Only if they think they aren’t stupid themselves. I think everybody, including me, in past and present (and most likely in the future) is stupid.
I mean we’ve got more or less the same brain people in the stone ages had and are trying to solve problems in the microcomputing age. Of course we’re going to make mistakes and most ideas we have about the universe or society are probably wrong. And of course we’ll repeat the mistakes of our ancestors.
So I don’t think thinking of someone as stupid is bad, just assuming you’re less stupid is.
Sorry I get equally worked up over the assumption that people aren’t stupid.
Is it useful to define “stupid” as the level of intelligence that everybody possesses? I’m not saying it isn’t - maybe thinking “I’m stupid and so is everyone else” really is the appropriate level of humility. But, on the other hand, someone must ultimately make important decisions, so we can’t just say “no one is qualified”. With apologies to George Orwell, all people are stupid but some people are less stupid than others. So I think our language should distinguish between the two.
Yes I’d say so. I get where you’re coming from but I don’t think it’s an excuse not to make decisions. Quite the opposite in fact.
I think of it like this: if you think you’re smart, you expect to make best choice for every decision. So in tough situations, where there is no “right” choice, you beat yourself up about not doing better. If you accept you’re stupid, you’re willing to settle for the least wrong and accept failiure.
The same goes for interacting with others. Don’t expect others to make the best choice, as they’re stupid too, so you might find a better solution. But if you did not find one and they didn’t, well, they’re stupid, so of course they did not. Can’t blame them really.
I’m no native speaker so perhaps stupid and smart are the wrong words in this context. Perhaps fallible and infallible are better suited.
When you think you’re smart, you’re willing to take the chance to kick the can on a disaster to another day, to give you more time to solve the problem. Even if that means making the problem bigger and bigger each time, and even if there ultimately is no solution. Smart people know their strengths, but almost always overlook their weaknesses. That’s why being smart is not something to brag about.
There’s an argument to be made that the smartest people are what we might consider “sick” (I’d prefer to say aberrant), and they are a response to a society in crisis biologically attempting to solve an existential problem by increasing its available responses to the threat. If you’re born to act, it must be very difficult to solve a problem that can only be solved by a lack of action. Like solving pollution and emissions - we can’t keep kicking the can, we have to accept sacrifice and start winding down our industry. The greater our drive to overcome this natural limit, the greater our overshoot and fall.
Intelligence is a double-edged sword. I tend to pity those who wield it most.
Only if they think they aren’t stupid themselves. I think everybody, including me, in past and present (and most likely in the future) is stupid.
I mean we’ve got more or less the same brain people in the stone ages had and are trying to solve problems in the microcomputing age. Of course we’re going to make mistakes and most ideas we have about the universe or society are probably wrong. And of course we’ll repeat the mistakes of our ancestors.
So I don’t think thinking of someone as stupid is bad, just assuming you’re less stupid is.
Sorry I get equally worked up over the assumption that people aren’t stupid.
Is it useful to define “stupid” as the level of intelligence that everybody possesses? I’m not saying it isn’t - maybe thinking “I’m stupid and so is everyone else” really is the appropriate level of humility. But, on the other hand, someone must ultimately make important decisions, so we can’t just say “no one is qualified”. With apologies to George Orwell, all people are stupid but some people are less stupid than others. So I think our language should distinguish between the two.
Yes I’d say so. I get where you’re coming from but I don’t think it’s an excuse not to make decisions. Quite the opposite in fact.
I think of it like this: if you think you’re smart, you expect to make best choice for every decision. So in tough situations, where there is no “right” choice, you beat yourself up about not doing better. If you accept you’re stupid, you’re willing to settle for the least wrong and accept failiure.
The same goes for interacting with others. Don’t expect others to make the best choice, as they’re stupid too, so you might find a better solution. But if you did not find one and they didn’t, well, they’re stupid, so of course they did not. Can’t blame them really.
I’m no native speaker so perhaps stupid and smart are the wrong words in this context. Perhaps fallible and infallible are better suited.
When you think you’re smart, you’re willing to take the chance to kick the can on a disaster to another day, to give you more time to solve the problem. Even if that means making the problem bigger and bigger each time, and even if there ultimately is no solution. Smart people know their strengths, but almost always overlook their weaknesses. That’s why being smart is not something to brag about.
There’s an argument to be made that the smartest people are what we might consider “sick” (I’d prefer to say aberrant), and they are a response to a society in crisis biologically attempting to solve an existential problem by increasing its available responses to the threat. If you’re born to act, it must be very difficult to solve a problem that can only be solved by a lack of action. Like solving pollution and emissions - we can’t keep kicking the can, we have to accept sacrifice and start winding down our industry. The greater our drive to overcome this natural limit, the greater our overshoot and fall.
Intelligence is a double-edged sword. I tend to pity those who wield it most.