Stupid people

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122361 wrote:

to be a stupid person, you have to be stupid as a long term tendency.

your making up rules to support you're opinion. when we look at the term stupid definitively we find that there is no temporal threshold one must cross in order to be stupid.

in every person there is good and bad, stupidity and wisdom, strength and weakness, etc. people are complex, everyone is slow or (stupid) in some subject or some way. still that really wasn't the point of my original post, the point was that there is a fallacy in thinking that one persons intellect makes them superior to another person, because given the right amount of time and information anyone is capable of understanding, storing, and recalling the most complex data, and so intellectually equal.

@Mowgli phil,

Mowgli;122383 wrote:

your making up rules to support you're opinion. when we look at the term stupid definitively we find that there is no temporal threshold one must cross in order to be stupid.

What does that mean? To be smart person, you have to do smart things over your a period of time. And, to be a stupid person, you have to do stupid things over a period of time. One swallow does not make a summer, and one stupid action does not make a stupid person. But if someone does a lot of stupid things over a life-time, he is a stupid person. That is how the term "stupid" is used.

@Deckard,

Mowgli wrote:

If we took the stupidest person in the world, and gave him 9 million years to learn everything no matter how stupid that person is he could still complete this task.

Not true. It's not just a matter of time, it's a matter of ability. Some people are just incapable of understanding certain things.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122386 wrote:

What does that mean? To be smart person, you have to do smart things over your a period of time. And, to be a stupid person, you have to do stupid things over a period of time. One swallow does not make a summer, and one stupid action does not make a stupid person. But if someone does a lot of stupid things over a life-time, he is a stupid person. That is how the term "stupid" is used.

obviously i dont know you, but as an example i will take a guess that you know little about entomology, and will know little about it for the rest of your life. that makes you stupid in the field of entomology over a long period of time, and so by (your) definition makes you a stupid person.

(you could also say that for every smart person there is or will be a smarter person who sees that person subjectivly as stupid hence everyone is stupid. )<< just for fun

in every person there is good and bad, stupidity and wisdom, strength and weakness, etc. people are complex, everyone is slow or (stupid) in some subject or some way. still that really wasn't the point of my original post, the point was that there is a fallacy in thinking that one persons intellect makes them superior to another person, because given the right amount of time and information anyone is capable of understanding, storing, and recalling the most complex data, and so intellectually equal.

---------- Post added 01-25-2010 at 10:15 AM ----------

Zetherin;122393 wrote:

Not true. It's not just a matter of time, it's a matter of ability. Some people are just incapable of understanding certain things.

i don't believe that. are you saying that given a thousand years, the information, and a good teacher a person with a below average I.Q. still couldn't grasp calculus?

@Deckard,

Mowgli wrote:

i don't believe that. are you saying that given a thousand years, the information, and a good teacher a person with a below average I.Q. still couldn't grasp calculus?

Yes. There are certain equations even people of very high intelligences cannot grasp.

There are also certain people who are so severely mentally retarded that they cannot grasp any mathematical equations.

Again, it's not just a matter of time, it's a matter of ability.

@Mowgli phil,

[QUOTE=Mowgli;122397]i don't believe that. are you saying that given a thousand years, the information, and a good teacher a person with a below average I.Q. still couldn't grasp calculus?[/QUOTE]
Slow learners (or people with low IQ's) can learn, but it takes a slow learner a bit more time to learn than those who are not slow learners. People who are moderately retarded take more time to learn calculus than do people who are not. Most severely retarded people will never learn it.

How stupid or smart a person is has more to do with a persons capacity to quickly learn a subject whereas how ignorance or knowledgeable a person is has more to do with whether a person has or has not learned something.

Consider four different people:
1) Allen (a slow learner and ignorant of calculus)
2) Bob (a slow learner yet knowledgeable of calculus)
3) Cathy (not a slow learner and ignorant of calculus)
4) Dillon (not a slow learner and knowledgeable of calculus)

Allen and Bob can't do anything about the fact they are slow learners, just as most people can't do anything about the fact they are ugly or beautiful, but people can often do something about being ignorant, just as they can do something about whether or not they take the time to comb their hair. There is no cure for stupidity (unfortunately), but there is a cure for ignorance.

The cure for ignorance is to learn, for learning yields knowledge, so even though Bob is a slow learner, he did manage to learn calculus, because he (unlike Cathy) put in the time to learn calculus.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;122404 wrote:

Yes. There are certain equations even people of very high intelligences cannot grasp.

There are also certain people who are so severely mentally retarded that they cannot grasp any mathematical equations.

Again, it's not just a matter of time, it's a matter of ability.

since it is currently impossible for me to test my idea, and prove myself right or wrong we will have to agree to disagree. thanks for commenting though.

---------- Post added 01-25-2010 at 10:59 AM ----------

fast;122405 wrote:

Slow learners (or people with low IQ's) can learn, but it takes a slow learner a bit more time to learn than those who are not slow learners. People who are moderately retarded take more time to learn calculus than do people who are not. Most severely retarded people will never learn it.

How stupid or smart a person is has more to do with a persons capacity to quickly learn a subject whereas how ignorance or knowledgeable a person is has more to do with whether a person has or has not learned something.

Consider four different people:
1) Allen (a slow learner and ignorant of calculus)
2) Bob (a slow learner yet knowledgeable of calculus)
3) Cathy (not a slow learner and ignorant of calculus)
4) Dillon (not a slow learner and knowledgeable of calculus)

Allen and Bob can't do anything about the fact they are slow learners, just as most people can't do anything about the fact they are ugly or beautiful, but people can often do something about being ignorant, just as they can do something about whether or not they take the time to comb their hair. There is no cure for stupidity (unfortunately), but there is a cure for ignorance.

The cure for ignorance is to learn, for learning yields knowledge, so even though Bob is a slow learner, he did manage to learn calculus, because he (unlike Cathy) put in the time to learn calculus.

thank you, you have just said what i said in my original post.

@Mowgli phil,

Mowgli;122397 wrote:

obviously i dont know you, but as an example i will take a guess that you know little about entomology, and will know little about it for the rest of your life. that makes you stupid in the field of entomology over a long period of time, and so by (your) definition makes you a stupid person.

?

Wrong. You are confusing stupidity with ignorance. If people don't know something, then they are ignorant of that thing. But that is not stupidity. Look up both words, "ignorance" and "stupidity" in the dictionary. You are ignorant of the distinction between them, but that does not mean you are stupid (unless, of course, you cannot see the difference, or learn the difference between them). It makes no sense to say you are stupid of X. It isn't even English. But, of course, it makes sense to say that you are ignorant of X, and that is English. You cannot be "stupid of" something. But you can be "ignorant of" something.

@Deckard,

Mowgli wrote:

since it is currently impossible for me to test my idea, and prove myself right or wrong we will have to agree to disagree. thanks for commenting though.

But you can use what we currently know and then come to a reasonable conclusion. All brains are not equal. This is demonstrated almost every day. Some people are so mentally retarded, they cannot even care for themselves properly. They don't have the capacity to understand how to use the telephone, let alone grasp the innerworkings of a theoretical physics equation. And no matter how much time these people are given, it doesn't change the fact that they are disabled.

If you put a dog in a room with a calculus book and a good teacher, you think the dog would eventually learn calculus? I think the reasonable answer is no, it will not learn calculus. A dog is unable to learn calculus, no matter how long you try to teach it.

@Deckard,

Learning speed is a factor when measuring stupidity (=low intelligence). I usually skip most of my history classes because teaching myself history is faster than sitting and listening in class. Though I have to go sometimes otherwise my absense will be too high. Still even though I teach myself it, I still need a teacher to suggest me which books to read. That is the job of a good teacher.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;122422 wrote:

If you put a dog in a room with a calculus book and a good teacher, you think the dog would eventually learn calculus? I think the reasonable answer is no, it will not learn calculus. A dog is unable to learn calculus, no matter how long you try to teach it.

We are talking about people compared with other people not people compared with dogs or any other animal, vegetable or mineral for that matter.

@Deckard,

Deckard;122431 wrote:

We are talking about people compared with other people not people compared with dogs or any other animal, vegetable or mineral for that matter.

A very mentally retarded human isn't capable of much more than the brightest dog. In fact, I'd expect the brightest dog could care for itself more properly. But, I don't think either could learn calculus, regardless of the amount of time given. You do?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;122438 wrote:

A very mentally retarded human isn't capable of much more than the brightest dog. In fact, I'd expect the brightest dog could care for itself more properly. But, I don't think either could learn calculus, regardless of the amount of time given. You do?

Chickens and spatulas are also incapable of learning calculus. There is quite a long list of things incapable of learning calculus. A million retarded people tapping away at a million typewriters for an unlimited amount of time would eventually write Newtons Principia. That's a funny mental picture but I digress; it's something I do sometimes; yep, I'm a digressor, or is it digresser? Anyway, would a retarded person come closer to learning calculus than a dog? I suppose dogs have some language skills but I think even retarded humans have them beat on that front. Can a computer learn calculus or is being programmed different from learning? Would dogs have computers beat on this front? How about a robot dog like the one that belongs to Doctor Who. Or should that be: "Doctor Whom"? It is the objective case so I think it should be "Whom" but then "Doctor Who" isn't really his name it's just the name of the show; he's just the "the doctor" or rather "The Doctor". I think I use the semicolon too much. I have digressed. I don't see how equating retarded-human-calculus-learning-abilities and canine-calculus-learning-abilities achieves anything beyond the faint suggestion that retarded humans are more like dogs than they are like humans who can learn calculus. Was Rainman retarded? I bet he knew calculus or he could learn it or maybe it would just make him mad and he would start screaming about Wapner and K-mart and banging his head against the wall. That movie's old. I'm dating myself. However, I'm not putting out unless I buy myself dinner. I liked that song at the beginning of Rainman: "Iko Iko". The lyrics are wicked scary like some voodoo hex or something.

@Emil,

[QUOTE=Emil;122430]Still even though I teach myself it, I still need a teacher to suggest me which books to read. That is the job of a good teacher.[/QUOTE]You got to be kidding! A teacher's job is to teach. Of course, there's a lot more to being a teacher than teaching, and yes, it may occasionally include suggesting reading material, but that is hardly characteristic of the job of a good teacher.

By the way, there's a lot to learn from being in class. You will walk away with more by participating in class when appropriate--more than if you simply show up for test time, and even if you don't participate, it's often more beneficial to be present than not. People that rarely show up are usually socially deficient in some way.

@Deckard,

"bastard" doesn't make sense as a derogative because it isn't a big deal if someone is born out of wedlock these days. Just like "homo" doesn't make sense as a derogative.

So, while you can quite accurately discuss how many people lack intelligence, wisdom, or critical thinking skills, what we are talking about with "are most people stupid" is whether it makes sense as a derogative, i.e. are you really going to call someone stupid if they can handle a job and raising their family. I think we can quibble about the definitions, but this is what the thread is really about.

I would say that most people are not smart, most people are not intelligent, but I wouldn't say that most people are stupid.

@Deckard,

Deckard;122456 wrote:

Chickens and spatulas are also incapable of learning calculus. There is quite a long list of things incapable of learning calculus. A million retarded people tapping away at a million typewriters for an unlimited amount of time would eventually write Newtons Principia. That's a funny mental picture but I digress; it's something I do sometimes; yep, I'm a digressor, or is it digresser? Anyway, would a retarded person come closer to learning calculus than a dog? I suppose dogs have some language skills but I think even retarded humans have them beat on that front. Can a computer learn calculus or is being programmed different from learning? Would dogs have computers beat on this front? How about a robot dog like the one that belongs to Doctor Who. Or should that be: "Doctor Whom"? It is the objective case so I think it should be "Whom" but then "Doctor Who" isn't really his name it's just the name of the show; he's just the "the doctor" or rather "The Doctor". I think I use the semicolon too much. I have digressed. I don't see how equating retarded-human-calculus-learning-abilities and canine-calculus-learning-abilities achieves anything beyond the faint suggestion that retarded humans are more like dogs than they are like humans who can learn calculus. Was Rainman retarded? I bet he knew calculus or he could learn it or maybe it would just make him mad and he would start screaming about Wapner and K-mart and banging his head against the wall. That movie's old. I'm dating myself. However, I'm not putting out unless I buy myself dinner. I liked that song at the beginning of Rainman: "Iko Iko". The lyrics are wicked scary like some voodoo hex or something.

I think you well understood my point, but you just decided to be a prick. Which is fine, but don't use my dog mention as a red herring. Thanks.

But in case you really don't understand my point: No, not everyone human can learn calculus. And no, not every human can understand, let alone write, Newton's Principia. I have no clue why you, or anyone, would think this. The mere fact that an organism is human, doesn't mean it's necessarily more capable of learning. A very retarded human is less capable, in many respects, than other bright mammals.

Quote:

A million retarded people tapping away at a million typewriters for an unlimited amount of time would eventually write Newtons Principia.

I wonder if you really believe this, or if this was also said in a jocular fashion. I wonder if you think a million toddlers tapping away at a million typewriters would eventually write Newton's Principia, too.

A million idiots would still produce idiotic results. Some people will never be brilliant, that's all.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;122481 wrote:

I would say that most people are not smart, most people are not intelligent, but I wouldn't say that most people are stupid.

Yes. I agree. It is a matter of degree, and a matter of standards.

@Jebediah,

If stupid means below average intelligence then most people are not stupid since by definition, at most 50% of the people are below the average. On the other hand, I suppose there could be some incredibly smart people or incredibly stupid people skewing the distribution; it seems unlikely that it would just happen to be a perfect bell curve.

I don't think that differences in intelligence are all that important. What is lacking in the general populous is the will to do what's right. The smartest people are often the best at lying to themselves. Some would call lying to oneself stupid but at some point we have to realize the limits of Reason. Reason is a bit of a whore if not kept in check (that's very sexists language so ladies feel free to imagine a gigolo). Most of the problems in the world are not the result of stupidity but rather cowardice, greed, sloth, pride...you know the old vices. True, there are intellectual virtues but it is unwise and impractical to reduce all vice to a lack of intellect. When I hear "most people are stupid" (or whatever variation of that sentiment) it is more often something other than stupidity at play when the actual case is examined.

Zetherin;122484 wrote:

I think you well understood my point, but you just decided to be a prick.

I wasn't being a prick; I was just trying to be funny. The million retarded people typing was a variation of the infinite monkey theorem. Uh shucks, I guess I compared retarded people to monkeys but that's a little better than dogs I guess. Just being a goof-ball Zetherin. Nothing personal.

@Deckard,

Zetherin,

If there is just anything above a mere logical possibility that a toddler (or whatever) can write whatever work is the chosen (Shakespeare or whatever), then given infinite time it will happen. Anything with a Pr(P)>0 will happen in infinite time.

@Emil,

Emil;122520 wrote:

Zetherin,

If there is just anything above a mere logical possibility that a toddler (or whatever) can write whatever work is the chosen (Shakespeare or whatever), then given infinite time it will happen. Anything with a Pr(P)>0 will happen in infinite time.

I'm not going to pretend I know what "Pr(P)>0" means, but I suppose you're speaking of a possible world example. The fact is, not everything is possible, and a retarded human will not produce brilliant thoughts simply based on the amount of time he/she thinks. It is a matter of ability, not time.

So, if I understand you correctly (which I'm not sure I do because you're not speaking plain English), I disagree.

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know