I need a marker to check all the stupid boxes!

A stupid reaction! — Wheatley

A stupid reaction to a stupid reaction! :grin:

Oh, look! A stupid game.

Oh, look! A stupid game. — Wheatley

With one stupid rule: repeat and add. You can make a computer program for it!

Yeah, yeah yeah... :roll:

Yeah, yeah yeah... — Wheatley

No, no, nooooo... :heart:

Right. Consider what he, Hitler, accomplished. Or in general what most stupids accomplish.

By stupid I do not mean intellectually challenged but instead a person who without reason retreats from reason to some unreasonable position and maintains that position by recourse to irrationality against reason. .

And never sleeps. — 180 Proof


That's true and yet seems paradoxical in that sleep is the very essence and condition of stupidity. Thus the common injunction "wake up to yourself". Selective attention perhaps? — Janus

In that regard, it is interesting that the word comes from the Latin stupere, which means to be amazed or stunned as when hit on the head with a stick. That fits with my theory that the quality is not simply a deficiency pejoratively assigned to individuals but an agency that lives amongst people as trauma. Trauma has shown itself capable of reproduction.

In the context of trying to be less stupid in the performance of an art, it is more important to develop strategies to constrain some actions than try to eradicate the grounds of their existence. 400 blows was not enough for that.

Food for thought:

I recall reading in a book on critical thinking that one has to be logical, in other words, one mustn't be stupid if you want to, the book says, live a long, happy, healthy and meaningful life.

Needless to say there are stupids in our ranks, I myself among them probably.

Come now to the theory of evolution as per which life's a game of survival, survival of the fittest, fit in evolutionary terms means an ability to reproduce.

Thus, it seems, from all of the above, stupidity gives you some kind of reproductive advantage over intelligence. That, of course raises the possibility that insofar as life, in a broad sense, is concerned, it actually doesn't mind having a sizeable population of dimwits around.

Compare and contrast that to intelligence and its stereotypes such as nerds/geeks (peeps with high IQ but zero sex appeal).

You do the math!

Mother Nature knows best!?

@180 Proof, what say you?

Stupidity: an affliction...... — tim wood

recourse to irrationality...... — tim wood

Good.

Those reducible to deficiency of judgement (?) An affliction manifests in examples, but isn’t explained by them.

The way that the concept of stupidity is being used in this thread is not that of lacking an aptitude , knowledge or skill. That’s why there has been no mention here of the stupidity of children or animals. No, stupidity is being used as a moral accusation , a judgement of blame against whoever we deem deserving of the label.
We are angry at, disgusted with , condemning toward the ‘stupid’ one because we believe they knew or should have known better than to do or act or think the way they did. As Time Wood put it , “a person who without reason retreats from reason to some unreasonable position and maintains that position by recourse to irrationality against reason.”

That’s the essence of moral blame , our judgement that the other knew better and succumbed to a base or
irrational’ motive.

The whole edifice of the psychology of blame would crumble if the angry accuser were ever to come
to a realization that there’s is no such thing as irrationality, there are only different forms of rationality, and the blameful finger-pointer is unable to extricate themselves from their own worldview, or even recognize their rationality as a just one of a potentially infinite range of worldviews, each of which aims at the same moral end , but via an often profoundly different construal of empirical circumstance. So they have no choice but to see the one who violates their expectations as morally culpable , irrational, stupid. The irony here is that it would be the accuser who is being stupid here, but I would have to use that word in this context according to its innocent , non-moralistic sense. They don’t want to have to accuse anyone, but they lack the insight into how others think to avoid succumbing to hostility.

irrationality against reason.” — Joshs

One (wo)man's reason is the other's madness or stupidity. Same for rationality. Irrationality can be reasonable. Ratio can be unreasonable. Rationality merely means that you can give reasons. Which can be stupid for some and sane for others.

or even recognize their rationality as a just one of a potentially infinite range of worldviews, each of which aims at the same moral end , but via an often profoundly different construal of empirical circumstance. — Joshs

Can you say a little more about this point? Are you saying people aim at the same moral end?

Also, how do you locate this continuum of rationality in the context of intersubjectivity and the potential shared interests of society/groups?

One (wo)man's reason is the other's madness or stupidity. Same for rationality. Irrationality can be reasonable. Ratio can be unreasonable. Rationality merely means that you can give reasons. Which can be stupid for some and sane for others. — Philofile

That sounds like a notion of the rational which reduces it to an arbitrary set of relationships with no thematic or
implicative consistency. If this is the only way we can explain ‘rationality’, then what you say about it is true.

But in sense-making creatures like ourselves , reason is guided by normative cogntive-affective aims. We aim to anticipate events in as orderly a fashion as possible. Our ‘reasons’ are our best predictions about events. We only view others’ reasons as irrational when we fail to recognize the nature of sense-making. We don’t necessarily have to be able to translate the others system of anticipations into terms that we can understand, we only have to recognize in principle that this is how cognizing beings organize experience.

We only view others’ reasons as irrational when we fail to recognize the nature of sense-making. — Joshs

Exactly. There are different sense-makings. One(wo)man's sense is the other's non-sense. Regardless of the "normative cogntive-affective aims".

point? Are you saying people aim at the same moral end? — Tom Storm

Yes, the moral end for all of us is anticipation of all possible events in as parsimonious , multidimensional and replicative a way as possible. Social life happens to be the richest source of new events , so making sense of others and establishing the most intimate possible relations of understanding with others is presupposed.

how do you locate this continuum of rationality in the context of intersubjectivity and the potential shared interests of society/groups? — Tom Storm

I like George Kelly's Sociality Corollary, which states
that ‘to the extent that one person construes the construction processes of another, he may play a role in a social process involving the other person”. This spells out the organizational implications of a being-with-others defined and validated by the intimate assimilative processes of replicative anticipation.

We don’t just belong whole-hog to larger linguistic groups and cultures, we have to be able to make sense of their ways from within our own axes of understanding.

anticipation — Joshs

It's not all about that. It's just a small part of us (or animals).

There are different sense-makings. One(wo)man's sense is the other's non-sense. — Philofile

Another’s sense will never be my nonsense if I understand what I described above about the organization of cognitive systems. I may not be able to grasp its internal logic, so I could joke that it’s ‘nonsense
to me’, but I am still recognizing it as ordered.

My original post was about the basis of blame, accusation and hostility. I argued that such an attitude requires that I reject the idea that there is an internal order behind the behavior of the other I accuse. I will not need to blame if I recognize that the other is operating out of a moral worldview , even if I don’t quite understand its details at the moment.

It's not all about that. It's just a small part of us (or animals). — Philofile

alrighty then

alrighty then — Joshs

A man of few words...

The whole edifice of the psychology of blame would crumble if the angry accuser were ever to come to a realization that there’s is no such thing as irrationality, there are only different forms of rationality, — Joshs

What do you mean? That the earth is sometimes flat, is always flat, is not flat, is flat if you "think" it is and not if you don't? It seems that according to you, whether the earth is flat depends on who is talking. Yes? No?

I'm an expert on stupidity, you are not. Don't question me. — Yohan

You cannot both be an expert on stupidity and stupid.

Hitler wasn’t stupid. — Wayfarer

What a stupid thing to say. — 180 Proof

:wink:

You cannot both be an expert on stupidity and stupid. — Janus

OK, then I'm an expert at being stupid.

What do you mean? That the earth is sometimes flat, is always flat, is not flat, is flat if you "think" it is and not if you don't? It seems that according to you, whether the earth is flat depends on who is talking. Yes? No? — tim wood

I’m making two points. First, as you know , at one time many believed the earth was flat , that all species descended directly from predecessors , that the Sun revolved around the earth. There are a multitude of competing theories floating around today in science(particularly the social sciences) and philosophy. Eventually , certain of them may become more widely accepted than others.
But I argue that the failure of individuals to embrace the current consensus is not a form of irrationality. Shifting one’s perspective is not simply a matter of being presented with evidence. It requires a gestalt shift and that can take time.

My second point is that many conflicts involving blame are like the above , where it is not a master of the other being irrational, but instead their being in the thrawl of a way of thinking that you have moved beyond , but don’t understand why they can’t see things your way. So you assume they are being stubborn, lazy, irrational. Instead, they simply haven’t made the ‘shift’ that you have.

Fairy nuff!

In that regard, it is interesting that the word comes from the Latin stupere, which means to be amazed or stunned as when hit on the head with a stick. That fits with my theory that the quality is not simply a deficiency pejoratively assigned to individuals but an agency that lives amongst people as trauma. Trauma has shown itself capable of reproduction. — Valentinus

So, not "selective attention" then but traumatically induced inability to attend? Makes sense!

First, you're confusing ignorance with stupidity. Second, stupidity usually is blameworthy. As noted in the OP, there was a time when there was space for the stupid. Now, not so much. The cost of much stupidity is too high and cannot be ignored nor dismissed. Try to keep in mind ignorance v. stupidity, not the same thing.

After some thought, a modification. Some ignorance leads directly to stupidity because in a complex world there's an obligation to know at least some things.

And no mistake: some of us will suffer; some of us have suffered. Our children will suffer, and grandchildren suffer greatly. There is not the luxury of losing this war - and war it is. The question, then, is how to fight the war to win it. Not just to fight it - that's a mug's game - but to win it. Churchill again, "For without victory there is no survival," rather misery, death, and nothing beyond. — tim wood

I'm reminded of one of my favorite educators, Carl Sagan:

“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.” (Demon Haunted World)

Hitler wasn’t stupid.
— Wayfarer

What a stupid thing to say.
— 180 Proof

:wink: — Janus