Stupid people

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 07:06 am
@Mowgli phil,
Mowgli;122654 wrote:
wrong. stupid can mean slow to learn or grasp a concept, and i never said someone can be stupid of anything. i sad someone can be stupid ABOUT something. i am starting to think your not even reading my posts.


What you wrote was:

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.

"Stupid in" isn't English either. And, you are still confusing ignorance with stupidity. If I don't know anything about bugs, then I am ignorant of entomology. I am not "stupid in" entomology. Whatever that might mean.
 
memester
 
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 07:55 am
@Emil,
Emil;122712 wrote:



consider a thought example. An arrow will be shot at a disc. The arrow's head is 1 point large. The head will hit the disc somewhere at random. The disc has an infinite number of points. The chance of the arrow hitting any single point on the disc is thus 1/∞=0.
Is it true that the disc has infinite number of points, AND that the arrow has but one point ? and if it is , isn't the answer "approaching" zero, not AT zero ?
 
Insty
 
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 10:02 am
@Emil,
Emil;122974 wrote:
If you merely lack belief that most people are stupid, then you are neither correct nor incorrect since you hold no belief on the matter. If you believe what I wrote before, then you are wrong. It is pretty obvious that most people are stupid.

I find that IQs are not a good measure of stupidity. Even many people with high IQs are stupid. Having a high IQ is nothing more than being good at solving abstract "find the pattern" problems, not very applicable to common human life which is concrete and not abstract. But even in common life people fail. They do stupid things such as smoking, driving while drunk, become too drunk, eat the wrong food etc. even though they know of the consequences and know that these consequences are in conflict with their long-term interests.


To say that I don't think most people are stupid isn't to say that I hold no belief on the matter. For example, it might be a way of saying that a claim like "most people are stupid" doesn't make much sense.

And it doesn't make much sense. This springs partly from the fact that the meaning of the term "stupid" isn't very clear. You've given some account of what you think stupidity is. But it is, after all, your view; and, with all due respect, I don't find it very persuasive. Yes, people do all sorts of things that conflict with their long-term interests. But there's no reason to think that it is always stupid to pursue one's short-term interests over one's long-term interests is always stupid.

Nor do the examples you've given strike me as apt. It's not at all clear, for instance, that a person who drives drunk is stupid. In fact, to the extent that stupidity might mitigate a person's culpability, it would be quite wrong to call such a person stupid. "Malicious" may well be closer to the mark.

Perhaps with a lot more argument and clarification, you could persuade me that most people are stupid. But I don't think so.
 
Mowgli phil
 
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 10:16 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;122994 wrote:
What you wrote was:

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.

"Stupid in" isn't English either. And, you are still confusing ignorance with stupidity. If I don't know anything about bugs, then I am ignorant of entomology. I am not "stupid in" entomology. Whatever that might mean.



i am using the term stupid in a strange way in this sentence but not because i am confusing it with ignorance in my dictionary it states it defines stupid in a few ways and one of those was is and i quote, "Marked by a lack of intelligence" as in you have a lack of intelligence in reference to entomology. intelligence being used here to mean information. also the fact that ignorance and stupidity are similar if not the same in meaning is not unintelligent seeing as how stupid and ignoramus are synonyms of each other.

the argument of the exact meaning of stupid seems to me tedious, and since we are talking about whether or not people are slow or unintelligent, meaning without intelligence or without data in this conversation what wording we use is little more than semantics which could be cleared up simply by you going to dictionary. com and looking up the words. there you will see that the word stupid has in fact several meanings. the point i was trying to make is the important thing not the wording i have chosen. i am unsure at this point how i can further explain my view on this subject

you seem to be stuck on the word stupid. you obviously dislike the word or have some problem with it. the reason i have used the term stupid has not been to be offensive but because it is the wording used by the thread maker, and i wonder if i had used a different word with a similar meaning if you would have agreed with me.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 10:42 am
@Mowgli phil,
Mowgli;123025 wrote:
i am using the term stupid in a strange way in this sentence but not because i am confusing it with ignorance in my dictionary it states it defines stupid in a few ways and one of those was is and i quote, "Marked by a lack of intelligence" as in you have a lack of intelligence in reference to entomology. intelligence being used here to mean information. also the fact that ignorance and stupidity are similar if not the same in meaning is not unintelligent seeing as how stupid and ignoramus are synonyms of each other.

the argument of the exact meaning of stupid seems to me tedious, and since we are talking about whether or not people are slow or unintelligent, meaning without intelligence or without data in this conversation what wording we use is little more than semantics which could be cleared up simply by you going to dictionary. com and looking up the words. there you will see that the word stupid has in fact several meanings. the point i was trying to make is the important thing not the wording i have chosen. i am unsure at this point how i can further explain my view on this subject

you seem to be stuck on the word stupid. you obviously dislike the word or have some problem with it. the reason i have used the term stupid has not been to be offensive but because it is the wording used by the thread maker, and i wonder if i had used a different word with a similar meaning if you would have agreed with me.


If you know no entomology, you are ignorant of entomolgy..You are not "stupid of entomology", "stupid in entomology", or stupid at all. "Ignorant" means, "do not know". You may, however be ignorant because you are stupid. But ignorance (not knowing) can be caused in other ways too. I have no idea what your point is, or, indeed, whether you have one.
 
Mowgli phil
 
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 04:19 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;123028 wrote:
If you know no entomology, you are ignorant of entomolgy..You are not "stupid of entomology", "stupid in entomology", or stupid at all. "Ignorant" means, "do not know". You may, however be ignorant because you are stupid. But ignorance (not knowing) can be caused in other ways too. I have no idea what your point is, or, indeed, whether you have one.



I have quoted the dictionary, and told you what dictionary I use, and where to find it to read it for yourself. you have already made this point, and I refuted it with evidence. unless you have a rebuttal I have not already rectified there is nothing I can add to the conversation. repeating myself would only bore the both of us.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 04:29 pm
@Mowgli phil,
Mowgli;123115 wrote:
I have quoted the dictionary, and told you what dictionary I use, and where to find it to read it for yourself. you have already made this point, and I refuted it with evidence. unless you have a rebuttal I have not already rectified there is nothing I can add to the conversation. repeating myself would only bore the both of us.


Eh, exactly what did you refute?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 07:32 pm
@Deckard,
Emil wrote:
Accepting and assuming are different. Assuming is without adequate evidence. Accepting can be with or without adequate evidence. At least, that's how I use them. People sometimes criticize others for assuming 'without proof' something, which is kind of a stupid criticism since all assumptions are 'without proof'. To talk of assuming something with good reason is a contradiction. Though people sometimes write things like "we have good reason to assume [P]" but that is different. And this is not important or relevant for the topic of this thread, that is, the stupidity of the general population.


I've seen people use assume with good reason (that is, they assumed for good reason), but did not write out something akin to, "we have good reason to assume". I don't think we should assume that every time someone assumes, they don't assume for good reason Wink

But, yes, this isn't relevant.

Quote:
The argument given in standard english should be taken as identical to the one expressed below in formal english and formal logic. What I meant with the quoted passage is that from the premises and the assumption we can deduce a contradiction and thus the assumption is false. This is standard RAA procedure. RAA meaning reductio ad absurdum.


I wasn't questioning the procedure. I was questioning why you accepted what you accepted; I am questioning something specific to this argument.

Here, let me try again: Can you explain premise 1 to me?
 
Emil
 
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 11:48 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;123144 wrote:

I wasn't questioning the procedure. I was questioning why you accepted what you accepted; I am questioning something specific to this argument.

Here, let me try again: Can you explain premise 1 to me?


The probability of the arrow hitting any single point is 0. The arrow hits one point at random. There are an infinite number of points. The probability is thus 1/∞, that is, 0.
 
memester
 
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 11:56 pm
@Emil,
Emil;123173 wrote:
The probability of the arrow hitting any single point is 0. The arrow hits one point at random. There are an infinite number of points. The probability is thus 1/∞, that is, 0.
and for a second arrow...probabity would be one over infinity minus 1 ? not zero ?
 
Mowgli phil
 
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 12:51 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;123117 wrote:
Eh, exactly what did you refute?


I refuted your stance that I was improperly using the word stupid. Are you just messing with me or something?

---------- Post added 01-28-2010 at 01:05 AM ----------

Zetherin;122422 wrote:
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.


I'm talking about people not dogs, and if someone is so mentally retarded that they cannot learn, and are basically brain dead, they are not stupid or intelligent because their would be nothing to measure in which to classify them, and so they would be outside of the limitations of my original hypothesis. I still stand by my point that if the person had the ability to learn no matter how slow they may be with a limitless amount of time they may learn anything. we can (not) test my idea with what we know now, because my idea deals with an infinite amount of time, and because of this neither you nor i can do more than speculate on the out come. so as i said before we will have to agree to disagree.
 
Emil
 
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 02:35 am
@memester,
memester;123175 wrote:
and for a second arrow...probabity would be one over infinity minus 1 ? not zero ?


Assuming that it could not hit the same spot, it would still be 0. 1/∞ = 1/(∞-1), because ∞-1=∞.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 04:14 am
@Emil,
Ever since I looked up the etymology of stupid I've tended to think of stupid as meaning struck senseless. I tend to imagine that something happened to the stupid people that made them stupid. When I hear the word ascribed to a person I tend to imagine that the person must have been bonked on the head either literally or metaphorically. Perhaps that lady there was done in by the grief of the death of a child that was too much to bear - and maybe that guy took some bad acid or laced pot - and maybe that girl was dropped on her head as a child - and maybe some manipulative types f*cked with that kid's head until he cracked. Who knows what it was? They were normal and then something happened, some tragedy, some malicious act, or some random event and BANG! they were stupid from that moment forward. Irreparably damaged for the rest of their pitiful lives. So, for me at least, "stupid" is similar both denotatively and connotatively to that southern colloquialism "touched in the head". But I suppose the word means different things to different people as is the case with any word.

This also makes me think of the staff of Hermes because I remember something about Hermes striking humans on the head with his staff and thereby making them either wise or stupid depending on how the god was feeling that day I guess.

Quote:
stupid http://www.etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gif1541, "mentally slow," from M.Fr. stupide, from L. stupidus "amazed, confounded," lit. "struck senseless," from stupere "be stunned, amazed, confounded," from PIE *(s)tupe- "hit," from base *(s)teu- (see steep (adj.)). Native words for this idea include negative compounds with words for "wise" (cf. O.E. unwis, unsnotor, ungleaw), also dol (from root of Ger. toll "mad," related to Gk. tholeros "muddy, turbid"), and dysig (see dizzy
 
bfz
 
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 05:27 am
@Deckard,
hitchhikers guide to the galaxy argues that people think they are intelligent because of their ability to think about all kinds of things, alternatively it states that dolphins are inteligent because all they do is swim around all day and have fun. so forth a societys social construction of stupidity is what makes people stupid, without inequalities in society there wouldnt be a vast number of stupid people without comparison the word means nothing.
 
memester
 
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 08:45 am
@Emil,
Emil;123184 wrote:
Assuming that it could not hit the same spot, it would still be 0. 1/∞ = 1/(∞-1), because ∞-1=∞.
as the number of arrows approaches infinity, when number of arrows is infinity minus 2..still same answer ? zero probability ?
when does this zero probability change ? at what mark ?
If ∞-1=∞.
then it seems to me that ∞ - (∞-1) = 1,
whereas. since ∞-1=∞, it should leave 0

∞ - (∞-1), where ∞-1=∞
= ∞-∞
= 0
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 08:45 am
@Emil,
Emil;123173 wrote:
The probability of the arrow hitting any single point is 0. The arrow hits one point at random. There are an infinite number of points. The probability is thus 1/∞, that is, 0.


But why is the probability of the arrow hitting any single point 0? Is this bowman that bad? Is he/she not even shooting in the general direction?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 09:19 am
@bfz,
bfz;123197 wrote:
hitchhikers guide to the galaxy argues that people think they are intelligent because of their ability to think about all kinds of things, alternatively it states that dolphins are inteligent because all they do is swim around all day and have fun. so forth a societys social construction of stupidity is what makes people stupid, without inequalities in society there wouldnt be a vast number of stupid people without comparison the word means nothing.


"Stupid" and "intelligent" are relative terms like, "tall" and "short". Just as no one is intrinsically tall, no one is intrinsically stupid. The universe of discourse is, human beings. X may be a stupid human being. That is, X is stupid for a human being (or a college professor, or a participant in a philosophy forum, depending on the universe of discourse) Just as X may be tall for an ordinary person, but short for a basketball player. The universe of discourse has to be either specified, or it has to be given by the context of the conversation.
 
Emil
 
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 11:49 am
@memester,
memester;123230 wrote:
as the number of arrows approaches infinity, when number of arrows is infinity minus 2..still same answer ? zero probability ?
when does this zero probability change ? at what mark ?
If ∞-1=∞.
then it seems to me that ∞ - (∞-1) = 1,
whereas. since ∞-1=∞, it should leave 0

∞ - (∞-1), where ∞-1=∞
= ∞-∞
= 0


It is ∞-∞=∞, not ∞-∞=0.

---------- Post added 01-28-2010 at 06:51 PM ----------

Zetherin;123231 wrote:
But why is the probability of the arrow hitting any single point 0? Is this bowman that bad? Is he/she not even shooting in the general direction?


I already told you why. 1/∞=0. There are an infinite number of points. It will hit only one of them at random. The arrow will hit the target, that is stipulated in the thought example.

I may note that I persuaded a trained logician with this argument, or at least enough for him to change his homepage. See this page.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 11:56 am
@Emil,
Emil;123173 wrote:
The probability of the arrow hitting any single point is 0. The arrow hits one point at random. There are an infinite number of points. The probability is thus 1/∞, that is, 0.


The probability of a random arrow hitting somewhere within a square mile on an infinite plane is also 0.
 
Emil
 
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 12:04 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;123280 wrote:
The probability of a random arrow hitting somewhere within a square mile on an infinite plane is also 0.


That's right. You can create any number of scenarios for this point.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/22/2020 at 05:44:01