Warren Ockrassa wrote: > >> 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, > Evidence? None, except accumulated experience that comes with old age.
> 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. > Which decision? > It might help to define what you mean by "stupid", but what I'm > reading here could be inverted as this: > Stupid = not able to think clearly. People who believe that a fairy may turn 2 + 2 into fish. > "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. > Ah, the relativity of evaluation... > 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? > At that time? He was extremely brilliant! Not being a literal interpreter of the Bible had dangerous consequences those times, like having his brain physically separated from his heart by more than 2 meters. > 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. > This is not stupidity, this is ignorance of a specialized field. > 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. > Maybe everybody is totally incapable of comprehending something - after all, human knowledge is much bigger than the size of human brains :-) Alberto Monteiro _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
