The strange dichotomy of stupidity

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

And if one gets really crazy about it, one could justify just about any behaviour by looking at the why's of a given persons clinical and biographical history, but counter correlate that with the battered housewife syndrome threshold and you get a really muddled frontier.

The only conclusions I've really come to on the issue is that every person is incomprehensibly complex and has some life history that their behavior makes a lot of sense in, but that understanding their situation doesn't necessarily justify anything.

Taken to the extremes, either bias is likely to get you into trouble. Getting overly focused on people's circumstances could lead to excusing horrible behavior, getting overly focused on people's character could lead to punishing people for simply being in bad situations.

Pragmatically, it's moot point, because you rarely will know enough history about a person to determine what circumstances their behavior makes sense in. Yet, there's always the possibility that the person IS in a shitty situation and are actually doing a remarkable job of coping with it.

It's much easier to resolve the circumstances-versus-character problem when the person in question has clear signs of being born with a disability—hence the dichotomy. That's easy right? They deserve a little extra patience, because through no fault of their own they face difficult challenges. But intelligence is likely distributed over a spectrum, so why don't people with below average IQ's (but not technically mentally disabled) get extra compassion as well?

I think it's because it requires a lot of extra energy to determine that the person is just a little bit slow. There aren't obvious physical signs of having a lower than average IQ. Mental retardation just is far easier to notice, and in many cases doesn't require any extra energy determine.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And yet, we readily come to the conclusion that someone is stupid, and rather than responding with compassion (because, after all, we did just decide that they're categorically stupid) we respond with contempt because the cultural value is that stupid people are bad and deserve bad things. Speaking broadly.

In other words, we are rapid to "diagnose" someone with stupidity, yet unwilling to entertain the possibility that stupidity may be an inherent trait rather than a deliberately-chosen character flaw that merits punishment.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Remember the scene in H.G. Wells' Time Machine where the hero is asked how the machine works? He explains that if you want to move forward in time, you push the lever forward, and if you want to move backward in time, you pull the lever back, and that the farther you push or pull the lever, the faster the machine travels.

Explaining our cultural attitudes toward stupidity in terms of heuristics and FAE are to this discussion as that explanation was to the question asked, in that it is a description of how people reach the conclusion that someone is stupid, and not an explanation of why our culture views stupidity as a character failing.

[The Johnny]

Because in a highly technologized world with a lot of specialized crafts and jobs, those that are "stupid" are deemed as worthless not only by the job market but by the prevalent ideology.

If you are stupid, not only is your time worth nothing because you cannot do something particular that everyone else cannot do (salary wise), you are also easy prey because your lack of knowledge of a field or the mechanics of basic trade, you can get taken advantage of.

In a dog eat dog world of hi-tech capitalism (alongside the elaborate scamming and marketing techniques that have developed), the "stupid" are the prey.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Because in a highly technologized world with a lot of specialized crafts and jobs, those that are "stupid" are deemed as worthless not only by the job market but by the prevalent ideology.

If you are stupid, not only is your time worth nothing because you cannot do something particular that everyone else cannot do (salary wise), you are also easy prey because your lack of knowledge of a field or the mechanics of basic trade, you can get taken advantage of.

In a dog eat dog world of hi-tech capitalism (alongside the elaborate scamming and marketing techniques that have developed), the "stupid" are the prey.

The same is true of elderly and chronically ill people, but culturally speaking we don't assume them to be at fault for it. So while the "what" of the mechanism makes sense, it doesn't address the question, which is why we refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that stupidity is not a failure in a person's moral fiber, but likely a weakness in their biological makeup.

[P3nT4gR4m]

So we evolved to be a social organism. Maybe it's related to that. The group would select for those who bring benefit to the group, intelligence carrying currency in this exchange. Meanwhile the (intellectual) runt of any litter is left to rot.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Personally, I don't think it's evolutionary. I think it's cultural, and I think it's related to Calvinism.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Culture evolves too, selects on analogous criterion but Calvinism sounds interesting too care to explain? I don't really even know what the word means.

[hirley0]

Personally, I don't think it's evolutionary. I think it's cultural, and I think it's related to Calvinism.

Lemme thIN: was it 2hrs 3 min 5:30 AM eXacto +/-
while you were typing a ne  {= Boo2U2.2
yeah and boo } 3  for no post abilitY

yeah about .5Hr d'La + Post'D'La too. <ay at 03:33&1/3
^3:30-3:08^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism assume central time zone &4get.it

Personally, I don't think it's evolutionary. I think it's cultural, and I think it's related to Calvinism.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Remember the scene in H.G. Wells' Time Machine where the hero is asked how the machine works? He explains that if you want to move forward in time, you push the lever forward, and if you want to move backward in time, you pull the lever back, and that the farther you push or pull the lever, the faster the machine travels.

Explaining our cultural attitudes toward stupidity in terms of heuristics and FAE are to this discussion as that explanation was to the question asked, in that it is a description of how people reach the conclusion that someone is stupid, and not an explanation of why our culture views stupidity as a character failing.

Thanks for clarifying.

I don't think there is a singular cause as to why Americans view stupidity as a moral failure.

I suppose you'd also find the just world fallacy to be an operational description rather than a contributing factor as well?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm sure there are multiple contributing factors, because that's just how the world works.

And yes, mechanisms aren't generally considered causative factors.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think that there is room for interesting discussion here, and I doubt there are any pat answers or neat packages that it can be wrapped up into as an explanation for why our culture accepts this particular piece of contradictory belief system. I also think that, like with most issues, dialogue can be a vector for changing perspectives.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I'm sure there are multiple contributing factors, because that's just how the world works.

And yes, mechanisms aren't generally considered causative factors.

How would Calvinism be considered a causative factor?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm sure there are multiple contributing factors, because that's just how the world works.

And yes, mechanisms aren't generally considered causative factors.

How would Calvinism be considered a causative factor?

Because it is outright, no-joking EVIL.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm sure there are multiple contributing factors, because that's just how the world works.

And yes, mechanisms aren't generally considered causative factors.

How would Calvinism be considered a causative factor?

It could go some distance to explain the punishment-oriented mindset of a culture which considers stupidity a moral failing that deserves ill consequences. It could at the very least be a contributor.