On Dec 5, 2007, at 4:45 AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: > Warren Ockrassa wrote: >> >>> (2) Most people are stupid, and forced to think for themselves >>> will opt for the most stupid and evil choices >> >> No. It's a mischaracterization -- and unfair -- to assert that most >> people are stupid. Most people are not stupid. They make the best >> operational decisions they can given the information available to >> them. If most people were stupid, our species would have been extinct >> long ago. >> > Most people is stupid _and_ most stupid people have an instinctive > drive to mindlessly obey the orders of those that they believe are > more intelligent - and this is what prevents extinction.
This is an interesting pair of claims and I'd be intrigued to know what evidence you have to support either one of them, and more particularly why you've arrived at the conclusion you have. What I mean is that it almost looks like you've made a decision and are doing a post hoc analysis to support it. It might help to define what you mean by "stupid", but what I'm reading here could be inverted as this: "Because many people tend to be followers rather than leaders, and because many people prefer the comfort of feeling part of a group to the relative discomfort of being "trend-setters", most people tend to align with a leader of their choice. This can lead to destructive, mindless behavior and inculcate intellectual laziness, which can often be characterized as rank stupidity." That's not the same thing as saying that most people are stupid, but it might be a middle ground that's more conducive to productive discussion regarding what to actually *do* about it. And with groups in play, stupidity might be relative. Consider, for instance, that a YEC would consider most biologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, physicists and geologists as being incredibly stupid for not seeing the obvious clarity of the point of view that aligns to strict Biblical interpretation. And that is relevant, because Isaac Newton was a young-earth creationist and, when he wasn't inventing calculus in order to define physics and optics, he was trying to find proofs of a literal interpretation of Biblical teachings. So which was he? Stupid or brilliant? Or consider what might happen if I were to begin holding forth on the subject of opera, about which I know essentially nothing. To an aficionado I'd sure as hell look plenty stupid, but it would (probably) be a mistake to characterize me as being so, instead of simply labeling me a loudmouthed ignoramus on the topic. The point is that we might be more inclined to consider those who are not part of our in-crowd as being stupid simply because they aren't part of our in-crowd, but as with the case of Newton, it seems unwise to apply one label to all members of a clade. If you're thinking of "stupid" as meaning "inclined to mental laziness", I'd probably agree, but my personal working definition of "stupid" is (more or less) "totally incapable of comprehending something". I don't believe the concepts are equivalent, and I don't believe most people fit that definition of stupid. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
