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? — tim wood

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.

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. . — tim wood

And who is the arbiter of rationality in all this?

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. — tim wood

Such as to aim first and shoot later.

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

Theravadins also believe in the twelve links of dependent origination.

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

Yeah, playing dumb is really constructive.

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

Theravada Buddhists don't believe in emptiness. — praxis

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

Like the Chernobyl incident and Exxon-Valdez? — Caldwell

I think so, though different kinds of stupid.

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

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

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

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.

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. — Noble Dust

I'm game.

:smirk:

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

D-K effect? :roll:

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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!

D-K effect? — 180 Proof

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.

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. — Valentinus

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.

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).

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. — 180 Proof

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.

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

List 3.

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! — baker

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.

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. — Tom Storm

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" ?

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.

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.