of Pure Instinct.
Thanks for playing, if you do!

Reply to Xtrix

accidental double post

Accidental double post again

Quoting Yohan

I get the impression you are a low level expert at problem solving.
Can you solve this?

Why would you ask a low level expert? "Low level expert" is either a non sequitur or an irony; does that answer your question?

Reply to Wheatley

:lol:

My all-time favorite comedian.

Reply to Wheatley :rofl: Brilliant!

Quoting Janus

Why would you ask a low level expert?

An expert is someone who has a good grasp on something, enough to which they can consistently perform well at that thing, as compared to non-experts who don't have a good grasp, and who's performance is hit or miss in quality.
Expertise does not mean pinnacle of potential, but consistent proficiency.
"Leading expert" denotes one considered to be at or near the top of the living expertise hierarchy. A 'Master" is even higher than an expert, having not only reached the pinnacle, but is able to use the skill effortless grace (something like that).
Quoting Janus

"Low level expert" is either a non sequitur or an irony; does that answer your question?

It does answer one of my questions, in that you are implying, I believe, that you think I am stupid, at least some times.
Edit: I still wonder if its possible for me to be consciously stupid. I am open to any others opinion on this matter. Because according to my definition of stupid, I am stupid. The again, who cares really.

Quoting Yohan

Expertise does not mean pinnacle of potential, but consistent proficiency.

For me expertise means mastery, not merely proficiency, and "leading expert" would be equivalent to 'grand master', or the one who leads the lesser masters. But all terms are somewhat elastic, and people have different interpretations based on the associations that have gained ascendancy in their consciousness by serendipitous attention to some among the diverse usages.

Quoting Yohan

It does answer one of my questions, in that you are implying, I believe, that you think I am stupid, at least some times.

No, I wasn't implying that, I was just presenting a different interpretation.

Quoting Xtrix

“We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.” (Demon Haunted World)

Nice summation!

Quoting 180 Proof

Jean-François Marmion

:smirk:

Reply to Wheatley :up:

Quoting Janus

For me expertise means mastery, not merely proficiency, and "leading expert" would be equivalent to 'grand master', or the one who leads the lesser masters

What should an expert in physics master?

Reply to Philofile

Stop, Marco

Stupidity is fucking up the planet we live on. Gaining capital. Adhering to the product. Constructing, constructing, growing, growing, more, more, higher, higher, further, further, faster, faster, untill the economic train can't be stopped anymore and flies down and crashes with an all destroying BANG!. Hey! Light at the end of the tunnel! No...It's another train coming...

Of course people like to live comfartably and go to the movies or fun park and have a good diner. But why is growth necessary? Economical growth. That's stupid.

Reply to Philofile

You are also free to treat people honorably.

Quoting T Clark

You are also free to treat people honorably.

Indeed! And I do! I love people!

Reply to Philofile

You are behaving dishonorably on the forum.

Quoting T Clark

dishonorably

WTF is dishonorable? Honest?

Reply to Philofile Physics? :roll:

Quoting Janus

So, not "selective attention" then but traumatically induced inability to attend?

The OP presents stupidity as a condition that exists in a different way than any sort of continuum where people operate with varying capacities and interests to learn new things. We all have to function somewhere along a continuum of learning capacity. Being stupid is recognized as something that happens to people throughout the continuum but particularly to those at the lower end of the learning ability scale. There is a punitive quality to being stupid, like getting hit on the head with a stick.

When used as pejorative, it implies a kind of will-fullness not present in being charged with being "clueless" or the like. It is as if Stupid had a life of its own.

Reply to Valentinus Yes there is no guarantee that the stupid are capable of being anything other than stupid, but likewise there is no guarantee that they are not either.

It's probably a good idea to avoid stupidity, in as much as one is aware of it in the first place.

A whole other issue, which perhaps is correlated would be to give some structure to our ignorance. That's what I think of when I learn something, becoming more aware of my own ignorance.

Whatever else stupid people may or may not have in common, modesty or humility is not frequent.

Quoting T Clark

Your manifesto would be more meaningful to me if I thought what you consider stupid and what I do are the same.

I haven't read through the entire thread, so I don't know if at one point, it's been defined here. But examples would be helpful -- I mean, is it stupid to be unaware of instances of stupidity? My example is when someone falls for scammers whose antics have been all over the internet or in news coverage.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

My broader definition of stupid is unnecessary behavior that makes the world a worse place or has a potential for making the world a worse place, and that covers a very wide range of behaviors.

:up:

Thank g()d I'm mensa-level but choose not to join.

Quoting tim wood

My broader definition of stupid is unnecessary behavior that makes the world a worse place or has a potential for making the world a worse place, and that covers a very wide range of behaviors.

Like the Chernobyl incident and Exxon-Valdez?


Quoting Noble Dust

Thank g()d I'm mensa-level but choose not to join.

:halo:

Reply to Caldwell

Interpret that as you will

Quoting Noble Dust

Interpret that as you will

Okay, cause when I read your post, the first thing that came to mind was you're a mensa-level stupid, but refused to join the club of stupid people. Sorry. I mean we're in the stupid thread after all. :blush:

Reply to Caldwell

Think Jerry Seinfeld

Reply to Noble Dust
:meh: I don't watch tv.

Reply to Caldwell

All good, I don't really either. Uh...think...I don't know, I can't think of any more clever ways to suggest that intelligence is (ironically) complex and not unidimensional, and that there's no one way to measure it. I stayed coy as long as I could.

Quoting Noble Dust

ntelligence is (ironically) complex and not unidimensional, and that there's no one way to measure it.

Quite right! You can say measure again.

Reply to Caldwell

measure

Reply to Noble Dust :smile:

*

Quoting Noble Dust

Don't get me wrong; I'm against stupidity as much as tim wood is!

Oh not at all. It's obvious. What with the name Noble Dust.

Reply to Caldwell

Nice catch; I deleted that comment but now it's forever there in your quote; I like the poetry of that. I deleted the comment for the sake of avoiding confusion. I'm against stupidity, but not in the way @tim wood seems to be.

Reply to Noble Dust
Don't worry. I'm still trying to figure out tim wood myself.

Reply to Caldwell

I am too, but thankfully I'm Mensa-level.

If anyone reading this thread is unsure, I'M MENSA-LEVEL IQ

:lol:

Reply to Caldwell

I'M SMARTER THAN THESE FUQKS dammit

Quoting Noble Dust

I'M SMARTER THAN THESE FUQKS dammit

:lol: For sure!!

Reply to Caldwell

But not really, though.

Reply to Noble Dust
Hmm. You can be either, but not both.

Reply to Caldwell

Let's play a game: what's my IQ?

You have to comb back through all of my 4.7 thousand posts to figure it out. The winner doesn't get banned. The loser is banned.

Reply to Noble Dust

42?

What a stupid and overdramatically grandiose OP!

Jeez,some of you need to get out more or look at the considerable motes in your own eyes.

Tim is watching too much TV and consuming too much American media.
Relax Timothy.

Quoting Wayfarer

I had the pig down for greed - thought that figured - snake for hatred - check - and roster for stupid.

Quoting TheMadFool

I guess the causal connection is like this: Ignorance (root cause) -> Vanity -> Hatred -> Ignorance (root cause). I'm not quite clear how hatred leads to ignorance.

In Early Buddhism, ignorance, avijja, refers specifically to being ignorant of the Four Noble Truths.
Being ignorant of the Four Noble Truths makes worldly standards seem acceptable, correct (so hatred seems acceptable, normal, or even desirable to a person ignorant of the FNT).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_poisons

Quoting Wayfarer

American politics, in particular, seems characterised recently by large outbreaks of stupidity. I mean, Texas Governor Greg Abbott is a living breathing example of stupid, making it possible for anyone to carry a gun without a license but litigating against schools that want to get their students to wear masks. If that’s not a definition of ‘stupid’, then I don’t know what is.

I see it not as stupidity, but as post-truth politics in practice. It's a symptom of the mentality that winning is all that matters. And so arguments are only a means to an end: they don't have to be true, they just need to help one win a case, whatever the case and with whomever it may be.

Quoting Wayfarer

I always thought Peterson's support of Trump was the stupidest thing he ever did. Also note that he confidently predicted that Trump would win in 2020.

So did I. Americans choosing Trump is only logical, given American mentality.

Reply to baker

Ignorance of our true nature, rather, and what is our true nature you ask? Emptiness.

Quoting Ambrosia

What a stupid and overdramatically grandiose OP!

Jeez,some of you need to get out more or look at the considerable motes in your own eyes.

Tim is watching too much TV and consuming too much American media.
Relax Timothy.

You’ve taken it personally. I wonder why? :chin:

Quoting Valentinus

Stupid is not only an absence of understanding or skill, it is an active principle that seeks ways to circumvent attempts to contain its effects.

If one puts stupid in a corral, it will keep a constant eye on the gate. If the gate is left open for too long, stupid will get out. To counter this agency, a concentric ring of other corrals are built so the results of failures to restrain stupid are minimized.

In times when many gates are open simultaneously, that is when the destructive capacity of the agency is greatest.

Stupid wants to be free.

Why do you conceptualize this as "stupid", and not as confident?

- - -

Quoting tim wood

Point! Assume ignorance and educate!

What several posters here describe as stupidity, I would describe as confidence.

Scammers were mentioned earlier in the thread. A percentage of people who fall for scammers indeed may be stupid, naive; but I think they are very few. Some fall prey because of their own greed and demand for easy gain. But it seems that the biggest group of those who fall prey to scammers are people who are confident in themselves, who believe that they are such wonderful persons that nothing bad can ever happen to them; and that if it does, it's never their own fault in any way. People who believe that the universe is a safe and welcoming place for them.

There's that saying -- "He that has been bitten by a snake is afraid of a rope." But this misses the point. People tend to get bitten when they confuse a snake (a dangerous being) for a harmless one (a piece of rope). They are so eager to think highly of themselves and to believe that the universe is a safe and welcoming place for them that they don't see danger, but misinterpret it as something harmless -- and then behave as if all was well. And get bitten.

Quoting praxis

Ignorance of our true nature, rather, and what is our true nature you ask? Emptiness.

If your true nature is to be a Mahayani, yes.

Quoting Joshs

The whole edifice of the psychology of blame would crumble if the angry accuser were ever to come
to a realization that there’s is no such thing as irrationality, there are only different forms of rationality, and the blameful finger-pointer is unable to extricate themselves from their own worldview, or even recognize their rationality as a just one of a potentially infinite range of worldviews, each of which aims at the same moral end , but via an often profoundly different construal of empirical circumstance. So they have no choice but to see the one who violates their expectations as morally culpable , irrational, stupid. The irony here is that it would be the accuser who is being stupid here, but I would have to use that word in this context according to its innocent , non-moralistic sense. They don’t want to have to accuse anyone, but they lack the insight into how others think to avoid succumbing to hostility.

Quoting Joshs

But in sense-making creatures like ourselves , reason is guided by normative cogntive-affective aims. We aim to anticipate events in as orderly a fashion as possible. Our ‘reasons’ are our best predictions about events. We only view others’ reasons as irrational when we fail to recognize the nature of sense-making. We don’t necessarily have to be able to translate the others system of anticipations into terms that we can understand, we only have to recognize in principle that this is how cognizing beings organize experience.

Quoting Joshs

My original post was about the basis of blame, accusation and hostility. I argued that such an attitude requires that I reject the idea that there is an internal order behind the behavior of the other I accuse. I will not need to blame if I recognize that the other is operating out of a moral worldview , even if I don’t quite understand its details at the moment.

Exactly.

Quoting Joshs

My second point is that many conflicts involving blame are like the above , where it is not a master of the other being irrational, but instead their being in the thrawl of a way of thinking that you have moved beyond , but don’t understand why they can’t see things your way. So you assume they are being stubborn, lazy, irrational. Instead, they simply haven’t made the ‘shift’ that you have.

This seems to assume that the blamers are objectively more advanced than the ones they blame.

You can easily find cases where it's evident that the blamer has at no point in their past thought about things the way that the person they blame does. So the blamer hasn't necessarily moved beyond the way the other person thinks, it's also possible that they never thought about things the way the other person does to begin with.

You can see this, for example, in the vaccination debate where there are vocal pro-vaccers who consider it blameworthy if a person doesn't show the same enthusiasm about vaccines as they do, and this goes to the point of accusing that person of being an anti-vaccer and feeling justified to go on a public crusade against them.

A poster who evidently isn't all that enthusiastic about vaccines and masks, clearly said that he has taken the vaccine and uses a mask as obligated. And yet even _after_ he said that, several posters had a go at him for being an anti-vaccer. They ignored an important piece of information an indulged in their crusade.

Quoting Tom Storm

Also, how do you locate this continuum of rationality in the context of intersubjectivity and the potential shared interests of society/groups?

Take this example, from another thread:

Quoting baker

In some countries, a high-risk population that is reluctant to get vaccinated are young medical nurses, for fear that they will become infertile.

Now, at first glance, and esp. when seen from a male perspective, this seems an unwarranted fear.

But if I were in their shoes, my line of reasoning and concerns would be such: Taking hormonal contraceptives increases the risk of something going wrong when taking the vaccine. So in order to reduce those risks, stop taking hormonal contraceptives. But then it is almost certain that an unwanted pregnancy will occur (since men cannot be relied upon to use condoms or to wait), and this will need to be solved with an abortion. An abortion increases the risk of infertility. If a woman isn't able to have children this can result in the man abandoning her or otherwise reduce his affections for her.

So what are those young women supposed to do?

Statistically, it's probably safer to take their chances with covid than with a man.

Why default to the belief that these young women are not being rational when they refuse to get vaccinated against covid?

Quoting tim wood

What do you mean? That the earth is sometimes flat, is always flat, is not flat, is flat if you "think" it is and not if you don't? It seems that according to you, whether the earth is flat depends on who is talking. Yes? No?

It means that you are unwilling to put yourself into another's shoes; moreover, you find it redundant to do so in the first place.

Quoting tim wood

By stupid I do not mean intellectually challenged but instead a person who without reason retreats from reason to some unreasonable position and maintains that position by recourse to irrationality against reason. .

And who is the arbiter of rationality in all this?

Quoting tim wood

After some thought, a modification. Some ignorance leads directly to stupidity because in a complex world there's an obligation to know at least some things.

Such as to aim first and shoot later.

Quoting baker

If your true nature is to be a Mahayani, yes.

Theravadins also believe in the twelve links of dependent origination.

Reply to praxis So? They don't believe in "true nature", or "emptiness".

Reply to baker

Reply to praxis Yeah, playing dumb is really constructive.

Reply to baker

Not sure how else to respond to the claim that Theravada Buddhists don't believe in emptiness.

Quoting praxis

Theravada Buddhists don't believe in emptiness.

Sounds like quantum vacuum. True empty space doesn't exist. There are always fluctuations of quantum fields.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting baker

Why do you conceptualize this as "stupid", and not as confident?

I am proposing that stupidity is not the sort of property that is revealed by listing the common characteristics of stupid people. One can observe that there are different kinds of "intelligence" and ability in one kind is no guarantee of proficiency at another. There is no similar way to talk about these differences in regards to being "stupid." Consider this essay on the use of "stupid" in Victorian Literature.

The view I take is even less particularly personal than the one considered in the essay. In the sphere of production, the need to constrain the destructive capacity creates a dynamic where contempt for the stupid makes it more powerful on many levels. This factor is multiplied by having so many systems being dependent on wise responses in this regard. However that may be, I think the dynamic itself is as old as we are as a species.

* duplicate post

Quoting baker

Why default to the belief that these young women are not being rational when they refuse to get vaccinated against covid?

So my quote above was a hypothetical question to Joshs, reflecting some of the themes he introduces.

I don't elevate rationalism as such. The point is to identify the best reasons, not just reasons. This is not always easy, especially in a world of flawed epistemologies and disinformation. And people may behave on reasons which are not sound but make sense in the context of survival.

Quoting Noble Dust

Let's play a game: what's my IQ?You have to comb back through all of my 4.7 thousand posts to figure it out. The winner doesn't get banned. The loser is banned.

I'm game.

Reply to praxis :smirk:

Quoting baker

What several posters here describe as stupidity, I would describe as confidence.

D-K effect? :roll:

Quoting Manuel

Whatever else stupid people may or may not have in common, modesty or humility is not frequent.

Yea to that!

It's stupid to call someone stupid. Though it must be admitted that even theoretical-mathemathical-high-energy-particle-quantum-fieldsincurvedspacetime professors can be rather stupid (but very sexy!).

Less confident people may take more time to think through a problem leading to higher chances of accuracy than a confident person might.

Quoting Yohan

Less confident people may take more time to think through a problem leading to higher chances of accuracy than a confident person might.

Unless the confident person is right about things and the less confident wrong.

Quoting Thunderballs

Unless the confident person is right about things and the less confident wrong.

It depends if the confidence of the confident person is based their actually being right or if it is based on a desire to be right?

Confidence is only bad if it exceeds one's ability.
Unconfidence can be bad too, if it exaggerates one's inability.

Quoting Tom Storm

And people may behave on reasons which are not sound but make sense in the context of survival.

What a strange thing to say.

Surely the reasons that make sense in the context of survival are the most relevant ones!

Quoting 180 Proof

D-K effect?

No, something more fundamental. In real life interactions with people, primacy goes to respect for the social power hierarchy, truth is often a distant second concern.

If your boss tells you that 2 + 2 = 5, he's thereby probably not communicating to you that 2 + 2 = 5 or that he believes that 2 + 2 = 5, nor that you should believe that 2 + 2 = 5. But more likely, this method of saying things that are blatantly untrue or problematic is a socially acceptable way to tell you to know your place.

And in order to remain sane in this mode of social interaction, one has to have a lot of confidence.

Quoting Valentinus

The view I take is even less particularly personal than the one considered in the essay. In the sphere of production, the need to constrain the destructive capacity creates a dynamic where contempt for the stupid makes it more powerful on many levels. This factor is multiplied by having so many systems being dependent on wise responses in this regard. However that may be, I think the dynamic itself is as old as we are as a species.

What you describe here as having to do with stupidity, I would describe as a matter of wanting people to focus on the task, rather than on the people involved in the task.

Many people prefer to focus on people (themselves, or other people), rather than on the task. They care more about being treated in a way they want to be treated, and doing the task is secondary to them (even if they signed up for it and are payed for it).

The task-relationship model is defined by Forsyth as "a descriptive model of leadership which maintains that most leadership behaviors can be classified as performance maintenance or relationship maintenances."[1] Task-oriented (or task-focused) leadership is a behavioral approach in which the leader focuses on the tasks that need to be performed in order to meet certain goals, or to achieve a certain performance standard. Relationship-oriented (or relationship-focused) leadership is a behavioral approach in which the leader focuses on the satisfaction, motivation and the general well-being of the team members.

Task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership are two models that are often compared, as they are known to produce varying outcomes under different circumstances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task-oriented_and_relationship-oriented_leadership

In task-oriented cultures, the primary means of achieving one's goals is through skillfully managing tasks and time

In relationship-oriented cultures the group to which a person belongs is a crucial part of that person's identity and goals are accomplished via relationships

Which takes priority, individual accomplishment and responsibility, or maintaining human relationships?

https://www.watershedassociates.com/learning-center-item/task-orientation-vs-relationship-orientation.html

The worst results come about when you have people-oriented people working in task-oriented settings, and vice versa.

Reply to baker And if he has to "tell me my place", then he's not the boss. A boss is a boss precisely because he doesn't have to say, directly or otherwise, "I'm the boss"; instead he's just an idiot expressing his insecurity. I agree though, "power hierarchy" (status) usually subordinates "truth" – that's social stupidity (a herd / prey species' cognitive defect).

Quoting 180 Proof

And if he has to "tell me my place", then he's not the boss. A boss is a boss precisely because he doesn't have to say, directly or otherwise, "I'm the boss"; instead he's just an idiot expressing his insecurity.

None of which matters as long as you are the employee, a subordinate, dependent on the mercy of your boss.

I agree though, "power hierarchy" (status) usually subordinates "truth" – that's social stupidity (a herd / prey species' cognitive defect).

It's also an effective way to reign in and silence dissent and distraction, so that the group can focus on achieving its goal. From which the individual benefits as well.

In contrast, deadlock is inevitable in a democratic society with sufficiently informed agents when the society is facing complex problems.

Reply to baker Social psychology and political history provide considerable evidence to the contrary.

Reply to 180 Proof List 3.

Quoting baker

And people may behave on reasons which are not sound but make sense in the context of survival.
— Tom Storm

What a strange thing to say.

Surely the reasons that make sense in the context of survival are the most relevant ones!

Not at all. People might act on reasons which they believe are in the best interests for their survival. But their beliefs may be based on reasons that are false.

Quoting Tom Storm

People might act on reasons which they believe are in the best interests for their survival. But their beliefs may be based on reasons that are false.

Some examples, please.

Are you referring to things such as "I need another fix, or I'll die. It's a matter of my survival that I get another fix, so it's only right that I look for it" ?

Reply to baker You provided an example already. Women who think Covid vax will make them infertile (there is no evidence for this).

But others include; people with mental illness who think that covid medication will allow the police to control their behaviour. Because of negative experiences with involuntary psychiatric medication in their past.

Aboriginal Australians thinking the medication with kill them or make them sick because of negative experiences with 'white medicine' in the past. Incidentally I am working with Aboriginal staff and elders to encourage Aboriginal people to have their vaccinations.

People with alcohol misuse who believe that alcohol helps them to survive life (they can drink away traumatic memories). Here's the tip - it doesn't work.

All of these appear to be reasonable positions to hold but are ultimately unhelpful.

Reply to baker
I work in a very task-oriented culture, to use the language of Forsyth. Both sets of management skills discussed in the articles are needed, however. Unlike the Forsyth model, the workers I encounter (including myself) are both types of people simultaneously. They are trusted to produce at a certain level and judged upon whether they can perform or not on that basis. They also must navigate the problems of being with other people and the prospects of working for an outfit in the future.

The problem of being stupid shows up at each place where decision happens. There is the ever present problem of safety. What is dangerous for one artist is less so for another. That sort of thing is managed by management but success or failure is mostly a matter of individuals taking care of themselves or not. No set of protocols will ever be more important than that.

The other problem with stupid has to do with order of process. What should happen when?

And there is the problem of resources. Every outfit has managers competing for the best people in an organization to work for them. What is that like? These culture models are weak beer in addressing the problem.

Quoting Xtrix

“We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.”

:up:

[quote=An ancient writer relating how Thales' absent-mindedness did the great philosopher in]Thales (first philosopher/first scientist/first physicist) has met an unkind fate in his old age. He went out from the court of his house at night, as was his custom, with his maidservant to view the stars, and forgetting where he was, as he gazed, he got to the edge of a steep slope and fell over. In such wise have the Milesians lost their astronomer. Let us who were his pupils cherish his memory, and let it be cherished by our children and pupils.[/quote]

Even the greatest thinkers suffer the occasional bout of stupidity and sometimes it can be...fatal. It appears that we haven't learnt our lesson...yet. I hope it won't be too late for us.

Quoting Tom Storm

You provided an example already. Women who think Covid vax will make them infertile (there is no evidence for this).

Have you read the rest? Typical male.

But others include; people with mental illness who think that covid medication will allow the police to control their behaviour. Because of negative experiences with involuntary psychiatric medication in their past.

Aboriginal Australians thinking the medication with kill them or make them sick because of negative experiences with 'white medicine' in the past. Incidentally I am working with Aboriginal staff and elders to encourage Aboriginal people to have their vaccinations.

People with alcohol misuse who believe that alcohol helps them to survive life (they can drink away traumatic memories). Here's the tip - it doesn't work.

All of these appear to be reasonable positions to hold but are ultimately unhelpful.

What's the use of saving your body when it costs you your soul?

Quoting Valentinus

And there is the problem of resources. Every outfit has managers competing for the best people in an organization to work for them. What is that like? These culture models are weak beer in addressing the problem.

It's still not clear why you call it a matter of "stupidity". Perhaps it's the most convenient to do so.

I used to be amazed how someone can walk down the road, step into a hole in the pavement, and injure themselves. And then sue the city. And win. But in time I've come to understand it as a matter of confidence: the person is confident that the pavement should be in good order, and that it is the city's reponsibility to ensure that it is so, and not an individual's responsibility to watch their step. Confidence ... does wonders.

Reply to baker
The text you quoted from me was a response to the work culture views you had linked to. My disagreement with the utility of the division is not based upon my theory of the stupid. My disagreement was a rejection of the idea that people operate strictly on one basis or another. The world of actual work shows that these elements are all mushed together in real and very short time. That, in any case, has been my experience.

In regards to personal experience, safeguarding against the stupid does involve countervailing against over-confidence but that quality is not a sufficient cause for the problem. The humbler person still needs to keep the risk of being stupid to a minimum. Freezing up and taking no risk is not an option. The world knocks at your door.

You seem to be suggesting it is something we pin the tail upon like the donkey in the parlor game.

Quoting baker

What's the use of saving your body when it costs you your soul?

What's a soul?

Quoting Tom Storm

What's a soul?

A child of hope! The parent of prophets!

Quoting Tom Storm

What's a soul?

It's a turn of phrase, T...

Quoting baker

It's a turn of phrase, T...

Copycat.

Quoting Valentinus

The text you quoted from me was a response to the work culture views you had linked to. My disagreement with the utility of the division is not based upon my theory of the stupid. My disagreement was a rejection of the idea that people operate strictly on one basis or another. The world of actual work shows that these elements are all mushed together in real and very short time. That, in any case, has been my experience.

Agreed, they can shift very quickly, as if such shifting would be the whole point. I brought up the distinction because I hoped it would help me to clarify something else, namely, how to distinguish between stupidity and confidence. To me, even freezing/panicking can be acts of confidence.

You seem to be suggesting it is something we pin the tail upon like the donkey in the parlor game.

?

Reply to Tom Storm Perpetrator of a bad pun.

Reply to baker Everyone needs a hobby.

Quoting praxis

Not sure how else to respond to the claim that Theravada Buddhists don't believe in emptiness.

They don't. "Emptiness" is not part of Theravada doctrine. Individual Theravadins, even many of them, believe all kinds of things, such as lucky charms or praying to Quan Yin. But that doesn't make those things part of Theravada doctrine.

Reply to baker

:roll:

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Theravada+buddhism+and+eptiness&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Reply to praxis Mahayana emptiness is not the same as Theravada emptiness. Normally, when Buddhists talk of emptiness, they mean it in the Mahayana sense ("nothing has any inherent existence or nature"). But that's not what it means in Theravada, e.g. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/integrityofemptiness.html

Reply to baker

You're claiming that Theravada Buddhists believe that things do have inherent existence or nature? If so, you're obviously very wrong.

Reply to praxis *sigh*

Reply to baker

You’re one of the laziest trolls I’ve seen.

Reply to praxis Your self-confidence and authoritarianism are outstanding. You do very good in life.

Reply to praxis Reply to baker

Why are the two of you fighting over nothing? :lol:

Reply to TheMadFool

I fight the good fight because all the tyranny of stupidity needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

Reply to praxis And while fighting strawmen of your own making, the real monsters take over!

Reply to baker

You wrote:

Normally, when Buddhists talk of emptiness, they mean it in the Mahayana sense ("nothing has any inherent existence or nature"). But that's not what it means in Theravada

This implies you may be claiming that emptiness in the Theravada sense means that things do have inherent existence or nature. That's stupid, of course, but you don't explain what you mean, which is also stupid.

Reply to praxis Read. I posted a link explaining what emptiness means in Theravada.

Reply to baker

I went to the page and did a search for "Mahayana". That word is not used even once in the article, so how could it possibly support your stupid claim? There's no reason that whatever is preached in that article can't apply to Mahayana Buddhism because there's no fundamental difference in their beliefs about emptiness.

Reply to praxis I'll just stick to the title of this thread.

Reply to baker

Again with the lazy troll. Here's a link that may help your troll game:

https://www.mandatory.com/fun/172527-how-to-be-a-troll-the-beginners-guide

Quoting praxis

I fight the good fight because all the tyranny of stupidity needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

:up:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood

Trump = bandit
Trump support base = stupid

Trump proves rule #1 for me.

I think a problem with the theory is that intelligent people can be neurotic and cause problems for themselves and others rather than stupid.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I’m thinking that all it really amounts to is a finding in game theory that cooperation for mutual benefit is the best life strategy and anyone who fails to realize this and try to live by it is either a moron or a sociopath. Problem is that it’s not that simple even in game theory. If you’re a sheep among wolves then dog eat dog rules are the most appropriate if you want to survive. Also, culture shapes and heavily influences individuals, so the line between stupid person and stupid culture is unclear, and there must be a correlation between the two.

Stupid people are not really a problem. The problem is the smart people who use stupid people against other smart people. Wise people will not use people; stupid or otherwise. I'm against smart people who use stupid people against other smart people.