“We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.” — Xtrix

:up:

Thales (first philosopher/first scientist/first physicist) has met an unkind fate in his old age. He went out from the court of his house at night, as was his custom, with his maidservant to view the stars, and forgetting where he was, as he gazed, he got to the edge of a steep slope and fell over. In such wise have the Milesians lost their astronomer. Let us who were his pupils cherish his memory, and let it be cherished by our children and pupils. — An ancient writer relating how Thales' absent-mindedness did the great philosopher in

Even the greatest thinkers suffer the occasional bout of stupidity and sometimes it can be...fatal. It appears that we haven't learnt our lesson...yet. I hope it won't be too late for us.

You provided an example already. Women who think Covid vax will make them infertile (there is no evidence for this). — Tom Storm

Have you read the rest? Typical male.

But others include; people with mental illness who think that covid medication will allow the police to control their behaviour. Because of negative experiences with involuntary psychiatric medication in their past.

Aboriginal Australians thinking the medication with kill them or make them sick because of negative experiences with 'white medicine' in the past. Incidentally I am working with Aboriginal staff and elders to encourage Aboriginal people to have their vaccinations.

People with alcohol misuse who believe that alcohol helps them to survive life (they can drink away traumatic memories). Here's the tip - it doesn't work.

All of these appear to be reasonable positions to hold but are ultimately unhelpful.

What's the use of saving your body when it costs you your soul?

And there is the problem of resources. Every outfit has managers competing for the best people in an organization to work for them. What is that like? These culture models are weak beer in addressing the problem. — Valentinus

It's still not clear why you call it a matter of "stupidity". Perhaps it's the most convenient to do so.

I used to be amazed how someone can walk down the road, step into a hole in the pavement, and injure themselves. And then sue the city. And win. But in time I've come to understand it as a matter of confidence: the person is confident that the pavement should be in good order, and that it is the city's reponsibility to ensure that it is so, and not an individual's responsibility to watch their step. Confidence ... does wonders.

The text you quoted from me was a response to the work culture views you had linked to. My disagreement with the utility of the division is not based upon my theory of the stupid. My disagreement was a rejection of the idea that people operate strictly on one basis or another. The world of actual work shows that these elements are all mushed together in real and very short time. That, in any case, has been my experience.

In regards to personal experience, safeguarding against the stupid does involve countervailing against over-confidence but that quality is not a sufficient cause for the problem. The humbler person still needs to keep the risk of being stupid to a minimum. Freezing up and taking no risk is not an option. The world knocks at your door.

You seem to be suggesting it is something we pin the tail upon like the donkey in the parlor game.

What's the use of saving your body when it costs you your soul? — baker

What's a soul?

What's a soul? — Tom Storm

A child of hope! The parent of prophets!

What's a soul? — Tom Storm

It's a turn of phrase, T...

It's a turn of phrase, T... — baker

Copycat.

The text you quoted from me was a response to the work culture views you had linked to. My disagreement with the utility of the division is not based upon my theory of the stupid. My disagreement was a rejection of the idea that people operate strictly on one basis or another. The world of actual work shows that these elements are all mushed together in real and very short time. That, in any case, has been my experience. — Valentinus

Agreed, they can shift very quickly, as if such shifting would be the whole point. I brought up the distinction because I hoped it would help me to clarify something else, namely, how to distinguish between stupidity and confidence. To me, even freezing/panicking can be acts of confidence.

You seem to be suggesting it is something we pin the tail upon like the donkey in the parlor game.

?

Perpetrator of a bad pun.

Everyone needs a hobby.

Not sure how else to respond to the claim that Theravada Buddhists don't believe in emptiness. — praxis

They don't. "Emptiness" is not part of Theravada doctrine. Individual Theravadins, even many of them, believe all kinds of things, such as lucky charms or praying to Quan Yin. But that doesn't make those things part of Theravada doctrine.

:roll:

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Theravada+buddhism+and+eptiness&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Mahayana emptiness is not the same as Theravada emptiness. Normally, when Buddhists talk of emptiness, they mean it in the Mahayana sense ("nothing has any inherent existence or nature"). But that's not what it means in Theravada, e.g. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/integrityofemptiness.html

You're claiming that Theravada Buddhists believe that things do have inherent existence or nature? If so, you're obviously very wrong.

*sigh*

You’re one of the laziest trolls I’ve seen.

Your self-confidence and authoritarianism are outstanding. You do very good in life.

Why are the two of you fighting over nothing? :lol:

I fight the good fight because all the tyranny of stupidity needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

And while fighting strawmen of your own making, the real monsters take over!

You wrote:

Normally, when Buddhists talk of emptiness, they mean it in the Mahayana sense ("nothing has any inherent existence or nature"). But that's not what it means in Theravada

This implies you may be claiming that emptiness in the Theravada sense means that things do have inherent existence or nature. That's stupid, of course, but you don't explain what you mean, which is also stupid.

Read. I posted a link explaining what emptiness means in Theravada.

I went to the page and did a search for "Mahayana". That word is not used even once in the article, so how could it possibly support your stupid claim? There's no reason that whatever is preached in that article can't apply to Mahayana Buddhism because there's no fundamental difference in their beliefs about emptiness.

I'll just stick to the title of this thread.

Again with the lazy troll. Here's a link that may help your troll game:

https://www.mandatory.com/fun/172527-how-to-be-a-troll-the-beginners-guide

I fight the good fight because all the tyranny of stupidity needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. — praxis

:up:

"Five Laws of Stupidity"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O9FFrLpinQ

Trump = bandit
Trump support base = stupid

Trump proves rule #1 for me.

I think a problem with the theory is that intelligent people can be neurotic and cause problems for themselves and others rather than stupid.

I think one of the laws is non-correlation. I.e., stupid stands alone, not correlating with neurosis or intelligence or anything else, per the ideas in the video. I kind of buy it. People would say George W. Bush was/is stupid. And others that he can't be because he was president, and presidents are basically intelligent. But with this, intelligent as you like, but seeming stupid as a stone. And probably a nice guy when he's at home; after all, Michelle gave him a nice hug - I think he was and is star-struck by her.

And bandit isn't quite right for Trump, although mostly accurate. But this gets back to the Socratic notion that the bad man hurts himself. Leaves the question, is the bad man stupid? Is the bandit stupid? And that might depend on how fast the wheels of justice are turning, whether street or legal.