SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
It may sound like an insensitive statement, but the cold hard truth is that there are a lot of stupid people in the world, and their stupidity presents a constant danger to others. Some of these people are in positions of power, and some of them have been elected to run our country. A far greater number of them do not have positions of power, but they still have the power to vote, and the power to spread their ideas. We may have heard of "collective intelligence," but there is also "collective stupidity," and it is a force with equal influence on the world. It would not be a stretch to say that at this point in time, stupidity presents an existential threat to America because, in some circles, it is being celebrated.
Although the term "stupidity" may seem derogatory or insulting, it is actually a scientific concept that refers to a specific type of cognitive failure. It is important to realize that stupidity is not simply a lack of intelligence or knowledge, but rather a failure to use one's cognitive abilities effectively. This means that you can be "smart" while having a low IQ, or no expertise in anything. It is often said that "you can't fix stupid," but that is not exactly true. By becoming aware of the limitations of our natural intelligence or our ignorance, we can adjust our reasoning, behavior, and decision-making to account for our intellectual shortcomings.
To demonstrate that stupidity does not mean having a low IQ, consider the case of Richard Branson, the billionaire CEO of Virgin Airlines, who is one of the world's most successful businessmen. Branson has said that he was seen as the dumbest person in school, and has admitted to having dyslexia, a learning disability that affects one's ability to read and correctly interpret written language. But it wasn't just reading comprehension that was the problem — "Math just didn't make sense to me," Branson has said. "I would certainly have failed an IQ test."
[...] We are all victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect to some degree. An inability to accurately assess our own competency and wisdom is something we see in both liberals and conservatives. While being more educated typically decreases our Dunning-Kruger tendencies, it does not eliminate them entirely. That takes constant cognitive effort in the form of self-awareness, continual curiosity, and a healthy amount of skepticism. By cultivating this type of awareness in ourselves, and making an effort to spread it to others, we can fight back against the stupidity crisis that threatens our nation.
Interesting stuff from cognitive neuroscientist
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Opportunist on Saturday February 25, @04:29PM (4 children)
It's Sartre, and yes, I know Réflexions sur la question juive. Please don't quote that without putting it into context, because the fun bit is that the core of its statement isn't just anti-semitism. It's hate and the source of hate in its entirety. The core essence is that the Jew isn't hated by that antisemite for what he does, not even for what he is, but simply because he needs something to hate to avoid hating himself. It's the attempt to create a focal point for all the bad things happening. 500 years ago, the devil was the culprit (and is again today with a bunch of religious loonies) who will then easily identify whatever group they deem fit for persecution for being "of the devil". That kinda got out of fashion when people stopped believing in superstitious nonsense (but, again, it has a big revival right now).
The "hater" (in Sartre's essay, the antisemite) is in a negative situation and is looking for a reason. The honest man would look to better himself by working on that situation or to actually seek to rectify his own position or behaviour to improve it. This, though, first requires you to accept that you might be wrong. And that's anathema. And hardly a new one, it's been anathema forever. We get that instilled already, again, in our youth.
Making mistakes is seen as bad. Horrible, even. Making mistakes means you get a bad mark on your test, you get bad grades, you get reprimanded or even punished. People who make no mistakes are praised and used as examples.
You know what I call people who make no mistakes? Slackers. Show me a person who never makes mistakes and I show you a person who never worked a day in his life.
Mistakes are a growing opportunity. Of course, you shouldn't repeat them but learn from them. But even that is verboten. Because making mistakes is such anathema, you must not analyze them. Or at the very least, you get heavily discouraged from doing so. Your best course of action is to just try to ignore them. Brush them under the rug. Imagine they never existed. I.e. the worst you can do.
But since it's so unfathomable that you make mistakes, someone else has to be to blame for your situation. It can't be you. So we need a culprit. And that culprit is easily found because there's always someone who can benefit from giving you one. You're not to blame for your situation. You're the poor, poor victim, the real culprit is someone else.
Who it is now depends on what someone wants you to believe. For an antisemite, it's the Jew. For the racist, the blacks. For the misogynist, the feminazis. For the feminists, toxic masculinity. For the liberals, Trump. For the conservatives, Biden. And so on. Find your preferred target for your 10 minute hate and have fun with it.
Change? No. That doesn't change anything. It doesn't better your situation at all. But that's also not what it's for. It's to keep you busy and keep you in the camp you're useful for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25, @05:11PM (3 children)
Yes obviously it's not specific to anti-semitism. It's about bad faith arguing. We see in the House ample evidence of bad faith led by - let's call it for what it is - fascist Republicans. The noise about "space lasers" and "national divorce" are bad faith arguing to distract, to mock, to debase the idea of good faith argument. Why suffer the agony of trying to make a just case when you can rattle a toy and yell to drown out the opponent?
For what? To hide the thumb on the scales giving them advantages at the expense of the Other. (The jews, or whoever). Plus delaying the inevitable consequences of their lying and corruption. Slavery? Not us - it was the Democrats. Slavery was good for them. Slaves had it better than black people now. Go back to your own country if you don't like it. The civil war was about states rights. It was a long time ago, forget about it. Move on snowflakes.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Opportunist on Sunday February 26, @09:19AM (2 children)
The cynic in me would still say that slavery was abolished when we noticed that owning people is more costly and risky than renting them. A slave, I have to buy (with a huge up-front cost), then feed and shelter, now compare that the the slave-driver wages paid today, and if the worker gets sick, I can fire and replace them, when my slave gets sick, I have a loss, and a huge risk because if that slave dies, I'm out of money. If that worker dies, pfft, not my problem, I just rent another one.
Aside of that, I can agree, bad faith arguing is just way more convenient than trying to argue in good faith. You're addressing emotions rather than ratio, and with almost all people, that works better because it hits more directly. Plus, it circumvents any kind of logic and reason. You eliminate the need to give good reason, all you have to do is pull the heart strings.
The two key "animal" motivators for humans are greed and fear. Not hope and fear, mind you, greed and fear. Both are very powerful tools in the bad faith toolbox, because you can use either of them to make people hate someone. You can either use them to create hate for a group by fearing they could do something, or you can use them to create hate for a group by envy for something they allegedly have. Neither of which need to be true, by the way, the accusation alone is sufficient because, as stated before, the argument circumvents logic and reason and hits directly the reptilian part of our brain.
Once you realize that, using people as you see fit is easy. You don't even have to buy them first, they come to you for free.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 26, @10:06PM
Some people didn't notice that and started a costly war that killed half a million people.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28, @07:06AM
> owning people is more costly and risky than renting them
Yes, after you have first got them to build your farms and infrastructure. Then you let them go free. What?? You're free now. OMG you're so lazy. It's your own fault you don't have a farm or own anything. Tsk tsk, shouldn't order so much avocado toast.