babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Are human really stupid
June 26, 2011 - 2:56pm
are Human fondly stupid? I read several forum on cbc radiocanada canoe the globe and mail. And i read many. comment that are really ingnorant! But the problem isn't ignorance, it when those same people stick to there idea even after other people destroy the argument who support the idea. I observe that in both french and english. Don't take it wrong, i got no pretent to hold the truth. In fact, i'm a ignorant who's aware of his own ignorance. It is why i take my time to properly dig up each subject. Even so if i'm not cautious i can get stuck in my own human stupidity.
I think Thomas Jefferson observed that he had never seen anyone change their mind during an argument. Once an argument crosses over and becomes a matter of "face" or ego, then people won't abandon their positions at that time. They might later-- after they have found a "face saving" way of changing their position without it being seen that the other person who they argued with lead them to it.
Understanding that should put a sharper edge on how one attempts to persuade. Don't make it a matter of face. People are more apt to be persuaded by someone they like, as opposed to someone they don't. People are more likely to adopt your position if they think they discovered it themselves.
As for the percentage who wear ignorance proudly like a merit badge, who cares about persuading them? Often, they are the perfect foils for your position.
Humans are far from stupid. Indeed, we are too clever for our own good. We invent communal things like language, governance, philosophy, enterprise and technology, which then grow too complex for most individuals. And that makes it easy for "experts" to distort facts and subvert whole systems of thought and activity to their own advantage. And lazy citizens allow their leaders to do the thinking. You can't altogether blame the citizen, either, because in civilization s/he has to carry a huge amount of mental luggage, just to function.
This is why the experts in various forms of cummunication - writers, teachers, broadcaters, reporters, historians, lawyers - need to be especially honest, competent and public-spirited. As long as they are, by and large, the society works well enough. Once they are suborned, intimidated or corrupted, nobody knows anything for sure, and even the words lose their meaning - or worse, gain entirely different meanings. Babel, not babble.
There is no argument or disagreement without emotion. We try to be objective, pretend to be objective - but we're emotional creatures. Every thought we own is coloured by the way the we came by it - memories, associations, pride, fraternity, investment of effort.
Yes, especially superstition. And political affiliation. And property. And loyalty to a group.
If you want to convince someone to change his views, don't put him on the defensive. Don't call him stupid or back him into a corner. Ask him a question or two - not too many at once - and give him time to mull it over. Or lend him a book - but don't be too disappointed if he returns it, three months later, unopened.
People can't change very quickly. It's the curse of a long childhood: early impression tend to stick.
i think in the grand scheme of things, humans are capable of things that other humans think are great, but on the whole we're a bunch of idiots.
We're one of the few species who (literally) shits where they eat. We kill each other all the time and enslave each other. We enslave/torture other species on a mass scale. We pollute not only our own environments but those of others. And we might very well decimate life on earth as we know it...
nuclear weapons, starvation, genocide, holocaust, etc. etc.
personally, i think the planet would be much better off if humans never evolved!
"So i will moderate my position. Human are smart as long as they are no emotionnal implication."
Yes. But while it sounds easy to separate one's ego or even identity from one's ideas, in practice it is difficult. But once you start doing that, one notices that one's arguments become more persuasive.
How about you define your terms Lefauve as the sand you stand on continually shifts.
i agree, we're cruel bastards as well!
but when you consider that we actually know our actions are destroying our planet and ability to survive as a species, have the ability and knowledge to stop the harmful actions, yet choose to continue doing it...to me that's just plain stupid!
My point is you throw around terms indiscriminately and then play bait and switch.
I don't think Lefauve means to bait and switch; i think he's just a little confused about what he's trying to accomplish, and loath to relinquish his original, somewhat arrogant, position. There is also a small problem of translation. (And maybe of manners, Lefauve? We're trying to help you.)
If i understand it correctly, his root question is: Why are people so hard to convince that 2+2=4?
So, we're saying, not chiefly because of stupidity, but beacuse of ignorance, misinterpretation, early imprinting, emotional investment, stubbornness, defensiveness, loyalty or self-interest. See, 2+2 can as well = -4, if that's your political stance: statistics can be made to support either answer.
We live in a society that has created the best propaganda machine every seen in recorded human existence. No other ideology has been able to reach into every home on a daily basis and usurp the communities place as the teacher of morals and ethics. If the idiot box tells you over and over that you too can have it all, if you are willing to screw your neighbour, it becomes a mind set.
Yellow journalism was a large part of the 19th and early 20th century. How many Filipinos died because of Hearst's hate mill. Currently we have far more powerful and intrusive media pumping out continual, hourly war propaganda. We had a thread here awhile back about testing for empathy and how being subjected to certain types of imagery can lead to a routing change in the brain causing violent tendencies.
Mutual aid is the state best suited for human development. Our current system with its emphasis on individual pleasure at the expense of others is the antithesis of that. The constant bombardment of propaganda promoting consumption as the goal of humanity is making our society ill.
I'm sorry for shocking you caissa and other, You see i'm the type of guy who take pride of acting rationaly when require, so at the same time i got some difficulty understanding people that are really close to there emotions. Normally i can manage, but when the emotions is hate, i get easly feed up and my opinion of those people goes deep underground. So I admit that my first post was a bit overreacting on other article and comment that i read previously. The root question was: " How people can stick an idea, despite all logic and fact even at the price of damaging there reputation?" Sure i said it more agressively but the general idea is the same! What make my position change is tommy_paine insight on psychology. He remember me that emotion is alway stronger that reasons. So according to this argument somebody who's facing a situation that logic and fact push him to react the "a", if a same weigth emotions push him to react the "b" way, it the "b" that way that will be apply. For that, the question is pretty much solve. Now the new question, is there a way or guide line to bring somebody to get more distant from his emotion toward a position?
Nope.
Self-delusion is limitless and inpenetrable.
How do you get people to separate their emotion from their ideas or position? I'm not sure that is the goal. What the goal should be for one's self and to try to lead other people to is not allow emotion to cloud their ideas. Emotion has to be there.
There are always topics that will be very difficult for me not to let my emotions cloud my judgement, my emotions get the best of me from time to time and my ideas and positions suffer for it.
It's why I like babble, because no one gets a free pass on that. Someone will always call you on it and that's valuable.
Fundamentally, you have to ask yourself why you are here. On Babble, I mean. I'm here because I like to see myself talk. I've taken some longish hiatus' because, mostly, I get tired of seeing myself talk. I gather I hit other people's thresholds for myself before I do.
Sorry for the past and the future.
After that, I am here to see if I can organize my own thinking in a way that others not only comprehend, but might make them feel something, too. Sometimes I come up with something, and it resonates. More often, it doesn't. Each time it's an experiment, each time it delivers data-- nothing is a failure, everything teaches me something.
Do I try to persuade? Obviously. And constant experimentation here has honed my skills to a fine edge.
See, you already want to agree.
A couple of quotes are apropos:
Will Rogers said, "All people are ignorant in different subjects." None of us know everything, and those that think they do are probably stupid.
Anonymous said, "Ignorance is curable, but stupid goes clear to the bone." LOL
OK, a lot of what has been said here is true. We should have the intelligence to do much better than we have done on this planet. Where there is food we have multiplied until we poison ourselves with our own garbage. Then we die off. Bacteria do as well. We should be able to out-think bacteria, but the evidence seems to indicate that we can't.
Like I've said many times; It's not our intelligence that is at fault, and I don't think our emotions betray us too much either, (except when in debate, OK that's true). What seems to be defeating us is when our science and reasoning comes up against economics. Our economic system corrupts us and controls us. Lefauve, I think you're making some good observations and I hope we'll hear more from you in the future.
Do you want some evidence that people are stupid? See this --> Couple finds Jesus on Wal-Mart receipt
The idiot guy insists that the image looks like Jesus. How the fuck would he know what Jesus looked like?
Lefauve, your "little observation" of course applies to everybody. We all like to have the right opinion and it takes a lot of energy to change one's opinion. Regardless of who you are. I think it's harder for old people to change their opinions, but they've had more time to get it right, so it may be not all bad. When it comes to economics, we are all slaves. Our opinions are shaped by our environment. If the rich can control the information we get, then they can control our opinions. If we all step back and take a look at how the economy operates, we see that it's not just greed. Greed may, in fact, be the consequence of a competitive, scarce-money economy. If we had a cooperative, egalitarian economy, our experience would be quite different. Generally we allow that giving to those "less fortunate" is a noble thing, but how often do we have to weigh our consciences against our bank accounts and have our consciences lose out?
We are a product of our environment and the wealthy elite control that environment to a large extent. Things are getting worse.
I disagree with the source of greed, it sure that competitive environment doesn't help, but what is pushing people to want alway, more? What i think it is a relent of our "animal past" when the supply of food is limited and we must in order to survive accumulate reserve. In those prehistoric time we got limitation like the size of our stomach or size of the storage avalaible. But with the invention of currency and later the invention of banking, we can "store" the equivalent of tonnes of good in a single plastic card. Problem there is no way for people to know when they got enough. So they can keep cumulating "good" endlessly. The other possible motivation that i see can be classified as sexual (zoological view). To own many "good" can be use as a sexual parade a clear sign that he can provide comfort to possible mate! that why i put greed more like a biological phenomena that a social-economic phenomena. As for my "observation" I admit it was in reaction from an argument with a friend who turn bad! In that case i agree with the effect of social environment affect a lot. But i like to precise that the intellectual environment is of big effect, especially the level of intellectualism of the parent. Parent who like to discust of thing of life and debat a lot with there kid and also teach them to be critical with there own idea got better chance to be broad minded when they are adult.
I was reminded recently of a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson:
"banks and corporations will deprive people of all property"
Although Jefferson clearly did not trust the banks, according to Snopes, the quote appears to be a false attribution, not appearing until after his death.
My employer is trying to cut costs. We currently heat a large building that is ony occupied about 20 hours a week yet the thermostat is always set at 22 C. I told her that turning the thermostat down to 19 C would heat the building sufficently and cut costs quite a bit. She kept insisting that it wouldn't be warm enough if we had a cold snap. I kept trying to explain in different ways that during a cold snap the building would still be heated to 19C because the furnace would respond by coming on more. She just could NOT get it.
Our big empty building will stay at 22C. My home is set at 16C (put to 19C for showers or if I am feeling extra sickly)
I think humans are stupid. We are a parasite that destroys its host. Can't get much stupider than that in my opinion!
When I am trying to share my POV (point of view) with someone with a very different POV I try to be very empathetic, compassionate, try to see it from their side and not make them feel defensive or threatened about considering a different POV (like mine! hee hee) I do this when I am at my best and in a state of love always coming from a place of love. Unfortunately I am not nearly always at my best though.