Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stupidity

onepercentrule.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 60 posts

Re: Stupidity

#51

Post by Propelloni »

0x3444ac53 wrote: post #40
Propelloni wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A very humane post, thank you. I'd argue that the universal quantifier "all people are not trained" should be changed. Surely we can say that some people are trained in at least some of the tools to fight stupidity we, humanity as a whole, developed over the millennia. So a phrase like "not all people are trained" seems to be more on the mark to me. Beyond that I have little to say of substance, but I am curious. How…

Logically, the universal quantifier and a negated existential quantifier are equivalent.

True, hence we did not transform, but replace the quantifier. The original statement "all people are not trained" was false and we wanted to make a true statement. There are people who are trained, thus we say "there exist people who are not trained", which allows us to say "there exist people who are trained". Of course, this is not an equivalent statement to the original statement.

Re: Stupidity

#52

Post by johnea »

The article agrees with how I've defined stupidity for years: an unwillingness to exercise mental rigor.

Re: Stupidity

#53

Post by ena0autos »

coldtea wrote: post #36
ena0autos wrote: post #9

No example given about what stupidity is. Then how can you tell the diff stupidity vs intelligence since there is not a point refence my friend? Should i take your word for it? "According to Cipolla’s "Basic Laws of Human Stupidity," a stupid person is one whose actions result in negative consequences for both themselves and those around them, irrespective of intent" Whould strongly argue against this.

> No example given about what stupidity is. Then how can you tell the diff stupidity vs intelligence since there is not a point refence my friend? Should i take your word for it? The post doesn't try to teach people to tell the difference between stupidity and intelligence, but to give a definition and describe some of the mechanisms behind stupidity. It still does give one example of stupid behavior ("Picture someon…

The article gives the example of Boris Johnson, again author opinion to me he seems cute and i am straight.

And this "Picture someone who recklessly spreads misinformation online, sharing a sensational but false news story without checking its validity." Please author of this article be more intellectual than this.

"Whould strongly argue against this." Yes because you see the intent(purpose) of the action taken is what matters(the end makes the means).

Also the article does not separates chronic stupid behavior by individuals and a stupid act for some reason.

Re: Stupidity

#54

Post by mistermann »

dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #50
mistermann wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think it is possible to make people even stupider? At scale? I believe it to be possible, and in play, at scale.

>Do you think it is possible to make people even stupider? At scale? Not intrinsically, but certainly the stupid under the right circumstances can be incited to commit acts that they will normally not think of, and yes it can be done at scale, govts, dictators, rulers, all do it.

What role is "intrinsically" playing here?

Do you think non-stupid people can have their stupidity:

1. increased by outside forces?

2.sustained due to a lack of outside forces?

Re: Stupidity

#55

Post by [deleted] »

dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #50
mistermann wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think it is possible to make people even stupider? At scale? I believe it to be possible, and in play, at scale.

>Do you think it is possible to make people even stupider? At scale? Not intrinsically, but certainly the stupid under the right circumstances can be incited to commit acts that they will normally not think of, and yes it can be done at scale, govts, dictators, rulers, all do it.

[deleted]

Re: Stupidity

#56

Post by dennis_jeeves2 »

mistermann wrote: post #54
dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do you think it is possible to make people even stupider? At scale? Not intrinsically, but certainly the stupid under the right circumstances can be incited to commit acts that they will normally not think of, and yes it can be done at scale, govts, dictators, rulers, all do it.

What role is "intrinsically" playing here? Do you think non-stupid people can have their stupidity: 1. increased by outside forces? 2.sustained due to a lack of outside forces?

>What role is "intrinsically" playing here?

When I mean "intrinsically" or in 'intrinsic' I mean what is innate. To make the distinction clearer smart people can occasionally do stupid things, do to various factors like time constraint, ill luck etc, but they won't do it consusrtently. To give you a very simple example someone who earns reasonably well, if they are consistently out of money before their next paycheck, they are intrinsically stupid.

>Do you think non-stupid people can have their stupidity: >1. increased by outside forces?

No as a general rule. More specifically they are less likely to be manipulated by outside forces

>sustained due to a lack of outside forces?

For some it may be yes, others no I think. I'm not sure of the breakup. There are various categories of non stupid people, for some external influences are needed to stimulate their thinking, and there are others which are self-reflective even without targeted ( at them) external influences. The latter would be a category of truly independent thinkers.

p.s: Since a few line of definition of what is/is not stupid can be inadequate, I have a page devoted to it https://quberoot.wordpress.com/dysfunctional/

Re: Stupidity

#57

Post by mistermann »

dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #56
mistermann wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What role is "intrinsically" playing here? Do you think non-stupid people can have their stupidity: 1. increased by outside forces? 2.sustained due to a lack of outside forces?

>What role is "intrinsically" playing here? When I mean "intrinsically" or in 'intrinsic' I mean what is innate. To make the distinction clearer smart people can occasionally do stupid things, do to various factors like time constraint, ill luck etc, but they won't do it consusrtently. To give you a very simple example someone who earns reasonably well, if they are consistently out of money before their next paycheck…

> but they won't do it consusrtently

On certain topics they will!

> No as a general rule.

Which logically resolves to Yes.

> More specifically they are less likely to be manipulated by outside forces

In the broad aggregate agree, but not on all topics.

> For some it may be yes, others no I think.

What if there is something like science that's yet to be invented (" a lack of outside forces"), thus people do not have access to the "intelligence" bonus it provides. Would this count, if there was such a thing?

Re: Stupidity

#58

Post by dennis_jeeves2 »

mistermann wrote: post #57
dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What role is "intrinsically" playing here? When I mean "intrinsically" or in 'intrinsic' I mean what is innate. To make the distinction clearer smart people can occasionally do stupid things, do to various factors like time constraint, ill luck etc, but they won't do it consusrtently. To give you a very simple example someone who earns reasonably well, if they are consistently out of money before their next paycheck…

> but they won't do it consusrtently On certain topics they will! > No as a general rule. Which logically resolves to Yes. > More specifically they are less likely to be manipulated by outside forces In the broad aggregate agree, but not on all topics. > For some it may be yes, others no I think. What if there is something like science that's yet to be invented (" a lack of outside forces"), thus people do not have a…

>thus people do not have access to the "intelligence" bonus it provides. Would is count, if there was such a thing?

You mean will it count into sustaining stupidity? yes is the answer. ( and to be more nuanced I wouldn't call it stupidity, that's ignorance).

On another note: science was never 'invented' - the spirit of inquiry was always there among minority of individuals since ancient times.

Re: Stupidity

#59

Post by mistermann »

dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #58
mistermann wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but they won't do it consusrtently On certain topics they will! > No as a general rule. Which logically resolves to Yes. > More specifically they are less likely to be manipulated by outside forces In the broad aggregate agree, but not on all topics. > For some it may be yes, others no I think. What if there is something like science that's yet to be invented (" a lack of outside forces"), thus people do not have a…

>thus people do not have access to the "intelligence" bonus it provides. Would is count, if there was such a thing? You mean will it count into sustaining stupidity? yes is the answer. ( and to be more nuanced I wouldn't call it stupidity, that's ignorance). On another note: science was never 'invented' - the spirit of inquiry was always there among minority of individuals since ancient times.

Is there nothing novel in the thing itself that so many people refer to, with reverence, as "science"?

Re: Stupidity

#60

Post by dennis_jeeves2 »

mistermann wrote: post #59
dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>thus people do not have access to the "intelligence" bonus it provides. Would is count, if there was such a thing? You mean will it count into sustaining stupidity? yes is the answer. ( and to be more nuanced I wouldn't call it stupidity, that's ignorance). On another note: science was never 'invented' - the spirit of inquiry was always there among minority of individuals since ancient times.

Is there nothing novel in the thing itself that so many people refer to, with reverence , as "science"?

True, I don't think there is any novel concept in the term "science". ( i.e if I understood your correctly).
Post reply on HN