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

Recommended Videos

Lesd3vil

New member
Oct 11, 2010
99
0
0
The guys up there having a big argument whether something is stupid or not: quit antagonising each other.

BUT:

First and foremost, I'd say someone that ENJOYS killing other people is very much insane, so that argument is invalid.

I had more to say, but I really can't be bothered typing so I'll shorten it: get over yourself dude, everyone has bad stuff happen to them at some point, it doesn't excuse your actions or make you immune to reality or society :/
 

SoopaSte123

New member
Jul 1, 2010
464
0
0
XDravond said:
I like repeating the words "I read somewhere that"
In this case
-"people who agrees with your opinions, you think is more intelligent than the those that don't"

just a fun anecdote./XD
Interesting theory but I don't agree with it. I love being engaged in intelligent debate and am far more likely to respect someone's intelligence if they have an argument that completely disagrees with mine but is still a well-informed, well thought out one. Anyone can just say "You're right! I agree with you!"
 

Gigano

Whose Eyes Are Those Eyes?
Oct 15, 2009
2,281
0
0
Well, I think that's what lesser mortals, daunted by the great wall of text as they are, like to refer to as "proportions", and the application thereof to making value judgements.
 

XDravond

Something something....
Mar 30, 2011
356
0
0
Yup I agree, ;-), had a bunch who I discussed whatever was on our mind with during our lunch break, and sometimes I argued against what I really thought just for the discussion witch made it really interesting.

And sometimes its nice to get something more than "I agree/etc" if nothing else a good debate makes the time fly if nothing else

(best and longest discussion we had was whether or not people are animals (we are technically animals! according to me)... didn't get a finish on that really maybe 'cus it went on for more than a month (of and on the lunches))

In end, it is just what people react with when talking, doesn't have to be true for everyone dough.
 

Jordi

New member
Jun 6, 2009
812
0
0
Racecar1994 said:
Jordi said:
Racecar1994 said:
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.


Jordi said:
Racecar1994 said:
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.

Jordi said:
Racecar1994 said:
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.

Jordi said:
Racecar1994 said:
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.

Jordi said:
Racecar1994 said:
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 : )
I think I should clarify my position on the Facebook math problem a little bit. I think that if you missed the minus sign, that is just an oversight and I really wouldn't call that stupid. If you answered 0 on the other hand, I think you have some fundamental problems with math. I'm sure there were people who didn't put in a lot of effort when answering that question, but I think that even without effort it should be extremely obvious that the answer is not 0.

I agree that being bad at math does not necessarily mean that you are stupid in every way. However, I have to admit that if I were to make a prediction about the intelligence of someone answering 0 to that question, it wouldn't be very flattering. I also don't feel like this is equivalent to forgetting some of my French vocabulary. First of all, because this isn't "some" math, but it is one of the very basic building blocks that everything depends on. If I forget a couple of French words, I might still be able to speak French. If I forget that multiplication goes before addition, I can do almost no math at all. Secondly, and this is slightly more personal (but I think it applies to most people): I was taught this rule when I was about 7 or 8, and I have used it in my life ever since. Even if you are not in a technical profession or school, you will regularly have to do simple addition and multiplication in real life, so being at least somewhat competent in it is important.

As for my post above: I feel like I need to apologize to you, because apparently I made you feel bad. That was not my goal. I saw something that I agreed with only partially and decided to comment on some of the irony I saw in your post and the points I disagreed with. You obviously mean well and I applaud your efforts to make the world (or at least these forums) a nicer place.
 

Racecar1994

New member
Nov 21, 2009
107
0
0
Jordi said:
I think I should clarify my position on the Facebook math problem a little bit. I think that if you missed the minus sign, that is just an oversight and I really wouldn't call that stupid. If you answered 0 on the other hand, I think you have some fundamental problems with math. I'm sure there were people who didn't put in a lot of effort when answering that question, but I think that even without effort it should be extremely obvious that the answer is not 0.

I agree that being bad at math does not necessarily mean that you are stupid in every way. However, I have to admit that if I were to make a prediction about the intelligence of someone answering 0 to that question, it wouldn't be very flattering. I also don't feel like this is equivalent to forgetting some of my French vocabulary. First of all, because this isn't "some" math, but it is one of the very basic building blocks that everything depends on. If I forget a couple of French words, I might still be able to speak French. If I forget that multiplication goes before addition, I can do almost no math at all. Secondly, and this is slightly more personal (but I think it applies to most people): I was taught this rule when I was about 7 or 8, and I have used it in my life ever since. Even if you are not in a technical profession or school, you will regularly have to do simple addition and multiplication in real life, so being at least somewhat competent in it is important.

As for my post above: I feel like I need to apologize to you, because apparently I made you feel bad. That was not my goal. I saw something that I agreed with only partially and decided to comment on some of the irony I saw in your post and the points I disagreed with. You obviously mean well and I applaud your efforts to make the world (or at least these forums) a nicer place.
Thank you for being this polite with me all this time. I'll admit myself that mathematics is very important in life, as it is one of the few things you can be sure of. My explanation for people choosing 0 rather than 14 (as by this point we know which question we're talking about) I believe comes from certain priorities set in education. I was taught from an early age that anything times by 0 equals 0, because it's basically '0 amounts of x'. Anyone who answers this question as 0 will do so because he/she remembers the importance of '0 times x = 0', usually omiting the rule of BIDMAS because they are more familiar with the former.

Again, I'm sure when people are reminded (politely - I'm not letting the OP of that thread off the hook) they will realise what they've done and kick themselves for not knowing. It's happened to me on many occasions and, from what I've heard, other people aswell.
 

DEAD34345

New member
Aug 18, 2010
1,929
0
0
artanis_neravar said:
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
Sorry, I really don't care if that's the technical definition of irony or not. Truth of the matter is, most people consider it "ironic" when people say one thing and do the opposite in that way (especially when they do so in the very next sentence), even if it is really hypocrisy and not irony. I'd say that what people think a word means is more important than what a dictionary states a word means when it comes to getting a point across, so I will likely continue to use it in that way.
 

triggrhappy94

New member
Apr 24, 2010
3,376
0
0
This thread reminds me a lot of a quote by Einstien. (not sure if someone's already said it or not)
It goes something like...
"You can tell a fish its suppose to climb, and it will spend its whole life thinking its an idoit."
 

Abengoshis

New member
Aug 12, 2009
626
0
0
All I see is a wall of fancy language and waffle which could probably be reduced to a couple of sentences, maybe a couple of paragraphs, of less fancy language.

I can't base your intelligence on this one thing, but I might be able to get a picture of your personality: Either you really use those words every day (maybe you're the Queen), or you're a ponce, or you for some reason decide to write essays on forums and just like essays.

I just had a conversation with another person born in 1994 (I'm judging THAT on your username) who writes in the same way as you in an attempt to fake intelligence.
Intelligence != Fancy English.
He was trying to be more 'posh' than me to 'win' the argument. This is what I berate others on the most - putting on a false sense of superiority when it's unnecessary.
 

Sudenak

New member
Mar 31, 2011
237
0
0
Racecar1994 said:
This is probably a good opportunity to own up to a fault of my own on this thread. A lot of people have already mentioned how the first paragraph labels me as a hypocrite. I admit this was a mistake, and I'd like to take this chance to revise this and instead get the original point across that it was trying to convey: The act of judging someone on a shred of evidence which can be deemed doubtable - in this case, a facebook question - is unprofessional and should not be encouraged. Instead, these judgements should be made after careful consideration of facts and experiences that frequently occur with similar results.
Got the time for that?

Yeah, I could carefully research common patterns in each individual's behavior, studying their every response in multiple fields before coming to the conclusion that they are a moron. Or I could just look at their answer and call them an idiot.

In the case of the facebook question (and that alone marks someone as stupid, as facebook is almost as retarded as twitter and loves to throw your personal data out into the ether whenever it can) it's much easier to just mark them as stupid. It's either that or laziness.

Y'see, chances are that they scanned to the end and spotted a 0, gleefully entering in 0 because that would solve it quicker. If they didn't, then it means that they have forgotten a fundamental of mathematics that we were all taught in Elementary school.

Hell, even if you're lazy, if you type it into google the right answer is shown to you.

So while it isn't "fair" to call someone stupid for making a mistake in math, that still doesn't change the fact that it due to either ignorance or laziness. They were stupid with their answer, not calling them stupid won't change this fact.
 

Snowy Rainbow

New member
Jun 13, 2011
676
0
0
Racecar1994 said:
Snowy Rainbow said:
What's the easiest way to appear superior? Make those around you look lower.

Sad, really.
I assume this is made at me; I just want to make this clear before I respond.
No, no, hun. That was aimed at the people who judge others based off a forum post.
 

Racecar1994

New member
Nov 21, 2009
107
0
0
Snowy Rainbow said:
Racecar1994 said:
Snowy Rainbow said:
What's the easiest way to appear superior? Make those around you look lower.

Sad, really.
I assume this is made at me; I just want to make this clear before I respond.
No, no, hun. That was aimed at the people who judge others based off a forum post.
Ah. Glad that's cleared up. I've just been bombarded as of late.
 

Snowy Rainbow

New member
Jun 13, 2011
676
0
0
Racecar1994 said:
Snowy Rainbow said:
Racecar1994 said:
Snowy Rainbow said:
What's the easiest way to appear superior? Make those around you look lower.

Sad, really.
I assume this is made at me; I just want to make this clear before I respond.
No, no, hun. That was aimed at the people who judge others based off a forum post.
Ah. Glad that's cleared up. I've just been bombarded as of late.
Sorry 'bout that. I never really attack people, so I just took it for granted that it wouldn't come off that way.

No harm, no foul in the end. ^^
 

Racecar1994

New member
Nov 21, 2009
107
0
0
Sudenak said:
Got the time for that?

Yeah, I could carefully research common patterns in each individual's behavior, studying their every response in multiple fields before coming to the conclusion that they are a moron. Or I could just look at their answer and call them an idiot.

In the case of the facebook question (and that alone marks someone as stupid, as facebook is almost as retarded as twitter and loves to throw your personal data out into the ether whenever it can) it's much easier to just mark them as stupid. It's either that or laziness.

Y'see, chances are that they scanned to the end and spotted a 0, gleefully entering in 0 because that would solve it quicker. If they didn't, then it means that they have forgotten a fundamental of mathematics that we were all taught in Elementary school.

Hell, even if you're lazy, if you type it into google the right answer is shown to you.

So while it isn't "fair" to call someone stupid for making a mistake in math, that still doesn't change the fact that it due to either ignorance or laziness. They were stupid with their answer, not calling them stupid won't change this fact.
Well, in regards to checking the answer in the internet, I think that most people who do this sort of thing don't care about the effects of their answer, because the question is meaningless to them - it does not fully affect their lives. Typing it into google would take too much time for something they only glance over and then forget. I have already discussed before how why I think most people chose the 0: the maths question was designed to be misleading, and they typically remember '0 times x = 0' more so than they remember BODMAS because of how they were taught. So, while it most likely boils down to either ignorance or laziness - or even both - that doesn't mean those people don't have the mental capacity to be deemed intelligent, because I'm sure if reminded of BODMAS, they would see why they went wrong, and if they put more care into it, they would probably answer correctly.

I'll agree that the act can be deemed 'stupid'. However, as I've said before, labeling someone or a group of people generally stupid on that one flawed bit of evidence is not professional or accurate. The evidence was not valid to be used to suggest the 'downfall of human intelligence' because of the two points mentioned above, and the purpose of these facebook questions. These questions can be created and designed by anyone, and I typically see these maths questions created to trick friends and other people for the purpose of entertainment. Since they are on a social networking site, and not part of an official census, people are going to see it as a bit of fun to distract them for a few seconds. That's why I don't buy the whole facebook question thing as proof.

I seem to have a lot of time on my hands for this -.-
 

Sudenak

New member
Mar 31, 2011
237
0
0
Racecar1994 said:
Well, in regards to checking the answer in the internet, I think that most people who do this sort of thing don't care about the effects of their answer, because the question is meaningless to them - it does not fully affect their lives. Typing it into google would take too much time for something they only glance over and then forget. I have already discussed before how why I think most people chose the 0: the maths question was designed to be misleading, and they typically remember '0 times x = 0' more so than they remember BODMAS because of how they were taught. So, while it most likely boils down to either ignorance or laziness - or even both - that doesn't mean those people don't have the mental capacity to be deemed intelligent, because I'm sure if reminded of BODMAS, they would see why they went wrong, and if they put more care into it, they would probably answer correctly.

I'll agree that the act can be deemed 'stupid'. However, as I've said before, labeling someone or a group of people generally stupid on that one flawed bit of evidence is not professional or accurate. The evidence was not valid to be used to suggest the 'downfall of human intelligence' because of the two points mentioned above, and the purpose of these facebook questions. These questions can be created and designed by anyone, and I typically see these maths questions created to trick friends and other people for the purpose of entertainment. Since they are on a social networking site, and not part of an official census, people are going to see it as a bit of fun to distract them for a few seconds. That's why I don't buy the whole facebook question thing as proof.

I seem to have a lot of time on my hands for this -.-
Okay. Let's put it this way. They're either too lazy or too "honorable" to use Google. They didn't assume that a simple looking math question would be posed to trip them up. They didn't double check it. They wanted to get the right answer, but didn't want to put any effort into it. So, what, being lazy is better than being stupid? I'd still call them stupid just for wanting to get a math problem right without putting in any sort of thought or effort to do so.

You rehashing what you believe isn't going to convince me. I get it. You think one act is not enough to call someone stupid. I think it is. Because when someone calls someone stupid, they're not saying "your entire life is invalid, for I have judged you based on this one act and you are clearly too stupid to accomplish anything". They are literally saying that the act was stupid.

And I seriously doubt that you are objective. Again, it is physically impossible to research and study every human you come in contact with so that you can gather enough statistical data to determine their idiocy. There's no goddamned point to doing that. Let me give an example.

Think about all of those people who believed the rapture was May 21st. Think of all of those people who still follow that guy who said the rapture was May 21st and who don't want to press charges even after spending all of their money in belief they would not need it. That's just one aspect of their life. One insignificant act. You're seriously telling me that you look at that and go "I cannot call them stupid, for surely I need more data". Bull-freaking-shit. We have the word "stupid" for a reason. You judge people based on what you know.

Besides. All of the knowledge in the world can still make you an idiot. If someone answers the math question wrong, but it turns out they donate to the children's hospital, got straight A's, and teach a math class, guess what? They still answered the question wrong. It won't make the answer less wrong if they have a balance of good and intelligent deeds to offset it.

This boils down to critical thinking. If they're just hammering out a quick answer in hopes of being right, then they're an idiot. If they answered it fully believing their answer to be right, then they're an idiot. If they're answering a question posted on facebook that looks deceptively simple and don't bother giving it thought, then they're an idiot. It's just that simple.

That facebook thing was a quick jab at the fact that most people suck at math. You took such offense at calling people stupid for forgetting basic Elementary school math that you made an entire topic defending Stupid. I already consider the majority of humanity to be stupid. One topic defending laziness that causes stupidity won't change my mind on the matter.
 

Racecar1994

New member
Nov 21, 2009
107
0
0
Sudenak said:
Okay. Let's put it this way. They're either too lazy or too "honorable" to use Google. They didn't assume that a simple looking math question would be posed to trip them up. They didn't double check it. They wanted to get the right answer, but didn't want to put any effort into it. So, what, being lazy is better than being stupid? I'd still call them stupid just for wanting to get a math problem right without putting in any sort of thought or effort to do so.
I believe this is rather redundant to talk about personally - considering my views on using the facebook questions as evidence. If you want to find out how a person performs intellectually when they do put the effort in, then look at their grades, because that's what they're there for. A person's grades are where you find the more reliable evidence because it has long-term effects which the participant is aware of, and they've been putting years of work into preparation, so they take it very seriously. That's the kind of evidence I would bother with, and not some facebook question which is deliberately constructed to have information that is overlooked.

You rehashing what you believe isn't going to convince me. I get it. You think one act is not enough to call someone stupid. I think it is. Because when someone calls someone stupid, they're not saying "your entire life is invalid, for I have judged you based on this one act and you are clearly too stupid to accomplish anything". They are literally saying that the act was stupid.
I've seen this point made before, and I actually agree with it: if the act itself is stupid, then you can say to them that they messed up. Where I draw the line is where people use that to berate everything about that person's intelligence - while some people may not use the term to say 'your entire life is invalid', I've seen people - like the OP of the thread concerning the facebook question - who do say that about them, and that's what I disagree with: They think the people are inherently stupid, not simply the act.

And I seriously doubt that you are objective. Again, it is physically impossible to research and study every human you come in contact with so that you can gather enough statistical data to determine their idiocy. There's no goddamned point to doing that. Let me give an example.

Think about all of those people who believed the rapture was May 21st. Think of all of those people who still follow that guy who said the rapture was May 21st and who don't want to press charges even after spending all of their money in belief they would not need it. That's just one aspect of their life. One insignificant act. You're seriously telling me that you look at that and go "I cannot call them stupid, for surely I need more data". Bull-freaking-shit. We have the word "stupid" for a reason. You judge people based on what you know.
These judgements can be wrong. Whether they are wrong or right depends on the evidence you have. In your example, I would say that it may be stupidity - since I didn't see the guy bring up any evidence that the world was ending, and past experience has taught me people do this quite often - to follow him, or it may be ignorance. In the latter, you can have a person who had grown up in a very religious or superstitious household, but still gets good grades. If you knew the guy, you would typically think he was intelligent, because his beliefs have not conflicted with his education. However, when he overreacts to this news, you wouldn't immediately call him inherently stupid - the act itself may be stupid, but you know that the person is typically an intelligent person, it's just that his beliefs have conflicted with his reasoning. There are other possibilities and jumping to only one when the evidence is vague is not professional.

Sure, it's impossible to check the details around every single human being in the world, but anyone conducting a professional survey or study will tell you that you need to consider all possibilities with reliable evidence and then come to a reasoned conclusion. For reasons already mentioned, I don't think that facebook question is up to scratch.

Besides. All of the knowledge in the world can still make you an idiot. If someone answers the math question wrong, but it turns out they donate to the children's hospital, got straight A's, and teach a math class, guess what? They still answered the question wrong. It won't make the answer less wrong if they have a balance of good and intelligent deeds to offset it.
Okay, I'm not so sure this was phrased properly. You said that when people call someone stupid, they're not saying "your entire life is invalid, for I have judged you based on this one act and you are clearly too stupid to accomplish anything" - yet you've basically done that to this hypothetical person, saying they're still an idiot becasue of that one act. I may be reading something different into that, but it just doesn't sit well with what I've seen you write before.

This boils down to critical thinking. If they're just hammering out a quick answer in hopes of being right, then they're an idiot. If they answered it fully believing their answer to be right, then they're an idiot. If they're answering a question posted on facebook that looks deceptively simple and don't bother giving it thought, then they're an idiot. It's just that simple.
That's the thing; they're designed to have overlooked details. '1+1+1+1+1+1-1+1+1+1+1+1x1+1x0' or a question along those lines is designed to be so long that people 'fill in the blanks' unconciously - replacing the '-' with '+' because that's what they're expecting. It follows the same logic as optical illusions in that it's tricking your brain into interpreting something as something else ie: with the 'same length lines with inward or outward facing arrows'. Again, however, you're judging someone for what is simply one act, which I thought you said is not what people mean when they say 'stupid'. I don't think it is that simple, because the lives and thought of others is never simple, otherwise we'd be very predictable.

That facebook thing was a quick jab at the fact that most people suck at math. You took such offense at calling people stupid for forgetting basic Elementary school math that you made an entire topic defending Stupid. I already consider the majority of humanity to be stupid. One topic defending laziness that causes stupidity won't change my mind on the matter.
I'm not defending stupid. I'm arguing the point that judging people on one doubtable bit of evidence is not the way forward. That is what I've been arguing all this time, and I'm not moving from that maxim. If our justice systems began judging people on one ambiguous bit of evidence from a crime scene, then a lot more innocent people would be wrongly punished because of our inability to push further, look between the lines and find more to matters than was once immediately thought.

This, I don't think, will persuade you, but that's just how I'm defending my points. I don't expect you to change your view, and I'll tell you now that I'm not abandoning what I think is right. With that said, I don't think there's much else to say.
 

Sudenak

New member
Mar 31, 2011
237
0
0
Racecar1994 said:
Holy shit. I read through all of what you said, and I seriously do want that time back. I don't give a shit about any of this, at all. I think people are generally stupid, you think that we absolutely must carefully research every human being we ever come in contact with before making any form of assertion at all, even if that assertion is just in passing.

This isn't worth getting this worked up about. It's completely pointless and, hah, stupid to focus this much effort on arguing about this.

I mean, more power to you that you wanna stand on this soapbox. But it's utterly meaningless to me. I can't even get up the energy to carefully quote and explain my side on everything. Because I don't care about this enough to put in that kind of effort.

You comparing calling people stupid to throwing innocent people into jail is just utterly absurd. I think you need to sit down and seriously think about the argument you are having. It's not worth this much effort. You are taking the literal meaning of words and stripping all emotion from them. I don't know what the hell the point of that is. Should we abandon entire chunks of the dictionary because those are meanie-pants words? Should we coddle and love everyone, and only ever insult someone once we have gathered enough proof to say that the insult covers every base of their life?

I. Don't. Care. You should consider not caring, too. There's way more important things to get worked up about, and you getting worked up about people calling people stupid is probably the dumbest thing I've seen in a while.

See how that works?
 

Racecar1994

New member
Nov 21, 2009
107
0
0
Sudenak said:
Racecar1994 said:
Holy shit. I read through all of what you said, and I seriously do want that time back. I don't give a shit about any of this, at all. I think people are generally stupid, you think that we absolutely must carefully research every human being we ever come in contact with before making any form of assertion at all, even if that assertion is just in passing.

This isn't worth getting this worked up about. It's completely pointless and, hah, stupid to focus this much effort on arguing about this.

I mean, more power to you that you wanna stand on this soapbox. But it's utterly meaningless to me. I can't even get up the energy to carefully quote and explain my side on everything. Because I don't care about this enough to put in that kind of effort.

You comparing calling people stupid to throwing innocent people into jail is just utterly absurd. I think you need to sit down and seriously think about the argument you are having. It's not worth this much effort. You are taking the literal meaning of words and stripping all emotion from them. I don't know what the hell the point of that is. Should we abandon entire chunks of the dictionary because those are meanie-pants words? Should we coddle and love everyone, and only ever insult someone once we have gathered enough proof to say that the insult covers every base of their life?

I. Don't. Care. You should consider not caring, too. There's way more important things to get worked up about, and you getting worked up about people calling people stupid is probably the dumbest thing I've seen in a while.

See how that works?
Fine then. If you don't care, then don't bother responding. I do care, so I defend my point. I'm not sure you even realised why I was doing this anyway.
 

Sudenak

New member
Mar 31, 2011
237
0
0
Racecar1994 said:
Fine then. If you don't care, then don't bother responding. I do care, so I defend my point. I'm not sure you even realised why I was doing this anyway.
I'm gonna bother responding because of that last little sentence you provided. Listen. If I don't get why you're doing something after you've written probably close to thirty paragraphs on the subject, then maybe you should work on condensing what you say so that there isn't any "grey area" on what you're saying.