Stupid people who think that they're smart.

...We see them everyday...called conservative politicians. Not even just conservative sometimes. I get so annoyed, but it's a lot easier to entertain them by trolling them than taking them seriously.

 

Socrates once said: "The oracle told me that I was the wisest of all the Greeks, because I alone knew that I know nothing."

 

Know-it-all dumb people are the worst human beings on this planet. They're the bane of humanity.

And, yes, they're the most annoying people ever.

 

If you know your stuff then you can explain it in a way that normal people get it. So when someone's throwing a bunch of jargon at me and trying to sound smart, then I know it just means that they don't really know what they're talking about and I should find someone else to ask.

 

people like... me .w.

 

I agree that many people overestimate their intelligence. That said, many smart people can hold wrong ideas. I read in an article once that many victims of fraud actually tend to belong to a more intelligence, more educated cohort than non-victims (sure, you can say that that sample is skewed because you have to have money, time, and knowledge to invest which usually happens in more educated and intelligent people, but I digress). The point of the article (How to Protect Yourself Against Investment Fraud - WSJ.com) was that smart people are very good at believing that they are right because they are confident in their judgment (and in my opinion, are too smart for their own good because they can bull:***: themselves and others).

What I'm trying to say is that intelligent people can have "stupid" ideas and be able to justify them in their own minds and for others. That said, I think it's human nature to be overly confident in one's own abilities. Unfortunately, we all can't be above average in innate intelligence.

I think one core problem is that in school, many grow up believing they are special because their parents and/or teachers coddle them by telling them they are unique and intelligent; no one wants to have a child who has "average" grades, but you can't have everyone being in the top ten percent. This trend continues in higher education as more people eschew trade schools, apprenticeships, and the like for "college" because it is seen as the ticket to the "good life" and being without the stigma many attach to other post-secondary education routes. Formal education, I should say, is not the hallmark of intelligence. It's more likely a predictor of "knowledge" accumulated; however, knowledge and intelligence are not one and the same.

That said, "dumb" people (and I hate using this phrase because I don't consider it fitting) do annoy me because I feel I cannot get my points or ideas across. It is in times like these that I stop, take a deep breath, and consider the fact that I may be the problem and conjure up another way to communicate.

I have also read that intelligence can play a role in how you communicate. In my school system, I was in the special ed program. Yes, it was for gifted/talented, but I once talked to an administrator who said that "gifted" people and those categorized as "deficient" (on the opposite side of the bell curve) require different educational techniques than those who fall around the "average" range. This can mean that, perhaps, people can only effectively communicate within, say, +1 (or 2) standard deviations of their IQ, if we use that as a measure of "intelligence". So, someone with an IQ of 130 could possibly only communicate effectively in deep conversation with someone whose IQ fell between 115 and 145 (or 100 and 160 if we use 2 SD, with a test having SD=15.

For example, I can see "clear enough" with my dad's prescription glasses (but not my sister's). Perhaps our intelligence is like a pair of glasses that is unique to us and each time we communicate we switch "glasses" with the other person and put them on; because of nature, we won't be able to see "clear enough" with every other person's glasses and will be unable to effectively see the world as everyone sees it. We will have a range where we can comfortable communicate or mutually "see" and perceive the world; unfortunately, there will be people whose "glasses" will not be in your range and you will be unable to effectively see the world in the same manner. If you can't understand this example, you're not smart enough. Just kidding :roflmao:, I suck at analogies; this made sense in my mind, but it is 3AM and my brain is fried.

I rambled only because this is such a broad topic and I believe there is a difference between innate intelligence that may be normally distributed (i.e. IQ), having "good" and "bad" ideas, and being "smart," which may be in areas of intelligence not normally considered under standardized tests.My post tried to make a hundred different points in a single entry, so I apologize for jumping around and rambling.

If my post sounds condescending, it was not my intention. I apologize in advance. (*hug*)

 

To be fair, being Conservative doesn't make them inherently stupid. They can be very brilliant people in their fields (economics, policy, etc)... they simply subscribe to a view different than our own. I may consider them socially unenlightened... but they aren't automatically stupid.

Keeping up this hate against those who hate us makes us no better than them. Just sayin'.

Kill them with kindness. It'll also creep them out.

 

Personally I don't lump stupidity with ignorance and an overall lack of knowledge. To me, a stupid person is someone who can't use logic well or grasp some basic concept. You can fill in the ignorance and the lack of knowledge with facts and, well, knowledge. The problem is that most are too full of themselves to admit that they're wrong, thus the unwillingness to change. There are certainly intelligent people with conflicting beliefs. I know some very bright people who are inexplicably and adamantly against gay marriage, and think that homosexuality is wrong. Logic would say they're smart enough to know that it's not. So, in those cases, I'm just gonna chalk it up to their "pride" (I'm smart therefore I can't be wrong), instead of stupidity.

 

Agree with the above 2 posts. A lot of forums and comments on news articles have very popular topics from conservatives, or people trying to rationalize their discrimination/disdain for LGBT topics, or rather hide it pathetically. They commonly say that we "LGBT + Liberals" are demonizing them and obstructing their right to an opinion, and while I don't think thats always true, some of us are becoming no better than them in that aspect, and they are catching on and using it "against us". I think the best answer to these statements are that Its one thing to have an opinion, and another thing to legislate illogical Laws against people because you just "don't agree with the ...lifestyle... that doesn't even exist" If you don't like gay people, even if i strongly disagree and think ALL rational people that examined real topics of gay people and the "choice" scenario would find they have no NON-RELIGIOUS reasons to criticize gay people. Some might find even the religious 6 texts don't; support their hate either.

But stubborn ness/denial/purposeful ignorance says otherwise...


Anyway back on topic :3 I wonder if logical thinking is an actual provable sign of what people commonly label "intelligence" or rather "Wisdom" in my opinion. When i get into an intelligent debate (or at least they start out that way haha!) -- I think there is an unsaid statement that says the debate takes place on the bases of Logic, and those debates are fun and enlightening and entertaining! When I try to argue with people who only know what "seems" logical and what in fact isn't, they are typically the kind who are "stupid but think they are smart" or the ones to get personally hurt by something I say, and pull cheap punches or talk out of their asses.

I think Logic should be taught in school xD at the least, it would be enlightening for those willing to take it.

For that reason, I have to applaud Apologetics classes, even If i disagree with the content entirely

 

Isn't logic the sort of the thing that can only be taught to those that already have it?

 

Yeah I agree. Logic is what I would call intelligence. It can't be taught. You can only teach the method.

 

Okay so maybe school fried my brain to the point where I use words differently, but I took logic classes in school. Like one of my classes was literally called "digital logic". I'm getting from the context though you guys aren't talking about sets and truth tables though?

Are you guys saying "logic" like how Mr Spock is "logical" ? Really feel like this is a dumb question but I wanna ask anyway. To me, logic is just something your calculator or computer can do; it doesn't take any real human intelligence or creativity at all.

In fact being smart and having an imagination kind of gets in the way of that sometimes.

Jeeze I'm sorry guys I feel like I'm being one of those people here. But let me explain where I'm coming from and I think it'll make sense.

So you know that old trick question, "if there are 20 birds on a fence, and I shoot 1, how many birds are on the fence"? Well by "mister Spock logical" I mean the right answer is "there are no birds on the fence because they all heard the gun go off and flew away" and "logic" the way I understand it, the correct answer is "there are 19 birds on the fence".

 

The way I see it, the logic in calculators or computers is not really logic (in the sense we're discussing), but a set of rules and conditions (if this, do that).

Now on to that trick question, you took a methodical approach to the problem. Your answer is like that of a computer, you process the direct information given and come to a conclusion:

20 birds
1 less bird due to being shot

The obvious answer would be 19. BUT if you give the computer more information (aka a new condition):

Birds will fly away if sense danger

The computer will say 0.

The differences between 2 answers is that one takes more things into consideration. The danger the shooter poses is implied, and if you don't realise this threat, you fall into the ignorance category. If you answer with 0, I wouldn't call it logical either, you fall into the category of broad thinking. Keep in mind that all of this is my take on the issue, as I'm unqualified to make such claims. BUT, critically thinking, there can't be a concrete answer to this question because facts are missing:

1. Are you using a silencer?
2. Are those real birds or decorations?
3. What kind of bird are they?
4. Are they the only birds in the area?

Depending on the answers to those 4 (and more) questions, the outcome may be very different. For example, if you use a silencer, and the birds are fearless (or plain stupid), they won't recognise the threat and will continue to stay there, or some may fly away due to the sudden fall of one bird. Some new birds may even come to perch on the fence...

Oh I ramble a bit there. Logic to me is the ability to assess a situation with the facts given, to discern the differences of things (especially when making an analogy), to take things into consideration and not just what's in front of you, etc. In short, a logical person is someone who can and does think critically (and does a good job at that). At least that's what I think.

Now intelligence is a bit different. But you were not talking about it, so...

 

Ahh that's a bunch of crap You're more than qualified to BS with us on the internet and actually made some good points. I like the way you took apart that analogy with the birds, that's exactly the kind of answer I was hoping for

Especially with the birds possibly being decorations. I really hate the though of a poor bird getting shot just so I can make an analogy

But yeah I agree, now that I'm on the same page as everyone it would be really awesome if you could teach that kind of critical thinking to people. I really think that's what they were going for in those old zen monasteries with all their endless impossible questions with no right answers.

Kind of random, but I used to draw things on a dry erase board and then just erase them a few days later. I would really put a lot of effort into it each time too. I think partly I did this just to try to avoid being the kind of person the OP is complaining about. I never know how well it's working out.

I mean it's too easy to, you know, that moment when you realize you can do something, to let it get to your head. I figured out a long time ago I could draw pretty well, but I saw a lot of people kind of reach that same point, and they'll try to draw things realistically and ask other people if they're good constantly and it ends up being this really limiting plateau. I really think that's why people used to get frustrated and just throw a bunch of boxes onto a paper or sign a urinal and call it art

So I guess I don't get annoyed with people like that, just because I know how easy it is to become that kind of person. I mean that need to do things the right way and have everyone around you think you're smart or strong or special somehow, it's really strong. I just kind of let them have their confidence. I mean we don't all need to be Stephen Hawking anyway. All they really want is a little bit of respect.

I do think it takes a lot of humility and just admitting you don't know a lot, in order to get really good at anything though. I read an article a while ago that really fit in with this thread, http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Incompetent-People-Really-Have-No-Clue-Studies-2783375.php

 

My Step-grandma said once "stupidity is not the lack of knowledge, but an incompleteness of it, while ignorance is the lack of knowledge." Not kidding, she can't stand stupid people, but she can deal with ignorant ones because she can fill their heads with knowledge. I agree with her, because people who don't have all the facts before saying something are more frustrating than those who simply don't know anything.

 

There's a reason doctors are notoriously bad with money, they became doctors and passed through all the hoops in medical school, so they believe they can do anything...stupid-smart...

 

There are alot of smart people in the world but they are overruled by the smaller amount of stupid people.

 

You see, I don't like smart people who brag about their intelligence. I'm at the top of my class, but I don't break down and cry if I get an A-. I know people who do. And it annoys the crap outta me.
I also don't like stupid people who think they're smart. Especially when they're really stubborn, so they think that everything they say is correct, when, in fact, the vast majority is just downright wrong.
And neither do I like stupid people who have the potential to be really smart, but they refuse to make any effort whatsoever. This annoys me the most, and unfortunately, I know a lot of people like this.

 

Oh, Jesus, I know so many people who are like that. And the worst part? They just will not shut up!