What is the source of stupidity?
Posted: 2002-11-13 12:47am
It all has to come from somewhere. Where?
StarDestroyer.Net BBS
Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
What is the source of stupidity?
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5730
Page 1 of 2
Posted: 2002-11-13 12:52am
Ignorance. Ignorance is the source of stupidity.
Posted: 2002-11-13 12:55am
Brainwashing is the case of stupidity. Well, in case of fundies, that is.
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
Posted: 2002-11-13 02:38am
Ignorance and acceptance of ignorance. Ignorance can be fixed by learning, but the real problem is those that accept just what they are taught and stay in their ignorance. Then they just become idiots.
Posted: 2002-11-13 02:38am
Stupidity: defined as the inability to think rationally. It is observed that aside from profound mental retardation (which would make one unable to operate a computer) all humans have the ability to perform deductive reasoning. Therefore, stupidity cannot be caused by mental disease or defect - i.e. there must be a psychological barrier. This barrier comes from a fallacious assumption that people are not idiots.
When one is born, one lacks the capability to communicate through language. Therefore, one learns through imitating the people they see around them. This inborn tendency to imitate is nessecary to facilitate any learning at all, but after the capability is gained to communicate through language, it becomes translated into the assumption that other people know what they are doing. This is especially true of the person's veiw of their parents: they are that person's entire world, and whatever they do or say must be correct. Keep this in mind.
Having gained language, there is always a factor in any conversation, the assumed superiority of knowledge (ASOK). Since any two people will be working from a different knowledge base, this factor determines what happens in the event of a conflict between them. A person who awards ASOK to the other person will always assume that whatever the other guy says is correct. An example of a case where it is appropriate to award ASOK to the other person is when you are talking about their subjective experience - obviously they know better than you do how they feel. Conversely, a person who takes ASOK for himself will always assume he is right when the other person contradicts him. There are three basic relationships:
debaters: both parties assume SOK
student-teacher: student defers SOK to the teacher
groupies: both parties go along with whatever the other says. This is extremely unhealthy.
The importance of this is that a very young child will, recognizing that they have no knowledge of their own, always defer ASOK to others. Parents usually encourage this - for instance:
Child: I'm tired
Parent: You can't be tired, you just napped.
Child: But I'm tired
Parent: You aren't tired - now get dressed
Child: But I'm tired...
While the parent in this example probably didn't intend this, you see how she sends the message that the child should trust her instead of his own feelings. Now, with the child's carefully trained uncritical acceptance of what others say, what happens when they inevitably run into a contradiction? Simple - their parents have the greatest influence (and the power to punish them), and no doubt the parent has taught them either expressly or by implication that others are not as reliable as they are, so the child sides with the parent's assertation. In the rare instances where they do not, this is quickly corrected by the parent. So, their ASOK structure is now this:
Parent > other people.
Notice that they themselves are conspicously missing from this structure - this is because they have not had to defend their own opinions yet.
When the child goes to school for the first time, they are given a new ASOK structure. Because the parent trusts them, the teachers are given SOK over everyone except the parent. Most importantly however, the child is given a title: student. This title, in their minds, gives them the right to consider themselves as having SOK - so the ASOK structure is now this:
Parent > teacher > adult > other students > self > all others.
Note that sometimes, a child will confront someone of greater status, but only with the knowledge given to them from someone higher on the ASOK structure. They will do this because accepting conflicting knowledge would mean that he higher person would be wrong, and that to them simply cannot be, so they learn to appeal to authority. The reason for the appeal is because they usually don't think they have any authority.
As the child learns, they realize that the actual source of the teacher's knowledge is work done by others and written in books. In the case of Sunday School, this book is the Bible. Because the teacher appears to have faith in what is written the books become (by her own admission) placed above her. But the student also learns that their parent was ultimately educated from the same source, so an interesting thing happens. The parent is displaced from the top of the ASOK structure, even though it was from them that they gained their faith in the books anyway. So now:
Books > parent > teacher > adult > students > self > other
Through this they learn to have selective faith, as their faith in the books is gained from the teacher even though the books may contradict her on other matters. It should be noted, however, that when I refer to books I'm talking only about textbooks, dictionaries, encyclopedias and the like; kids do easily make the distinction between that and fiction.
After selective faith is learned, tracking the ASOK structure becomes difficult because individual beliefs can be elevated to the status of fact while others from the same source remain questionable. But by selective faith, certain ideas become elevated to the status of unquestionable truth, simply because they are required to make the whole ASOK structure work. For example, in this case the assumption that books are infallible becomes elevated to such status. Further investigation shows that books can sometimes make mistakes, so within published literature there develops a new ASOK structure (where some books then become placed below real people because another book which their parents or original teachers had trust in contradicts it, thus allowing them to declare it fallible.) This new structure usually places the books that their teacher had faith in at the top. Because they remain constant and unchanging, any consensus between them has a very good chance of being elevated to unquestionable status and contradiction with that used as justification for taking books out of the ASOK structure.
At this point, it becomes impossible for these people to question the truth, because any source of equal status on the ASOK structure becomes demoted the instant it questions that assumption. Even as people reveal themselves to be fallible, and even as the personal ASOK structure places the person higher than their parent (which happens as soon as they realize how truly fucked up giving someone adult responsibilities without adult authority is - i.e. adolescence), these assumptions remain unquestionable. Therefore, their mind becomes boxed into thinking within these parameters and unable to trust reason when it contradicts their assumptions - thus, stupidity.
Some particular structures:
Rabid Trekkie: UA is that Star Trek is a hopeful and true vision of the future. Held because trek likes to portray itself as such. Because Trek holds Godlike status in their minds while Star Wars is merely fiction, they feel free to question the accuracy of any Wars material while Trek remains indisputable. Of course, because of selected faith, when forced to choose between two contradictory trek quotes, they will of of course choose the one that suits them best, then deny emotional influence in their logic because by virtue of being untrue, their mind has already declared the quote that doesn't suit them as not trek because it contradicts the unquestionable trek. Further, when defeated, they will say "it's just fiction anyway" when what they really mean is "Star Wars is just fiction, thus it shouldn't be able to challenge Trek"
Fundie Moron: UA is that the bible is true. This one is the most dangerous of all because barring a major catastophe in their lives they won't ever get rid of it. (Whereas a Trekkie can be cured by forcing them to watch annotated versions of the show with every scientific impossibility painstakingly pointed out.) Why? Because in thiis case the UA is a direct result of the ASOK structure (God placed before everyone else), and also they are afraid of rejecting it because they know they have no moral structure apart from God and if they turn away from him, they risk becoming amoral. This makes it easier for them to associate non-fundamentalism with immorality, so everyone who attempts to show them the falsity of the bible becomes labeled as ignorant or a liar, making it possible to ignore them because "God said so"
Breaking Free: Becoming intelligent is obviously impossible under the ASOK structure, because there is no greater argument than appeal to authority. However, we cannot live without it or something similar, because we cannot possibly know everything and we will always need some way of figuring out who to trust. However, while we cannot possibly know everything, we can reason perfectly. Thus, and intelligent person replaces the ASOK structure with two others: Assumed superiority of information, and assumed superiority of reason (ASOI and ASOR). This requires recognizing the difference between knowledge and intelligence - that the person who knows more is not nessecarily smarter. Unfortunately, because this society rewards education more than thought, many people don't know the difference. For people who do however, it allows them to make this distinction between ASOI and ASOR. While the ASOI remains complex (not everyone agrees on the most reliable sources of information), the ASOR in intelligent people is very simple:
self > everyone else
Because of this, if an argument doesn't make any god damned sense, it is rejected even if it comes from direct observation - the information source people usually trust the most. While this structure doesn't guarantee intelligence, it is the only one under which intelligence is possible.
Building intelligent people:
Obviously, we have to expose them very early on to the fact that other people are idiots so that they can develop the nessecary arrogance to create an ASOR structure under which they hold themselves higher than everyone else. Beyond that, I don't know.
Whew... that was a long post, but I hope that I've been able to say something coherent (I'd hate for this all to be utter bullshit)
When one is born, one lacks the capability to communicate through language. Therefore, one learns through imitating the people they see around them. This inborn tendency to imitate is nessecary to facilitate any learning at all, but after the capability is gained to communicate through language, it becomes translated into the assumption that other people know what they are doing. This is especially true of the person's veiw of their parents: they are that person's entire world, and whatever they do or say must be correct. Keep this in mind.
Having gained language, there is always a factor in any conversation, the assumed superiority of knowledge (ASOK). Since any two people will be working from a different knowledge base, this factor determines what happens in the event of a conflict between them. A person who awards ASOK to the other person will always assume that whatever the other guy says is correct. An example of a case where it is appropriate to award ASOK to the other person is when you are talking about their subjective experience - obviously they know better than you do how they feel. Conversely, a person who takes ASOK for himself will always assume he is right when the other person contradicts him. There are three basic relationships:
debaters: both parties assume SOK
student-teacher: student defers SOK to the teacher
groupies: both parties go along with whatever the other says. This is extremely unhealthy.
The importance of this is that a very young child will, recognizing that they have no knowledge of their own, always defer ASOK to others. Parents usually encourage this - for instance:
Child: I'm tired
Parent: You can't be tired, you just napped.
Child: But I'm tired
Parent: You aren't tired - now get dressed
Child: But I'm tired...
While the parent in this example probably didn't intend this, you see how she sends the message that the child should trust her instead of his own feelings. Now, with the child's carefully trained uncritical acceptance of what others say, what happens when they inevitably run into a contradiction? Simple - their parents have the greatest influence (and the power to punish them), and no doubt the parent has taught them either expressly or by implication that others are not as reliable as they are, so the child sides with the parent's assertation. In the rare instances where they do not, this is quickly corrected by the parent. So, their ASOK structure is now this:
Parent > other people.
Notice that they themselves are conspicously missing from this structure - this is because they have not had to defend their own opinions yet.
When the child goes to school for the first time, they are given a new ASOK structure. Because the parent trusts them, the teachers are given SOK over everyone except the parent. Most importantly however, the child is given a title: student. This title, in their minds, gives them the right to consider themselves as having SOK - so the ASOK structure is now this:
Parent > teacher > adult > other students > self > all others.
Note that sometimes, a child will confront someone of greater status, but only with the knowledge given to them from someone higher on the ASOK structure. They will do this because accepting conflicting knowledge would mean that he higher person would be wrong, and that to them simply cannot be, so they learn to appeal to authority. The reason for the appeal is because they usually don't think they have any authority.
As the child learns, they realize that the actual source of the teacher's knowledge is work done by others and written in books. In the case of Sunday School, this book is the Bible. Because the teacher appears to have faith in what is written the books become (by her own admission) placed above her. But the student also learns that their parent was ultimately educated from the same source, so an interesting thing happens. The parent is displaced from the top of the ASOK structure, even though it was from them that they gained their faith in the books anyway. So now:
Books > parent > teacher > adult > students > self > other
Through this they learn to have selective faith, as their faith in the books is gained from the teacher even though the books may contradict her on other matters. It should be noted, however, that when I refer to books I'm talking only about textbooks, dictionaries, encyclopedias and the like; kids do easily make the distinction between that and fiction.
After selective faith is learned, tracking the ASOK structure becomes difficult because individual beliefs can be elevated to the status of fact while others from the same source remain questionable. But by selective faith, certain ideas become elevated to the status of unquestionable truth, simply because they are required to make the whole ASOK structure work. For example, in this case the assumption that books are infallible becomes elevated to such status. Further investigation shows that books can sometimes make mistakes, so within published literature there develops a new ASOK structure (where some books then become placed below real people because another book which their parents or original teachers had trust in contradicts it, thus allowing them to declare it fallible.) This new structure usually places the books that their teacher had faith in at the top. Because they remain constant and unchanging, any consensus between them has a very good chance of being elevated to unquestionable status and contradiction with that used as justification for taking books out of the ASOK structure.
At this point, it becomes impossible for these people to question the truth, because any source of equal status on the ASOK structure becomes demoted the instant it questions that assumption. Even as people reveal themselves to be fallible, and even as the personal ASOK structure places the person higher than their parent (which happens as soon as they realize how truly fucked up giving someone adult responsibilities without adult authority is - i.e. adolescence), these assumptions remain unquestionable. Therefore, their mind becomes boxed into thinking within these parameters and unable to trust reason when it contradicts their assumptions - thus, stupidity.
Some particular structures:
Rabid Trekkie: UA is that Star Trek is a hopeful and true vision of the future. Held because trek likes to portray itself as such. Because Trek holds Godlike status in their minds while Star Wars is merely fiction, they feel free to question the accuracy of any Wars material while Trek remains indisputable. Of course, because of selected faith, when forced to choose between two contradictory trek quotes, they will of of course choose the one that suits them best, then deny emotional influence in their logic because by virtue of being untrue, their mind has already declared the quote that doesn't suit them as not trek because it contradicts the unquestionable trek. Further, when defeated, they will say "it's just fiction anyway" when what they really mean is "Star Wars is just fiction, thus it shouldn't be able to challenge Trek"
Fundie Moron: UA is that the bible is true. This one is the most dangerous of all because barring a major catastophe in their lives they won't ever get rid of it. (Whereas a Trekkie can be cured by forcing them to watch annotated versions of the show with every scientific impossibility painstakingly pointed out.) Why? Because in thiis case the UA is a direct result of the ASOK structure (God placed before everyone else), and also they are afraid of rejecting it because they know they have no moral structure apart from God and if they turn away from him, they risk becoming amoral. This makes it easier for them to associate non-fundamentalism with immorality, so everyone who attempts to show them the falsity of the bible becomes labeled as ignorant or a liar, making it possible to ignore them because "God said so"
Breaking Free: Becoming intelligent is obviously impossible under the ASOK structure, because there is no greater argument than appeal to authority. However, we cannot live without it or something similar, because we cannot possibly know everything and we will always need some way of figuring out who to trust. However, while we cannot possibly know everything, we can reason perfectly. Thus, and intelligent person replaces the ASOK structure with two others: Assumed superiority of information, and assumed superiority of reason (ASOI and ASOR). This requires recognizing the difference between knowledge and intelligence - that the person who knows more is not nessecarily smarter. Unfortunately, because this society rewards education more than thought, many people don't know the difference. For people who do however, it allows them to make this distinction between ASOI and ASOR. While the ASOI remains complex (not everyone agrees on the most reliable sources of information), the ASOR in intelligent people is very simple:
self > everyone else
Because of this, if an argument doesn't make any god damned sense, it is rejected even if it comes from direct observation - the information source people usually trust the most. While this structure doesn't guarantee intelligence, it is the only one under which intelligence is possible.
Building intelligent people:
Obviously, we have to expose them very early on to the fact that other people are idiots so that they can develop the nessecary arrogance to create an ASOR structure under which they hold themselves higher than everyone else. Beyond that, I don't know.
Whew... that was a long post, but I hope that I've been able to say something coherent (I'd hate for this all to be utter bullshit)
Posted: 2002-11-13 02:45am
lack of education and a general lack of free will. brainwashing can be ignored if you only
Question Authority
Think for Yourself
Question Authority
Think for Yourself
Posted: 2002-11-13 10:55am
I do believe that religion or a religious surrounding would ahve to be the source of all stupidity...Either that or it has to be som sort of government conspiracy caused by religion!!! 
Posted: 2002-11-13 12:27pm
The will to be stupid is the source of stupidty. If you want and work to be stupid, then you'll be stupid. If you work to avoid logic, then you'll remain stupid. If you instill your beliefs in your children, then your passing on the will for stupidty to the next generation.
Posted: 2002-11-13 12:40pm
Stupidity is the absence of intelligence. It does not come from anywhere per se; it simply exists by default unless the person is either smart enough to piece things together on his own or is sufficiently educated.
This is why religious fundie brainwashing is so effective on children and so useless on an intelligent adult; they don't have to reprogram a child; they fuck up his programming in the first place, because he's starting from zero.
This is why religious fundie brainwashing is so effective on children and so useless on an intelligent adult; they don't have to reprogram a child; they fuck up his programming in the first place, because he's starting from zero.
Posted: 2002-11-13 07:26pm
Hey, now, I do know quite a few atheist idiots. Not as many as fundie idiots, but still, religion alone won't do it. (And if you were joking, that was pretty funny...if not, read againpunkgothhippie wrote:I do believe that religion or a religious surrounding would ahve to be the source of all stupidity...Either that or it has to be som sort of government conspiracy caused by religion!!!
).Posted: 2002-11-13 07:29pm
Nothing created stupidity except humans' lack of intelligence, ie, ignorance.
Posted: 2002-11-13 08:19pm
Darkstar
Posted: 2002-11-13 08:21pm
and Arm-in-his-ass.DG_Cal_Wright wrote:Darkstar
Posted: 2002-11-13 08:21pm
And Azeron and Sith God and....IG-88E wrote:and Arm-in-his-ass.DG_Cal_Wright wrote:Darkstar
Posted: 2002-11-13 08:22pm
Jedi Knight! 
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
Posted: 2002-11-13 08:25pm
So it would be safe to say that the source of stupidity is the combined ignorance of SD.net's former trolls. Well, now the universe may implode. Last words, rot in fucking hell.
Posted: 2002-11-13 08:29pm
Uh, it's me. Sorry for creating all that stupidity. I promise I won't do it again. 
Posted: 2002-11-13 08:31pm
WARNING: being within fifty feet of this assassin droid is now extremely hazardous to your health. I suggest you back away. Now. And quickly.Andrew J. wrote:Uh, it's me. Sorry for creating all that stupidity. I promise I won't do it again.
Posted: 2002-11-13 08:34pm
Eep!IG-88E wrote:WARNING: being within fifty feet of this assassin droid is now extremely hazardous to your health. I suggest you back away. Now. And quickly.Andrew J. wrote:Uh, it's me. Sorry for creating all that stupidity. I promise I won't do it again.
*starts running very quickly. In the wrong direction*
*accidentally slams into IG-88E*
Posted: 2002-11-13 08:39pm
Iggy grabs Andrew by the arm and....Andrew J. wrote:Eep!
*starts running very quickly. In the wrong direction*
*accidentally slams into IG-88E*
Posted: 2002-11-13 08:42pm
Uh...IG-88E wrote:Iggy grabs Andrew by the arm and....Andrew J. wrote:Eep!
*starts running very quickly. In the wrong direction*
*accidentally slams into IG-88E*
I think the link is broken...[/i]
Posted: 2002-11-13 08:43pm
Funny, it's working perfectly from over here.Andrew J. wrote:Uh...IG-88E wrote:Iggy grabs Andrew by the arm and....Andrew J. wrote:Eep!
*starts running very quickly. In the wrong direction*
*accidentally slams into IG-88E*
I think the link is broken...
Posted: 2002-11-13 08:45pm
I see it. But if you can't...
Posted: 2002-11-13 08:47pm
Oh, napalm, is that all? For a second there I thought it was gonna be somethingbad...IG-88E wrote:I see it. But if you can't...
Now if you'll excuse me, I have some clothes to extinguish...
Posted: 2002-11-13 08:49pm
Actually, the first pic was of a nuke going off, with the caption "Next time, don't stand where I'm shooting."