in this world
Stupidity is a specific cognitive failing
21–30 of 174 posts
Re: Stupidity is a specific cognitive failing
#22no it’s not i was in the psych ward twice and i was talking to quote on quote stupid people “insane” asylum read what i’m saying and find me and don’t try to kill me because they force fed me prescription meds
Re: Stupidity is a specific cognitive failing
#23I don't think its a matter of having/lacking conceptual tools, but rather the skill in using them, I have seen many very stupid very learned people.
Re: Stupidity is a specific cognitive failing
#24The author may be onto something. Or they may have had one good idea and are now trying to make it fit too many problems. WWI did have moments of extreme stupidity. But the real problem was that, for the first time since castles vs. troops without cannon, defense was stronger than offense. Machine guns, barbed wire, and trenches could resist most attacks. When that wasn't enough, both sides had plenty of railroad cap…
The Zulu are most certainly not extinct.
Re: Stupidity is a specific cognitive failing
#25>To view political opponents as primarily cynical transforms them into Machiavellian monsters, leaving no space for anything but a zero-sum battle for domination.
Yes, that is what it boils down to, at high-enough levels or over long-enough timespans.
Re: Stupidity is a specific cognitive failing
#26The author may be onto something. Or they may have had one good idea and are now trying to make it fit too many problems. WWI did have moments of extreme stupidity. But the real problem was that, for the first time since castles vs. troops without cannon, defense was stronger than offense. Machine guns, barbed wire, and trenches could resist most attacks. When that wasn't enough, both sides had plenty of railroad cap…
>for the first time since castles vs. troops without cannon, defense was stronger than offense
In the seminal book "On War" which was published in 1832 and is still required reading in many military academies, Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz explicitly says that defense is stronger than offense.
Maybe this intensified in WWI
Re: Stupidity is a specific cognitive failing
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the actual solutions were the shock troops, you know? The tanks and the anti-tank defence kinda reached parity by the middle of the WW2, so tanks became rather ineffective at breaking through the field defences. Solution? Specifically trained infantry groups that would infiltrate and destroy the fortifications, Germans used it since the early WW2. And here's a particularly interesting document from the Soviet sid…
Given the Ludendorff offensive failed I don't think you can call stormtroopers alone a solution. High casualties, outrunning supply and obtaining territory that is hard to defend which weakens your overall position. I don't agree that tanks had reached some ineffective impasse. Quoting wikipedia: > By 1918, tank capabilities and tactics improved, their numbers increased and, combined with French tanks, finally helped…
The Kaiser Schlacht succeeded in braking through. By doing so it also succeeded in out running logistics, moving troops from the highly sophisticated and fortified Hindenburg line and extending the front line by a lot. I would call it tactically successful, strategically stupid. But by then Germany had already lost, so the overall impact on the course of the war was rather limited if you ask me.
Re: Stupidity is a specific cognitive failing
#28The author may be onto something. Or they may have had one good idea and are now trying to make it fit too many problems. WWI did have moments of extreme stupidity. But the real problem was that, for the first time since castles vs. troops without cannon, defense was stronger than offense. Machine guns, barbed wire, and trenches could resist most attacks. When that wasn't enough, both sides had plenty of railroad cap…
> for the first time since castles vs. troops without cannon, defense was stronger than offense.
Huh? Castles couldn't beat troops without cannon. If you got besieged, your options were to be relieved by an external army, surrender, or lose.
Re: Stupidity is a specific cognitive failing
#29The author may be onto something. Or they may have had one good idea and are now trying to make it fit too many problems. WWI did have moments of extreme stupidity. But the real problem was that, for the first time since castles vs. troops without cannon, defense was stronger than offense. Machine guns, barbed wire, and trenches could resist most attacks. When that wasn't enough, both sides had plenty of railroad cap…
The Zulu are most certainly not extinct.
Additionally, The British severely underestimated the Zulus along the lines of the parent, with at least one devastating effect.
Re: Stupidity is a specific cognitive failing
#30On a side note, the linked article is not accessible anymorr, nor does a link to latest article work.
i guess the author must be stupid. /s