This idea is why I think we should take lunatic conspiracy theory hypothesis seriously (enough to study them): if the mainstream scientific community ignores them, they end up being ‘tested’ by the ignorant masses using unsophisticated methods.
For example, it’s hard to find papers on heterodox hypothesis for climate change where a few good papers showing null results would help convince a lot of skeptics (although of course there will always be skeptics who distrust all academic data and are immune to changing their mind).
On the other hand, there is a large contingent - probably the vast majority - for whom no amount of rigor or proof would be sufficient. Flat Earthers can be shown evidence for days and reject it all, for instance. Because it isn't really about the facts for most folks.
I also think - and suspect TFA agrees here - that taking lunatics (or, more likely, the intentionally dense) seriously emboldens them, and lends their ideas the unearned merit of your efforts. Sartre had something to say about that, too.
Believing that society should hide debates on truth from the ‘ignorant masses’ for their own protection is the reason we are in a low-trust situation where people refuse to get vaccinated.
Treating people like children leads to them acting like children. I am yet to see any evidence that discussion ‘emboldens’ them; rather suppression makes them angry and angry.
Also, I think this view aligns with TFA. Don’t try to convince stupid people because they will just be reactionary. All you can do is give them the evidence, but to do that you need to take their hypothesis seriously.
I don't think it's so much about hiding debates as not seeking them out if the other side isn't arguing in good faith. In that regard, conspiracy theories like the earth being flat are a good litmus test that a debate isn't worth the time or energy; if you can't reach common ground with someone on well-established, non-controversial facts, there's no point in trying to debate them about more nuanced topics.
Agree to a debate when they have disproved the experiment and provided reproducible proof. Better yet if they can get it peer reviewed (though that can be hard when you’re challenging “the system”).
Barely better, the replication crisis and other problems in academia have shown that peer review doesn’t work well.
It is a band-aid solution to the demarcation problem that simply doesn’t work. I wish more people would read Lakatos and do reviews using his research programme paradigm. It’s the most reasonable solution we have. Alternatives like peer review are just window dressing.
>So you're saying not just "do experiments on crazy theories" but do them forever in perpetuity?
Yes? When I did science at school we repeated various experiments to prove various Newtonian principles. I'm pretty sure those are settled matters but still useful to demonstrate for educational purposes.
I'm very doubtful that there'd be no flat-earthers if they'd all gone to schools that did experiments to demonstrate the earth was round instead of simply describing those experiments in their science and history books.
Treating people like children is exactly what many political leaders do to shepherd their own partisans into continuing to support them and it often works. Fearmongering, lies, emotions. Telling them they need you to protect them.
And are we pretending that the anti-vax movement is now perfectly transparent with information and acts like it's an adult debate where they simply make reasonable points? That this cause wasn't driven people who came into it already convinced, who never took the hypothesis of "this could be an effective way to vaccines" seriously at all?
Not every vaccine skeptic is spouting "it's going to rewrite your dna" or "they're tracking you with microchips" and "it's the mark of the beast" but the nutjobs are a quite significant fraction and none of them ended up there because they went looking for data on clinical trials and didn't find as much as they wanted to.
The son of a friend has an autoimmune syndrome. She also has one as has her mother. The son got his autoimmune from vaccines of course and doctors who say otherwise are paid by the establishment. If I want to end our friendship all I have to do is point out these facts to her. Foundmentals of philosophy will not help at all.
> Foundmentals of philosophy will not help at all.
It may(!) not help her, but it could help you realize that "the future" you are describing is not what you think it is, and if you can realize that maybe you would be better equipped to help your friend.
Rationality and optimism are very useful skills to have in one's kit.
Do you think that articles, television shows, print columns, etc that treat things like the moon landing or the holocaust as items up for debate, and which give equal merit & time to the "two sides" of that debate, are somehow valid? Your ability to find real evidence is going to be DDOS'd by their ability to absolutely make shit up. And you're going to enable a lot of chemtrail bullshit, but also a lot of really virulent nasty racism.
Giving these very stupid views access to the same platform as any rational actor, placing them in the same context as - or even right next to - real actual science or history, is such a poor choice.
No, they are not debates but diatribes. They are usually one sided and have shitty ‘experts’ because the best experts refuse to go on them or are scared of being taken out of context
The best solution is long form debates where the whole thing is available, so each party cannot be taken out of context. If you don’t have these kind of debates people looking for heterodox views will find them anyway and an ‘entertainment’ industry spouting bullshit is created.
You don’t need to put all heterodox views in textbooks, but they shouldn’t be generally shunned because it is counterproductive.
As Joe Rogan says about people with black belts in Jiu Jitsu: there are levels among black belts.
You, like many "smart" people, have an air of confidence about you...but if you really think about it, you think there aren't people out there that couldn't absolutely ragdoll you on the intellectual equivalent of a Jiu Jitsu mat, if the above is the type of game you bring?
And who is going to pay for it? Pharma’s going to fund pro-pharma research. Where is the money opposed to pharma at scale?
I’m probably past the point of jaded, but if there isn’t money behind it (and even more to be made), even if the results are valid, it will just be crushed by those with incentives to bury it (until, like tobacco for example, it can’t be ignored anymore).
>although of course there will always be skeptics who distrust all academic data and are immune to changing their mind
Vaccine skeptics mostly fall into this category. I mention it because the author of this blog appears to be one of them.
I agree that more effort should be put into the "fringe" research to disprove these things, but I'm concerned that no amount of proof could ever help, which ironically is the point of this quote.
they reject all the contrary evidence as "mainstream government funded research that lies to you" so there is no proof of evidence that would make it work
This generalisation is simply false. I know well educated people who are skeptical of vaccines for sophisticated epistemological reasons such as disagreements over things like what effect sizes are considered significant.
Painting this broad brush is not useful or based on evidence, it is simply the mainstream narrative.
> I know well educated people who are skeptical of vaccines for sophisticated epistemological reasons such as disagreements over things like what effect sizes are considered significant.
But that doesn't sound like something that would be changed one bit by doing serious research into lunatic conspiracy theories like microchips for tracking in covid vacines...
Are there any actual examples of "serious research" into "lunatic conspiracy theories" (lunatic here being your word) changing the minds of people buying into those theories?
IMHO, the problem is the gradient across complete confidence in the safety of x, concern about the safety of x, doubt about the safety of x, and assuredness about the evil ulterior motives of x.
I’m just as worried about anyone with complete confidence as I am someone who immediately assumes evil ulterior motives. Over time, the probability of one having a medical procedure with overpromised outcomes or under-disclosed side effects approaches 100%.
Do you think there's any amount of research or evidence or debate that could make Normies aware that the sensation of omniscience that they experience when contemplating the nature of the individual members of their abstract conceptual outhroups is actually just a clever trick played on them by consciousness + cultural shortcomings?
Personally, I happen to believe there is, and I bet it might even be way easier to do than it may seem.
I am a very well educated person that is skeptical of vaccine efficacy and safety before the trials were done since it was fast. reading the trial data convinced me it was as safe as any drug you take. I don't like taking unnecessary drugs and avoid pain pills until it's unbearable.
what you present is an anecdote of a few skeptics that are educated but it's by and large not the majority of these people that can't be swayed with evidence to the contrary. painting with this broad brush is based on evidence.
That's also partly the reason why people abhor mainstream scientific community - due to arrogance, corporatism and dismissal of claims with phrases like "I am the science".
Additionally, mainstream scientific community is not something that shouldn't be challenged - quite the opposite. Just like any other community it is prone to corruption in every possible sense.
This corruption has long term consequences for society.
> Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.
Is it likely the current tone of American political discourse is a result of so many taking this attitude and assuming their political opponents must all be stupid?
Some of us have family that dismiss objective-truth with insurmountable "logic" such as: "yea, well, I don't believe it". What is that, if not stupid? Willfully ignorant?
I think Carl Satan had a quote about folk valuing their ignorance at the same mark as others knowledge.
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
Name calling as a mean to dehumanize fellow humain beings (deceased or living), especially in the name of _objective-truth_ vs _stupid_ and/or _willfully ignorant_ appears to me as especially wicked. Unless one claims the typo excuse.
Point in case, coming to believe contrarian partie(s) to be less than human is a very well documented war propaganda tactic that only become socially acceptable as said contrarian and opposing parties settle for the idea that an upcoming battle has become inevitable.
This is where we're at now, at this point in time, when almost all voices who witnessed WWII horrors have passed. Brace yourself.
>The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with a person, but with slogans, catchwords and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.
(my emphasis)
B was a German Lutheran pastor, theologian and anti-Nazi dissident, who was sent to a concentration camp in 43 and was hanged 2 years later as one of the last dissidents, by personal directive from Hitler.
> In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with a person, but with slogans, catchwords and the like that have taken possession of him.
Just so -- it's as if you're debating with the ideology itself, really.
After reading this, I'm also reminded of (among other things) one of the points that Paul Graham made in "Lies We Tell Kids"[1]:
> You can't distinguish your group by doing things that are rational, and believing things that are true. If you want to set yourself apart from other people, you have to do things that are arbitrary, and believe things that are false.
"Stupidity" seems so strongly associated with a motivation to identify with a particular group, in almost exactly the sense that I understand the old Sinclair quote about what a man will and won't understand when his salary is involved, that
I wonder now if "stupidity" as a phenomenon is JUST social signalling to demonstrate group association. Or does it has aspects beyond social conformity?
I was reminded of Sinclair too. Conformity is certainly likely but I think it goes even deeper than that. If one identifies their own material survival with any particular group, system, nation, tribe, etc, it creates an irrationality that short circuits logic and reason. It appears as stupidity to those who don't identify their survival with those groups, systems, etc.
> I wonder now if "stupidity" as a phenomenon is JUST social signalling to demonstrate group association...
I considered myself stupid when I came to this realization years ago. I recall thinking "why didn't my parents teach me how to be stupid to fit in?" Well, better late than never? The realization had some pretty significant effects on my life. It has enabled me to sympathize with people on a whole new level. It has brought me much closer to my family and made me better in all of my personal relationships, but at the same time it has made me feel so much more alone than I ever felt before.
There are some areas (including this one) where pg’s stream of consciousness thoughts are just that, and shouldn’t be taken as much more. Raising kids in suburbia is no more lying to a kid then sending them to school instead of off to work in a mine. There are entire rural cultures that have no exposure to modern conveniences or vices and haven’t for hundreds of years. They are not living a lie.
That said, I’d recommend not lying to your children to the best of your ability. For us that means certain American traditions aren’t celebrated in our house (Santa, tooth fairy, etc.). That also means sometimes having tricky conversations regarding propaganda from “trustworthy” sources as they learn to understand more about the world.
Having age-appropriate conversations about subjects isn’t hard and doesn’t require lying. It does require having some idea of a child’s developmental level and reference to the subject at hand. You wouldn’t tell a 3-year old that smoking causes emphysema, but telling them that it could make you sick is true.
I also think this is especially true for religious families. Ultimately that is a decision for individuals to make. Parents can teach their kids to the best of their abilities, but kids will have to take that and choose their own way. (Comments about how religions are lies are unnecessary and unwelcome.)
Obviously, no one person can have a completely accurate view of the world and all subject areas, and that’s important to teach kids as well. “I don’t know” or “let’s learn more about that” or even “here’s what I think annd here’s what some other people think, what do you think?” are perfectly acceptable answers at any age. We’re all going to be biased in certain areas. As kids get older, I think letting them know the foundation of that bias (cultural, socio-economical, educational, etc.) may help reasoning from different perspectives.
Kids are really dumb and really smart at the same time.
And they know when you’re lying, eventually. Especially when you tell them something that isn’t something you believe.
But you often don’t have to lie to explain something that’s too complicated or not necessary for them to know, as a simple explanation is not a lie, even if it’s not completely true.
Yes, it’s not hard to use “it’s a bit like X” or it’s “kind of like Y” when giving a simplified explanation or using an analogy. Even young kids can understand that. And I’ve never understood why people would make something up if they don’t know something - in fact, it’s a good learning opportunity in two ways - first, it’s good to show you’re not embarrassed or ashamed by not knowing something, and secondly it’s a good exercise to encourage the child to try and think of ideas together of what might be the explanation.
(That said, if you are good at switching demeanour to make it obvious to them that you're not serious, kids do often enjoy the absurd and ridiculous, so it can be fun to 'lie' to kids in that way by offering increasingly absurd explanations. But care must be taken to ensure they know you're not actually trying to mislead them!)
How do you deal with the social tension of telling your kids the truth about Santa, etc.? My wife convinced me that if we didn't conform, then all other parents in the area would dislike us.
Interestingly enough, when a classmate's dad told my 1st grade daughter about the (Christian) god, she got home and asked me why people believe in false things like that. But, she still continued to believe in Santa and the tooth fairy as well as her imaginary friends, etc. I think that maybe she knows they also don't exist, but she's enjoying the fantasy and experience.
Just today I was listening to Consider This on NPR (transcript [1]) about the increase of election worker harassment. It's quite scary the level things have gotten, with serious death threats, harassment, vandalism, even one election worker's dog being poisoned.
What we still haven't come to grips with is that the internet and the information age have made propaganda and the ability to sway large swaths of the "stupid" (which I would more accurately call the uninformed credulous) exceedingly easy. Network effects cause this mob behavior to accelerate much more rapidly than before.
In Carl Sagan’s The Demon Haunted World [2], he starts his book with an account of what Dietrich here would call the "stupid", a taxi driver that begins to question Carl in earnest about all sorts of conspiracies.
Carl shows through this exchange that it's not that people are stupid. Often many of the credulous are very intelligent, and curious. But what has happened is that our society has failed to teach critical thinking across the board, and has also failed in its ability to democratize education in a way the reaches everyone equally.
Public schools have been a failure in teaching critical thinking. Teachers are not versed or required to have standards in critical thinking skills. Our society also lacks a focus on childhood mental health, so children the most at risk often can't even begin to benefit from school, and will continue down the same paths as their parents. And so we are left with a perpetual problem that continues generation to generation.
If we fix our education and mental health systems, I believe a lot of the worlds problems will follow.
I used to believe that conspirasists and prejudiced people would drop their ignorance in the face of reason but I don't any more.
Chuds are chuds and will never change unless whatever it is suddenly confronts them personally and engages their emotions.
We just have to deal with the fact that our chud brethren are not to be excited or riled up and its best to simply change the subject when they say something ignorant.
>I used to believe that conspirasists and prejudiced people would drop their ignorance in the face of reason but I don't any more.
Why ask of others what you yourself will not do (here I am referring to the hallucinations in the remainder of your message. Why you hallucinate reality, Homie? Why do you not "simply" stop doing that? Did you even realize you were doing it in the first place?).
I await my cultural scolding/education ("bad faith!", "HN is for "curious conversation" [only] - one account throttling for you!"[1], etc) with anticipation.
[1] Gee, might this sort of thing play any causal role in the grand scheme of why humanity is not as smart as it could be?
Well this comment certainly caught me off guard....either I'm misinterpreting your intended meaning, or it is one of the more paradoxical experiences I've had in recent memory....or, you were joking initially and are now dragging it out?
People love Bonhoeffer quotes. Stick it in the right place, and you get to subtly call your opponents Nazis without someone being able to call you out on Godwin's law
"If we want to know how to get the better of stupidity, we must seek to understand its nature."
The philosophical attitude should be trying to understand. The way I think about it, if someone has been around for 1,000 years and yet is indulgently stupid then maybe I have some right to be angry with them, otherwise I should consider that they haven't been around that long and are understandably susceptible to the double ignorance of thinking they know what they don't.
"Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it."
This statement reflects a general observation present in Socratic (or Platonic and Xenophonic) philosophy that those with the most power and authority are basically by definition most responsible for changing things for the better. Without organization and attention people act on an individual level, and their apparent unreasonableness may be a concession to their limited circumstances.
"The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity."
"God" could be replaced with "Nature" for those of a modern, skeptical bent, but nevertheless can combine a humility resulting from an awareness of the limits of human knowledge with a confidence in greater meaning in virtue of the existence of humanity and the ordered cosmos itself.
> if someone has been around for 1,000 years and yet is indulgently stupid then maybe I have some right to be angry with them
Alternative interpretation: If someone has managed to be around for 1,000 years and you think they are stupid, then maybe your definition of "stupidity" is the wrong one.
> Alternative interpretation: If someone has managed to be around for 1,000 years and you think they are stupid, then maybe your definition of "stupidity" is the wrong one.
Stupidity is simple to understand. Primate brain activity is metabolically expensive... we spend more calories thinking than we do nearly anything else. And in a social species like the bald monkey, it's just pointless. In a tribe of 100 apes, do they all need to think, when imitation is so much cheaper?
It's better for one or two to think, and the rest to just do what they do once they've got it figured out. How many use microwave ovens, but have no clue about what principles they operate from?
And so evolution has gifted most people with a positively abysmal level of stupidity. They just don't need it, as long as some outlier pops up once in awhile. This isn't some personality flaw. No one raised them wrong, the education system didn't betray them, and nothing you do can fix it. Ever. Because they're all just horrifically imbecilic. And every time you see them do something that appears at first glance as clever, it really is just them imitating really well. They do it so well it manifests as the Flynn Effect on IQ tests.
Ah yes, the rhetoric by which a conspiracy theorist convinces themselves that they're a genius and everyone else is stupid. Keep upvoting that sweet confirmation you so desire. Just take a look at the OP's past posts and you'll see exactly what I mean.
This reminds me of a passage in Plato's Theaetetus (143e-144b):
Socrates:... So if you have come across anyone worth mentioning, I should be glad to hear.
Theodorus: Well Socrates, I think you ought to be told... about a remarkable boy I have met here... Along with a quickness beyond the capacity of most people, he has an unusually gentle temper...I never thought a combination could exist; I don't see it arising elsewhere. People as acute and keen and retentive as he is are apt to be very unbalanced. They get swept up in a rush, like ships without ballast; what stands for courage in their makeup is a kind of mad excitement; while, on the other hand, the steadier sort of people are apt to come to their studies with minds that are sluggish, somehow - freighted with a bad memory. But this boy approaches his studies in a smooth, sure, effective way, and with great good temper; it reminds one of the quiet flow of a stream of oil.(...)
Piece looks pretty explanatory - stupidity looks connected to societies being hacked by "memes" :)
But personally I think that stupidity can be acquired in other way too - by anti-social acts like stealing or killing - some pathways in brain shoots down and some thinks start to be considered absurd and joke, literally logical deduction starts to giving other results... For example "justice" is common victim. Maybe it is psychological reaction but for sure it is life changing if you suddenly can't understand "bigger picture"...
Another common stupidity system is concentrating on what you feel and only on that, making it compass of your life... It's complicated because "feelings" are part of biological instructional and self-preservation mechanism.
74 comments
[ 51.7 ms ] story [ 2245 ms ] threadFor example, it’s hard to find papers on heterodox hypothesis for climate change where a few good papers showing null results would help convince a lot of skeptics (although of course there will always be skeptics who distrust all academic data and are immune to changing their mind).
I also think - and suspect TFA agrees here - that taking lunatics (or, more likely, the intentionally dense) seriously emboldens them, and lends their ideas the unearned merit of your efforts. Sartre had something to say about that, too.
Treating people like children leads to them acting like children. I am yet to see any evidence that discussion ‘emboldens’ them; rather suppression makes them angry and angry.
Also, I think this view aligns with TFA. Don’t try to convince stupid people because they will just be reactionary. All you can do is give them the evidence, but to do that you need to take their hypothesis seriously.
If you don’t have these experiments or debates, you have 0% chance of changing people’s minds. At least give them a chance.
It is a band-aid solution to the demarcation problem that simply doesn’t work. I wish more people would read Lakatos and do reviews using his research programme paradigm. It’s the most reasonable solution we have. Alternatives like peer review are just window dressing.
Yes? When I did science at school we repeated various experiments to prove various Newtonian principles. I'm pretty sure those are settled matters but still useful to demonstrate for educational purposes.
Treating people like children is exactly what many political leaders do to shepherd their own partisans into continuing to support them and it often works. Fearmongering, lies, emotions. Telling them they need you to protect them.
And are we pretending that the anti-vax movement is now perfectly transparent with information and acts like it's an adult debate where they simply make reasonable points? That this cause wasn't driven people who came into it already convinced, who never took the hypothesis of "this could be an effective way to vaccines" seriously at all?
Not every vaccine skeptic is spouting "it's going to rewrite your dna" or "they're tracking you with microchips" and "it's the mark of the beast" but the nutjobs are a quite significant fraction and none of them ended up there because they went looking for data on clinical trials and didn't find as much as they wanted to.
Some things that I often wonder:
- why are the fundamentals of philosophy not taught as part of standard curriculum?
- why do the fundamentals of philosophy not play a bigger role in journalism and mainstream/official discourse?
- why do few people wonder about this and other obvious(?) things? Might that be related to the preceding points?
- will this ever change, enough to carry the day considering our load of problems (known, unknown, mistaken, etc)?
It may(!) not help her, but it could help you realize that "the future" you are describing is not what you think it is, and if you can realize that maybe you would be better equipped to help your friend.
Rationality and optimism are very useful skills to have in one's kit.
Giving these very stupid views access to the same platform as any rational actor, placing them in the same context as - or even right next to - real actual science or history, is such a poor choice.
The best solution is long form debates where the whole thing is available, so each party cannot be taken out of context. If you don’t have these kind of debates people looking for heterodox views will find them anyway and an ‘entertainment’ industry spouting bullshit is created.
You don’t need to put all heterodox views in textbooks, but they shouldn’t be generally shunned because it is counterproductive.
You, like many "smart" people, have an air of confidence about you...but if you really think about it, you think there aren't people out there that couldn't absolutely ragdoll you on the intellectual equivalent of a Jiu Jitsu mat, if the above is the type of game you bring?
Conspiracists demand the lies.
Look how Fox News lost control of the Big Lie narrative. They (sort of) tried to tell the truth. Their audience rejected them.
I’m probably past the point of jaded, but if there isn’t money behind it (and even more to be made), even if the results are valid, it will just be crushed by those with incentives to bury it (until, like tobacco for example, it can’t be ignored anymore).
Vaccine skeptics mostly fall into this category. I mention it because the author of this blog appears to be one of them.
I agree that more effort should be put into the "fringe" research to disprove these things, but I'm concerned that no amount of proof could ever help, which ironically is the point of this quote.
Painting this broad brush is not useful or based on evidence, it is simply the mainstream narrative.
But that doesn't sound like something that would be changed one bit by doing serious research into lunatic conspiracy theories like microchips for tracking in covid vacines...
Are there any actual examples of "serious research" into "lunatic conspiracy theories" (lunatic here being your word) changing the minds of people buying into those theories?
I’m just as worried about anyone with complete confidence as I am someone who immediately assumes evil ulterior motives. Over time, the probability of one having a medical procedure with overpromised outcomes or under-disclosed side effects approaches 100%.
Personally, I happen to believe there is, and I bet it might even be way easier to do than it may seem.
what you present is an anecdote of a few skeptics that are educated but it's by and large not the majority of these people that can't be swayed with evidence to the contrary. painting with this broad brush is based on evidence.
Additionally, mainstream scientific community is not something that shouldn't be challenged - quite the opposite. Just like any other community it is prone to corruption in every possible sense.
This corruption has long term consequences for society.
Is it likely the current tone of American political discourse is a result of so many taking this attitude and assuming their political opponents must all be stupid?
I think Carl Satan had a quote about folk valuing their ignorance at the same mark as others knowledge.
More than 50% of my extended family believes that humans and Brontosaurus lived together on earth within the last 10,000 years.
I'm pretty sure that a few of them also believe that the number of Jews who died in the Holocaust is much less than 6 million.
None of them are cruel or bigoted either. Many of them are ridiculously kind.
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
Name calling as a mean to dehumanize fellow humain beings (deceased or living), especially in the name of _objective-truth_ vs _stupid_ and/or _willfully ignorant_ appears to me as especially wicked. Unless one claims the typo excuse.
Point in case, coming to believe contrarian partie(s) to be less than human is a very well documented war propaganda tactic that only become socially acceptable as said contrarian and opposing parties settle for the idea that an upcoming battle has become inevitable.
This is where we're at now, at this point in time, when almost all voices who witnessed WWII horrors have passed. Brace yourself.
>The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with a person, but with slogans, catchwords and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.
(my emphasis)
B was a German Lutheran pastor, theologian and anti-Nazi dissident, who was sent to a concentration camp in 43 and was hanged 2 years later as one of the last dissidents, by personal directive from Hitler.
For all other German speakers, here's the original: https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Von_der_Dummheit
Just so -- it's as if you're debating with the ideology itself, really.
> You can't distinguish your group by doing things that are rational, and believing things that are true. If you want to set yourself apart from other people, you have to do things that are arbitrary, and believe things that are false.
"Stupidity" seems so strongly associated with a motivation to identify with a particular group, in almost exactly the sense that I understand the old Sinclair quote about what a man will and won't understand when his salary is involved, that I wonder now if "stupidity" as a phenomenon is JUST social signalling to demonstrate group association. Or does it has aspects beyond social conformity?
[1]: http://www.paulgraham.com/lies.html
I considered myself stupid when I came to this realization years ago. I recall thinking "why didn't my parents teach me how to be stupid to fit in?" Well, better late than never? The realization had some pretty significant effects on my life. It has enabled me to sympathize with people on a whole new level. It has brought me much closer to my family and made me better in all of my personal relationships, but at the same time it has made me feel so much more alone than I ever felt before.
That said, I’d recommend not lying to your children to the best of your ability. For us that means certain American traditions aren’t celebrated in our house (Santa, tooth fairy, etc.). That also means sometimes having tricky conversations regarding propaganda from “trustworthy” sources as they learn to understand more about the world.
Having age-appropriate conversations about subjects isn’t hard and doesn’t require lying. It does require having some idea of a child’s developmental level and reference to the subject at hand. You wouldn’t tell a 3-year old that smoking causes emphysema, but telling them that it could make you sick is true.
I also think this is especially true for religious families. Ultimately that is a decision for individuals to make. Parents can teach their kids to the best of their abilities, but kids will have to take that and choose their own way. (Comments about how religions are lies are unnecessary and unwelcome.)
Obviously, no one person can have a completely accurate view of the world and all subject areas, and that’s important to teach kids as well. “I don’t know” or “let’s learn more about that” or even “here’s what I think annd here’s what some other people think, what do you think?” are perfectly acceptable answers at any age. We’re all going to be biased in certain areas. As kids get older, I think letting them know the foundation of that bias (cultural, socio-economical, educational, etc.) may help reasoning from different perspectives.
And they know when you’re lying, eventually. Especially when you tell them something that isn’t something you believe.
But you often don’t have to lie to explain something that’s too complicated or not necessary for them to know, as a simple explanation is not a lie, even if it’s not completely true.
(That said, if you are good at switching demeanour to make it obvious to them that you're not serious, kids do often enjoy the absurd and ridiculous, so it can be fun to 'lie' to kids in that way by offering increasingly absurd explanations. But care must be taken to ensure they know you're not actually trying to mislead them!)
Interestingly enough, when a classmate's dad told my 1st grade daughter about the (Christian) god, she got home and asked me why people believe in false things like that. But, she still continued to believe in Santa and the tooth fairy as well as her imaginary friends, etc. I think that maybe she knows they also don't exist, but she's enjoying the fantasy and experience.
What we still haven't come to grips with is that the internet and the information age have made propaganda and the ability to sway large swaths of the "stupid" (which I would more accurately call the uninformed credulous) exceedingly easy. Network effects cause this mob behavior to accelerate much more rapidly than before.
In Carl Sagan’s The Demon Haunted World [2], he starts his book with an account of what Dietrich here would call the "stupid", a taxi driver that begins to question Carl in earnest about all sorts of conspiracies.
Carl shows through this exchange that it's not that people are stupid. Often many of the credulous are very intelligent, and curious. But what has happened is that our society has failed to teach critical thinking across the board, and has also failed in its ability to democratize education in a way the reaches everyone equally.
Public schools have been a failure in teaching critical thinking. Teachers are not versed or required to have standards in critical thinking skills. Our society also lacks a focus on childhood mental health, so children the most at risk often can't even begin to benefit from school, and will continue down the same paths as their parents. And so we are left with a perpetual problem that continues generation to generation.
If we fix our education and mental health systems, I believe a lot of the worlds problems will follow.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/06/20/1183289840/election-workers-a...
[2] https://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Da...
Chuds are chuds and will never change unless whatever it is suddenly confronts them personally and engages their emotions.
We just have to deal with the fact that our chud brethren are not to be excited or riled up and its best to simply change the subject when they say something ignorant.
Bless their little cotton socks.
Why ask of others what you yourself will not do (here I am referring to the hallucinations in the remainder of your message. Why you hallucinate reality, Homie? Why do you not "simply" stop doing that? Did you even realize you were doing it in the first place?).
I await my cultural scolding/education ("bad faith!", "HN is for "curious conversation" [only] - one account throttling for you!"[1], etc) with anticipation.
[1] Gee, might this sort of thing play any causal role in the grand scheme of why humanity is not as smart as it could be?
It's fun to think about anyways!
Please don't make assumptions. Thanks.
The philosophical attitude should be trying to understand. The way I think about it, if someone has been around for 1,000 years and yet is indulgently stupid then maybe I have some right to be angry with them, otherwise I should consider that they haven't been around that long and are understandably susceptible to the double ignorance of thinking they know what they don't.
"Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it."
This statement reflects a general observation present in Socratic (or Platonic and Xenophonic) philosophy that those with the most power and authority are basically by definition most responsible for changing things for the better. Without organization and attention people act on an individual level, and their apparent unreasonableness may be a concession to their limited circumstances.
"The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity."
"God" could be replaced with "Nature" for those of a modern, skeptical bent, but nevertheless can combine a humility resulting from an awareness of the limits of human knowledge with a confidence in greater meaning in virtue of the existence of humanity and the ordered cosmos itself.
Alternative interpretation: If someone has managed to be around for 1,000 years and you think they are stupid, then maybe your definition of "stupidity" is the wrong one.
I'd be surprised if they were.
It's better for one or two to think, and the rest to just do what they do once they've got it figured out. How many use microwave ovens, but have no clue about what principles they operate from?
And so evolution has gifted most people with a positively abysmal level of stupidity. They just don't need it, as long as some outlier pops up once in awhile. This isn't some personality flaw. No one raised them wrong, the education system didn't betray them, and nothing you do can fix it. Ever. Because they're all just horrifically imbecilic. And every time you see them do something that appears at first glance as clever, it really is just them imitating really well. They do it so well it manifests as the Flynn Effect on IQ tests.
Curiously, this also matches my observation. I was and still am quite puzzled as to why that is
Socrates:... So if you have come across anyone worth mentioning, I should be glad to hear.
Theodorus: Well Socrates, I think you ought to be told... about a remarkable boy I have met here... Along with a quickness beyond the capacity of most people, he has an unusually gentle temper...I never thought a combination could exist; I don't see it arising elsewhere. People as acute and keen and retentive as he is are apt to be very unbalanced. They get swept up in a rush, like ships without ballast; what stands for courage in their makeup is a kind of mad excitement; while, on the other hand, the steadier sort of people are apt to come to their studies with minds that are sluggish, somehow - freighted with a bad memory. But this boy approaches his studies in a smooth, sure, effective way, and with great good temper; it reminds one of the quiet flow of a stream of oil.(...)
But personally I think that stupidity can be acquired in other way too - by anti-social acts like stealing or killing - some pathways in brain shoots down and some thinks start to be considered absurd and joke, literally logical deduction starts to giving other results... For example "justice" is common victim. Maybe it is psychological reaction but for sure it is life changing if you suddenly can't understand "bigger picture"...
Another common stupidity system is concentrating on what you feel and only on that, making it compass of your life... It's complicated because "feelings" are part of biological instructional and self-preservation mechanism.