The problem with judging another's intelligence on simply one thing.

[Racecar1994]

Exactly what it says on the tin really. It may seen quite obvious, but it's a problem I see occuring quite often. People take one thing that others have participated on and use it to judge someone or a group of people. This is a particularly annoying habit that keeps popping up because it reminds me that there are still ignorant people around in the world. I, of course, am not talking about the people who make the mistake (though that may still be a distressing problem) but the people who take that and use it to claim that the world is going to end over excess stupidity.

My first problem is this: it's simply too vague to use as a final word. An example I would use is the new facebook question thing (as you may have already extrapolated why I made this thread). The way I see it, I like many other people will look at one of these questions and simply click what comes to them intuitively, since it is merely a thing to please you for about a second and doesn't really matter in the end (Well, I would if I still bothered with them). This is too vague to use to judge a demographic for the two reasons that A) These people are often just answering these things for their own enjoyment and don't care about the outcome and B) Since these are often only glanced over, many of the mistakes people are called out for wouldn't have existed if extra care was taken. Yes, this is all speculation on my part - I cannot know for sure why people do what they do - but that's the thing: the very people who use this as evidence will speculate that they all genuinely thought the wrong answer was right, and I don't buy that.

My second point is the pointlessness of doing such a thing. I say it's pointless because it's something that can easily be done with practically anyone, since no-one is omniscient. We all have fields of knowledge which we are not clear on: you either specialise in one area, abandoning expertise in others, or spread your gaze into many areas, and be an expert in none.
For example, If you didn't take History further than GCSE (or the equivalent) I wouldn't expect you to know what the Treaty of Versailles was or why people from both sides opposed it to a certain degree. If you didn't take Philosophy, then you would have a terrible time trying to tell me what you could possibly prove to be undoubtedly real. These, of course, are all very specific and often unheard of, but these are the things that people can pick up on and use to express how society is declining. The bottom line is, no-one is perfect, and using a specific and often insignificant aspect to express a general disaster is certainly not a perfect method or reasoning.

My final point (as of now, anyway) lies with the people who bring this to the light themselves: the people who insult others because of a simple and unimportant factor. It is going to be hard to speak impartially, but I'll try my best. Another example, or rather a sub-category if you will, could be what is known as a 'Grammar Nazi'. I know people like this, and I always find the same problem. How can you possible judge someone on a topic completely irrelevant to grammar on their spelling? The answer may be that it's a representative of their ignorance, but I'd return to my first point to answer that. In addition, I once had someone like this post on one of my photos in facebook, and I received three deleted comments from the man - each one with spelling and grammar mistakes. That is what I'm reminded of when I hear someone claim the downfall of society by one aspect. It may not be true, it may be speculatory - I am not a psychologist (not yet, anyway)- but I can't help but think of projection. It's not uncommon to have people berate others who do worse in a field in which they are not entirely skilled in themselves, but it's still inexcusable to do so. The alternative can be just as worse, however - someone who is an expert in their field who berates anyone who makes a mistake in that field. I'm reminded of Pythagoras's cult where he'd kill anyone who dared speak because of the supposed pointlessness of speech. In the same example, Pythagoras had a follower executed for creating improper fractions, which he thought was a ridiculous notion, but we use it all the time now.

This leads me to the ironic notion that these people are making the same mistake that they berate others for: that is, not paying full attention to the long-term effects (or rather, the lack of). I made this thread because this a trend amongst people that needs to go. This passive-agressive idea of ripping on other people for being somehow beneath you for one insignificant mistake is something I cannot agree with, and I'm sure most people would agree with me on that. If this doesn't, we will see the general public over-reacting to notions which aren't entirely sound to begin with (eg: the whole media coverage about that one bloke claiming the world was going to end). It has happened before and if we don't learn, it will most likely happen again.

Maybe, however, I'm over-reacting myself. Tell me what you think about this, and we'll see what conclusions we come to.

 

[Itsthatguy]

So, dont judge society on one thing e.g. the results for the facebook 1+1+....+1+1x0 question?
See, most of your text wall condensed into a single sentance.

Genius

 

[DEAD34345]

People take one thing that others have participated on and use it to judge someone or a group of people. This is a particularly annoying habit that keeps popping up because it reminds me that there are still ignorant people around in the world.

So, you think people who take one thing and judge another's intelligence by it are ignorant? Irony...

Personally, I almost never trust statistics of any kind anyway. I did a statistics GCSE and even just that showed me how easily data is manipulated, I'm certainly never going to trust statistics based on Facebook quizzes.

 

[Racecar1994]

People take one thing that others have participated on and use it to judge someone or a group of people. This is a particularly annoying habit that keeps popping up because it reminds me that there are still ignorant people around in the world.

So, you think people who take one thing and judge another's intelligence by it are ignorant? Irony...

Personally, I almost never trust statistics of any kind anyway. I did a statistics GCSE and even just that showed me how easily data is manipulated, I'm certainly never going to trust statistics based on Facebook quizzes.

In regards to the irony - sort of, yes. I merely do it just to point out how it categorises people in an unfair way.

I don't think all these people are complete jerks. However, that is the impression given by what they do. The ease of things being twisted past the truth I guess could be said to be the real downfall.

 

[Racecar1994]

So, dont judge society on one thing e.g. the results for the facebook 1+1+....+1+1x0 question?
See, most of your text wall condensed into a single sentance.

Genius

While that was the final straw, it's not the only form of the problem. It could be called the 'Brian Griffin' problem, where some people have a habit of insulting others for not thinking or believing the way they do.

I thought being more elaborate with my detail would make things clearer, but it is rather unsightly at first.

 

[SckizoBoy]

For example, If you didn't take History further than GCSE (or the equivalent) I wouldn't expect you to know what the Treaty of Versailles was or why people from both sides opposed it to a certain degree.

To which I (as someone who didn't take history GCSE) would ask: which Treaty of Versailles (1758, 1768, 1774, 1783, 1787 or 1871)?

/being a jerk.

OT: You will find that most people are (while they try not to be) judgmental and quick to judge. It is worst when such petty questions as the 1+1...+1x0 etc are concerned, as one's superiority can easily flaunted. Try as we might, we cannot view the world except as 'us and them'. The only difference from one individual to another is their classification or definition of 'us' and 'them'.

 

[Racecar1994]

ok less text maybe ill read the whole damn thing. welcome to the internet.

That's a shame, because I put quite a lot of work into developing my argument. Oh well. As a quick rundown, my points were this:

To judge someone purely for a lack of knowledge in one specific area is both inaccurate and pointless, and that people are generalised too often (the irony of me doing this is to prove a point, as it were, and I don't believe EVERYONE who does such things is inherently an asshole)

The act itself, if you will, is the main problem.

 

[Racecar1994]

For example, If you didn't take History further than GCSE (or the equivalent) I wouldn't expect you to know what the Treaty of Versailles was or why people from both sides opposed it to a certain degree.

To which I (as someone who didn't take history GCSE) would ask: which Treaty of Versailles (1758, 1768, 1774, 1783, 1787 or 1871)?

/being a jerk.

OT: You will find that most people are (while they try not to be) judgmental and quick to judge. It is worst when such petty questions as the 1+1...+1x0 etc are concerned, as one's superiority can easily flaunted. Try as we might, we cannot view the world except as 'us and them'. The only difference from one individual to another is their classification or definition of 'us' and 'them'.

Well, since no-one is truly objective, that is often the case. I think two good examples from literature as to how early judgement can be disastrous is in 'To Kill A Mockingbird' by Harper Lee, and 'Salem Falls' by Jodi Picoult. Both concern themselves with a form of prejudice and judgement in society, and both have a trial scene where a wrongly-accused defendant acts as a 'mockingbird' to express the unfairness of early judgement.

Off-topic: I would actually like to know more about those treaties, and whether they all suffer from the same problems as the one in 1919.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I don't understand why intelligence matters as much as it does to you people.

Maybe it's just because we're a generation bombarded by idiot-savantism, Hollywood making it the height of cool to be an emotionally crippled, angsty genius... Or possibly it's because the vast majority of the userbase is still in education and under the impression that it is all important.

We are just arrogant monkeys...probably shouldn't forget that. There's no reason why we should know how to solve complex(or even relativly simple and unnecessary) equations, it's superfluous to the human experience.

Let go.

 

[Jordi]

Exactly what it says on the tin really. It may seen quite obvious, but it's a problem I see occuring quite often. People take one thing that others have participated on and use it to judge someone or a group of people. This is a particularly annoying habit that keeps popping up because it reminds me that there are still ignorant people around in the world. I, of course, am not talking about the people who make the mistake (though that may still be a distressing problem) but the people who take that and use it to claim that the world is going to end over excess stupidity.

In your fourth sentence you are already doing the very thing you are accusing other people of in the topic title.

My first problem is this: it's simply too vague to use as a final word. An example I would use is the new facebook question thing (as you may have already extrapolated why I made this thread). The way I see it, I like many other people will look at one of these questions and simply click what comes to them intuitively, since it is merely a thing to please you for about a second and doesn't really matter in the end (Well, I would if I still bothered with them). This is too vague to use to judge a demographic for the two reasons that A) These people are often just answering these things for their own enjoyment and don't care about the outcome and B) Since these are often only glanced over, many of the mistakes people are called out for wouldn't have existed if extra care was taken. Yes, this is all speculation on my part - I cannot know for sure why people do what they do - but that's the thing: the very people who use this as evidence will speculate that they all genuinely thought the wrong answer was right, and I don't buy that.

Why don't you buy that? Is it perhaps because you think that nobody is that stupid? If it is, then you kind of just made same mistake again. That is just my speculation though. I agree that it is likely that a lot of people didn't take it that seriously. But I also doubt that most people didn't at least try a little bit to get the right answer. And I think that for a problem this simple, people are allowed to be a little concerned when it turns out that most people don't have the right intuition here. My point is that you shouldn't have to try very hard to instantly see that the right answer here is not zero.

My second point is the pointlessness of doing such a thing. I say it's pointless because it's something that can easily be done with practically anyone, since no-one is omniscient. We all have fields of knowledge which we are not clear on: you either specialise in one area, abandoning expertise in others, or spread your gaze into many areas, and be an expert in none.
For example, If you didn't take History further than GCSE (or the equivalent) I wouldn't expect you to know what the Treaty of Versailles was or why people from both sides opposed it to a certain degree. If you didn't take Philosophy, then you would have a terrible time trying to tell me what you could possibly prove to be undoubtedly real. These, of course, are all very specific and often unheard of, but these are the things that people can pick up on and use to express how society is declining. The bottom line is, no-one is perfect, and using a specific and often insignificant aspect to express a general disaster is certainly not a perfect method or reasoning.

But we all took grade school level mathematics. Literally everybody was taught how to solve this problem. Everybody has holes in their knowledge, but there are also some basic skills that we expect everyone to have.

My final point (as of now, anyway) lies with the people who bring this to the light themselves: the people who insult others because of a simple and unimportant factor. It is going to be hard to speak impartially, but I'll try my best. Another example, or rather a sub-category if you will, could be what is known as a 'Grammar Nazi'. I know people like this, and I always find the same problem. How can you possible judge someone on a topic completely irrelevant to grammar on their spelling? The answer may be that it's a representative of their ignorance, but I'd return to my first point to answer that. In addition, I once had someone like this post on one of my photos in facebook, and I received three deleted comments from the man - each one with spelling and grammar mistakes. That is what I'm reminded of when I hear someone claim the downfall of society by one aspect. It may not be true, it may be speculatory - I am not a psychologist (not yet, anyway)- but I can't help but think of projection. It's not uncommon to have people berate others who do worse in a field in which they are not entirely skilled in themselves, but it's still inexcusable to do so. The alternative can be just as worse, however - someone who is an expert in their field who berates anyone who makes a mistake in that field. I'm reminded of Pythagoras's cult where he'd kill anyone who dared speak because of the supposed pointlessness of speech. In the same example, Pythagoras had a follower executed for creating improper fractions, which he thought was a ridiculous notion, but we use it all the time now.

You are only talking about two possible explanations of why people are doing this. But you really don't have to be either inadequate at math or a genius to think that it is kind of shameful to not be able to solve such a simple problem. To go out of your way to point it out might suggest that you enjoy feeling better than others. But again, this is all speculation. And from my point of view it doesn't seem to be based on anything. It might just as well come from a concern about the current state of mathematical skill in the population.

This leads me to the ironic notion that these people are making the same mistake that they berate others for: that is, not paying full attention to the long-term effects (or rather, the lack of). I made this thread because this a trend amongst people that needs to go. This passive-agressive idea of ripping on other people for being somehow beneath you for one insignificant mistake is something I cannot agree with, and I'm sure most people would agree with me on that. If this doesn't, we will see the general public over-reacting to notions which aren't entirely sound to begin with (eg: the whole media coverage about that one bloke claiming the world was going to end). It has happened before and if we don't learn, it will most likely happen again.

Maybe, however, I'm over-reacting myself. Tell me what you think about this, and we'll see what conclusions we come to.

It's usually good to be nice to each other, and some people come of as dicks when they point out that others are being stupid. However, that does not mean that it cannot also be useful to point out that stupidity sometimes. Because I hope that we as a people want to get less stupid and more intelligent, one facet at a time.

Intelligence is very hard to define, because it is very multifaceted. But you can talk about separate aspects of it. The same goes for stupidity. The Facebook question points to severe issues with a lot of people's mathematical skills/intelligence. These people are being stupid. At math. And that is something to be concerned about. I do agree that this doesn't necessarily mean that they are also stupid in other fields, and that it would be a mistake to point to this and say something like "and this is why the Tea Party is so popular nowadays. People are just stupid.".

 

[SckizoBoy]

Well, since no-one is truly objective, that is often the case. I think two good examples from literature as to how early judgement can be disastrous is in 'To Kill A Mockingbird' by Harper Lee, and 'Salem Falls' by Jodi Picoult. Both concern themselves with a form of prejudice and judgement in society, and both have a trial scene where a wrongly-accused defendant acts as a 'mockingbird' to express the unfairness of early judgement.

Off-topic: I would actually like to know more about those treaties, and whether they all suffer from the same problems as the one in 1919.

Wow... someone who agrees with my PoV... and man, those books were depressing in their own way.

Anyway, I'm not particularly au fait with most of those treaties (the 1758 is something to do with the confirmation of a couple of treaties in 1756 & 1757 surrounding the Diplomatic Revolution, beyond that I'm not too sure - the 1768 is Corsica returned (?) to French sovereignty - 1773 is more commercial/economic than military - 1783 ToV concluded the American Revolutionary war, at least the conflict between Anglo/French interests in NA - 1787 was to do with the French colonies in Vietnam, I think).

With the 1871 Treaty of Versailles (and the declaration of the German Empire just before it), this I do know about, and find it much fairer than 1919, for all that it wasn't particularly 'fair' either. The long and short of it was: war indemnity; Germany annexes Elsass & Metz-Lothringen; German occupation of much of eastern France (including Paris) until the indemnity is paid.

What should be noted is that the nation that made the first aggressive action (leading to 1871/1919) lost. However, for the F-P war, both sides wanted peace and the USD1billion indemnity was paid off within two years (the French had not been involved in any significant European war since Napoleon lost, whereas the Germans had dealt with the Danes, Austrians and to a lesser extent, the Crimean during the interceding period). The French sought vengeance somewhat excessively for 1919, exacting an indemnity of USD31.4billion (a faint disparity? even accounting for inflation, which in Europe at the time was almost negligible). As it happened, it took 92 years to pay off, many of the other European powers wanted to reduce Germany to effective third-world status

What rankles me most is the handling of Elsass-Lothringen (or Alsace-Lorraine as most know it as). When the Germans annexed the two provinces, only part of Lothringen (the Metz/Moselle district) was taken, and some of it was already part of Prussia/Bavaria/Wurttemburg. The French took back the whole lot including that which was ancestrally part of Germany. Worst of all was the cultural revolution. Within the German Empire, A-L held status as an Imperial territory, and had higher prevalence than a lot of the other German 'Fuerstentuemer' (sorry, can't be bothered to put in umlauts). Aside from being taxed and governed from Berlin (still with local governmental presence in Strasbourg), the autonomy of the Reichsland (as a newly conquered province) was not severely infringed upon (that is, Alsatians were allowed to maintain their cultural differences and lingual differences, basically being a cross between of French and German). When the French took it back, they forcibly prevented the teaching of the Alsatian language, propagation of Alsatian culture and shifted populations about to make it French. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone even in Alsace, who can speak the original Alsatian language (as a dialect, it's so different from French, it may as well be its own language). To this day, the French Government is yet to apologise for this (not that it would matter).

The irony is that ultimately, I blame Bismarck...

/rant(/history lesson)

 

[Racecar1994]

What rankles me most is the handling of Elsass-Lothringen (or Alsace-Lorraine as most know it as). When the Germans annexed the two provinces, only part of Lothringen (the Metz/Moselle district) was taken, and some of it was already part of Prussia/Bavaria/Wurttemburg. The French took back the whole lot including that which was ancestrally part of Germany. Worst of all was the cultural revolution. Within the German Empire, A-L held status as an Imperial territory, and had higher prevalence than a lot of the other German 'Fuerstentuemer' (sorry, can't be bothered to put in umlauts). Aside from being taxed and governed from Berlin (still with local governmental presence in Strasbourg), the autonomy of the Reichsland (as a newly conquered province) was not severely infringed upon (that is, Alsatians were allowed to maintain their cultural differences and lingual differences, basically being a cross between of French and German). When the French took it back, they forcibly prevented the teaching of the Alsatian language, propagation of Alsatian culture and shifted populations about to make it French. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone even in Alsace, who can speak the original Alsatian language (as a dialect, it's so different from French, it may as well be its own language). To this day, the French Government is yet to apologise for this (not that it would matter).

/rant(/history lesson)

Wow, history doesn't exactly paint the Allies in the best light does it?

ty : )

 

[SckizoBoy]

Wow, history doesn't exactly paint the Allies in the best light does it?

ty : )

In war, no-one's really cast in the 'best light' once everything is known. But never mind, you're quite welcome.

I'm actually glad you got me to think about something... less depressing for a change. ^_^

 

[cynicalsaint1]

Really what it comes down to is this:

People use it to make themselves feel like they're better than other people. If you answer the stupid math question right you get to feel all clever and smug and call other people stupid. Happens all the time.

Really such things say little about a person's intelligence, I mean a stupid little question on Facebook really isn't generally going to warrant the same amount of thought as a question on a math test or in a situation you'd come across in real life.

They're really just so people can feel like they're clever and say "lol look at all the stupid people I'm smarter than"

 

[Korak the Mad]

I agree with you that intelligence is a bastard of a concept to give a solid definition. Is it to be a master of specifics or just have a general knowledge of all fields?

A lot of people just like to make themselves feel smarter by decrying others though. For some it might just be a pet peeve that they can't help but point out, but most of the time people just love to *****.

That is very true to most people, they will often degrade others that they feel threatened by, I know this because I was a target for these sort of people. I usually never responded in a negative way and I always asked why they were doing it and they would never give an acceptible reason why, but it was fairly obvious to see they felt threatened.

I am the type of person who knows a little of everything, and I'm willing to offer help if I see someone who needs it.
When I was in tenth grade I took a spanish class and there was one kid who would always ask what something meant and would just ask hoping to get an answer. The strange thing was if someone else answered he was fine with it, but if I answered the kid would get pissed, it got so bad the teacher had to move the kid across the room because you literally could feel hostility in the room. You could tell that someone was going to hit somebody soon if nothing was done.

There are those people who do not like it when they feel that someone may be better than them, and will try to make you feel miserable.

 

[Racecar1994]

Exactly what it says on the tin really. It may seen quite obvious, but it's a problem I see occuring quite often. People take one thing that others have participated on and use it to judge someone or a group of people. This is a particularly annoying habit that keeps popping up because it reminds me that there are still ignorant people around in the world. I, of course, am not talking about the people who make the mistake (though that may still be a distressing problem) but the people who take that and use it to claim that the world is going to end over excess stupidity.

In your fourth sentence you are already doing the very thing you are accusing other people of in the topic title.

Like I've said before, this is mainly done unconciously because it's impossible to be completely objective. Keep in mind how I use 'ignorant' in the sentence rather than 'stupid'. This is done to show that this act just implies these people are making assumptions of others that are inaccurate (as is expressed in my first point). I will admit this puts me in the line of fire aswell, but I can elaborate my stance for you. If it makes things easier to understand; it's the act of pre-judgement rather than the person, and no-one is safe from this because it is impossible for human beings to be fully objective.

With that said, I defend my view by saying that this is something I've seen crop up a lot not just here, but in a lot of forums and with my friends aswell. There is more experience of the same problem, and that in turn makes me more confident in the prevalence of this issue. There is a difference because of the frequency in the events, and therefore is not as vague an opinion as others.

My first problem is this: it's simply too vague to use as a final word. An example I would use is the new facebook question thing (as you may have already extrapolated why I made this thread). The way I see it, I like many other people will look at one of these questions and simply click what comes to them intuitively, since it is merely a thing to please you for about a second and doesn't really matter in the end (Well, I would if I still bothered with them). This is too vague to use to judge a demographic for the two reasons that A) These people are often just answering these things for their own enjoyment and don't care about the outcome and B) Since these are often only glanced over, many of the mistakes people are called out for wouldn't have existed if extra care was taken. Yes, this is all speculation on my part - I cannot know for sure why people do what they do - but that's the thing: the very people who use this as evidence will speculate that they all genuinely thought the wrong answer was right, and I don't buy that.

Why don't you buy that? Is it perhaps because you think that nobody is that stupid? If it is, then you kind of just made same mistake again. That is just my speculation though. I agree that it is likely that a lot of people didn't take it that seriously. But I also doubt that most people didn't at least try a little bit to get the right answer. And I think that for a problem this simple, people are allowed to be a little concerned when it turns out that most people don't have the right intuition here. My point is that you shouldn't have to try very hard to instantly see that the right answer here is not zero.

Like I said above, I use 'ignorant' rather than 'stupid' to express that it's a lack of information. It's not that all people don't try - in the case of the facebook question, there is almost always someone who puts the effort in and gets the right answer (and sometimes even the wrong one) - I just find it hard to believe that the majority actually bother that much. I don't believe the idea that the question is simple because in the case of the mathematics questions, they are designed by people to trick their friends and other people - that, I believe, is what makes them a bit of fun rather than a serious survey. That is why people are often mislead and pick the wrong answer. Like I said before, with more care and concentration, I'm sure most people would get the right answer.

My second point is the pointlessness of doing such a thing. I say it's pointless because it's something that can easily be done with practically anyone, since no-one is omniscient. We all have fields of knowledge which we are not clear on: you either specialise in one area, abandoning expertise in others, or spread your gaze into many areas, and be an expert in none.
For example, If you didn't take History further than GCSE (or the equivalent) I wouldn't expect you to know what the Treaty of Versailles was or why people from both sides opposed it to a certain degree. If you didn't take Philosophy, then you would have a terrible time trying to tell me what you could possibly prove to be undoubtedly real. These, of course, are all very specific and often unheard of, but these are the things that people can pick up on and use to express how society is declining. The bottom line is, no-one is perfect, and using a specific and often insignificant aspect to express a general disaster is certainly not a perfect method or reasoning.

But we all took grade school level mathematics. Literally everybody was taught how to solve this problem. Everybody has holes in their knowledge, but there are also some basic skills that we expect everyone to have.

Again, it's mostly because of the wording of the question (for example, adding dozens of '+1's so you overlook the occasional '-' or 'x') that this happens. It can be easy, with the right skills, to invoke an emotion in people or cause them to overlook something, as we can be tricked into thinking or feeling something different to the truth (ie: 'collateral damage' and 'extraordinary rendition'). Besides, our memories aren't always completely sound. For example, if you had compulsory French at grade school, then dropped it, I wouldn't expect you to remember all the vocabulary from that time 5 years later. I would say this is because you never really call on it in your daily life, and I say the same applies for mathematics aswell in certain cases; people remember certain things and forget others until it 'hits' them again.

My final point (as of now, anyway) lies with the people who bring this to the light themselves: the people who insult others because of a simple and unimportant factor. It is going to be hard to speak impartially, but I'll try my best. Another example, or rather a sub-category if you will, could be what is known as a 'Grammar Nazi'. I know people like this, and I always find the same problem. How can you possible judge someone on a topic completely irrelevant to grammar on their spelling? The answer may be that it's a representative of their ignorance, but I'd return to my first point to answer that. In addition, I once had someone like this post on one of my photos in facebook, and I received three deleted comments from the man - each one with spelling and grammar mistakes. That is what I'm reminded of when I hear someone claim the downfall of society by one aspect. It may not be true, it may be speculatory - I am not a psychologist (not yet, anyway)- but I can't help but think of projection. It's not uncommon to have people berate others who do worse in a field in which they are not entirely skilled in themselves, but it's still inexcusable to do so. The alternative can be just as worse, however - someone who is an expert in their field who berates anyone who makes a mistake in that field. I'm reminded of Pythagoras's cult where he'd kill anyone who dared speak because of the supposed pointlessness of speech. In the same example, Pythagoras had a follower executed for creating improper fractions, which he thought was a ridiculous notion, but we use it all the time now.

You are only talking about two possible explanations of why people are doing this. But you really don't have to be either inadequate at math or a genius to think that it is kind of shameful to not be able to solve such a simple problem. To go out of your way to point it out might suggest that you enjoy feeling better than others. But again, this is all speculation. And from my point of view it doesn't seem to be based on anything. It might just as well come from a concern about the current state of mathematical skill in the population.

These are the two that spring to mind, but they are general, and mainly based on experiences I've had before. This makes me more confident in my beliefs, but there will always be an uncertainty to it. Again in regards to the maths problem, it's deliberately constructed to trick you into overlooking something, so it's not entirely a question of knowing simple maths, it requires you to pay more attention - for reasons already expressed, I don't think people care that much to give that attention. I feel a little hurt that you think I'm elevating myself above people, but I can see why you think that. I may not be the best representative, but I firmly believe that it is wrong to judge other's intellect without knowing them personally or with extensive research. I find this happens too much, and that's why I made this thread. As people have already been keen to shoot me down, you might be pleased to know that I don't particularly feel high and mighty over this. However, I don't let that destroy my firm belief because it's not based around my ego. I simply want to highlight why I think this is not a good attitude to have.

This leads me to the ironic notion that these people are making the same mistake that they berate others for: that is, not paying full attention to the long-term effects (or rather, the lack of). I made this thread because this a trend amongst people that needs to go. This passive-agressive idea of ripping on other people for being somehow beneath you for one insignificant mistake is something I cannot agree with, and I'm sure most people would agree with me on that. If this doesn't, we will see the general public over-reacting to notions which aren't entirely sound to begin with (eg: the whole media coverage about that one bloke claiming the world was going to end). It has happened before and if we don't learn, it will most likely happen again.

Maybe, however, I'm over-reacting myself. Tell me what you think about this, and we'll see what conclusions we come to.

It's usually good to be nice to each other, and some people come of as dicks when they point out that others are being stupid. However, that does not mean that it cannot also be useful to point out that stupidity sometimes. Because I hope that we as a people want to get less stupid and more intelligent, one facet at a time.

Intelligence is very hard to define, because it is very multifaceted. But you can talk about separate aspects of it. The same goes for stupidity. The Facebook question points to severe issues with a lot of people's mathematical skills/intelligence. These people are being stupid. At math. And that is something to be concerned about. I do agree that this doesn't necessarily mean that they are also stupid in other fields, and that it would be a mistake to point to this and say something like "and this is why the Tea Party is so popular nowadays. People are just stupid.".

Now, I can side with you in regards to humanity progressing in intellect. That's really why I made this thread, given that I don't think pre-judgement without good cause is the way forward. The facebook questions, I would argue, are not a good cause for judging someone's intellect because a) anyone can create them and b) they are often made to have overlooked details and trick people, rather than gather an accurate census on what people's mathematic abilities are. If these people heard it was an official census of the public, they would put the effort into getting it right, because it has a long-term effect. Otherwise, it may as well just be a fun little aside posted by a friend. I hope that clears things up, and let it be said that I am, in some way, glad to have people questioning what I write. Maybe I'm just massochistic in that way : )

 

[artanis_neravar]

People take one thing that others have participated on and use it to judge someone or a group of people. This is a particularly annoying habit that keeps popping up because it reminds me that there are still ignorant people around in the world.

So, you think people who take one thing and judge another's intelligence by it are ignorant? Irony...

Personally, I almost never trust statistics of any kind anyway. I did a statistics GCSE and even just that showed me how easily data is manipulated, I'm certainly never going to trust statistics based on Facebook quizzes.

Spoiler: Irony

the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning
2.
Literature .
a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b.(especially in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., especially as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.

They were being a hypocrite or maybe they just didn't notice