Stupidity is the state in which you refuse, for whatever reason, to think. A person with a big brain that won't use it has no advantage over a person with limited cognitive abilities. Look at the po'buckers out hollering praise for Trump or putting on angry town-hall face at a teabagger rally; when you refuse to question your own assumptions, then that freak is your equal. The fact that he is your equal because you are slacking rather than him being smart is irrelevant, from a results point of view.
The thing that makes most smart people stupid is arrogance. When you begin to think that the fact that you are smart implies that you are the smartest or even the only smart person around you, congratulations, you are now an extra in the movie deliverance. Likewise, when you decide that your solution to a problem is superior to any other solution by virtue of the fact that you thought of it means that you are a DUMBASS. Usually that isn't a conscious process...When an alternate idea is explained to you, you listen with the intent to sabotage it or pick it apart to defend your own cherished notion.
The people - in my own experience - that are most susceptible to this trap are people with professional standing. Doctors, engineers, narrow-field tradesmen, and teachers at higher education levels are in fact the most obvious examples (though it is of course not universal in those fields). You have to be careful with this, as a doctor that has become stupid can be worse than no medical care at all. Less visibly, a stupid engineer or tradesman can also be a threat to life and limb. Worst of all, an instructor that has allowed themselves to become stupid is contagious.
Oddly enough, lawyers seem to be less likely to fall into this trap, mostly because they are natural schemers and have no time for that sort of thing. Their arrogance is instead reflected by their almost-universal poor taste. Anyone who has ever seen how a lawyer dresses while on vacation will know precisely what I mean.
There is no universally-applicable solution to this. Each person has to find their own way to not be stupid. Personally, I always assume there is some data that I do not have, and I go into a solution assuming that it is fatally flawed. Then I try to find the flaw. When I am listening to someone else's solution, I trick my own ego by asking "what part of what they are describing can usefully modify my plan? Asking that means I have to LISTEN to their idea for what it IS, at which point I often find that their idea was better as a whole...And if not, then there's one avenue that can be closed off. But the plain fact is that I did in fact listen. I accepted data contrary to my own personally-cherished idea.
Of course, this works far better in theory than in practice, at least at first. Because it WAS my idea. It was a bad idea, but it was MINE and now you bastards have killed it. For which I will inflict an appropriate vengeance.
I have thoughts on this. They’ll have to wait on caffeine and calories.
EDIT: Or just caffeine.
This sort of behavior is encouraged, you know. Among toadies and The Free Market alike, everyone loves a winner. And everyone loves someone that can cover their ass, make it some interchangeable wage-slave’s fault, come out smelling, well, more like Halls than roses, but you get the picture.
It’s my idea, I came up with it. Or if there are witnesses you forgot to shoot: it’s their idea but their idea was an unworkable monster and I’m the only reason it was successful.
Followed by, it’s my idea and these people fucked up the implementation. Or if you were cornered into the weaker form: it was their idea and I must have missed some of the failure modes because they’re idiots and I’m an overworked genius.
The sycophants will climb over the bodies of their brethren to coo and oh my over your successes if you’re loud enough about being behind them, and they will ignore the bloodstains if you can photoshop another person’s fingerprints onto the throat of the deceased.
This behavior is in demand. Human activity is a distant second.
I don’t have any suggestions for this, because actual deserved bragging is hard to distinguish from the false type without entirely too much digging to be worth it.
I think my favorite part of this is the way the po'buckers are held up as the naturally ignorant, those that we are as bad as, when we become arrogant. There's an unexamined arrogance inside. Naturally we are better than them the great unwashed, the uneducated. We can be as bad as them, but only by failing, they can't possibly be as good as us.
Not meant to be a backhanded compliment, I can see how it would come across that way, I don't know if that internal contradiction is intentional or not but I definitely think it improves the art of the piece.
(https://i.imgur.com/VbNuFHy.jpg)
In a few places, Wilson writes about the Cosmic Shmuck principle - that you can avoid a lot of bullshit by thinking of yourself as this cosmic dumbass who is basically the straight-man in some divine comedy sketch. By recognizing the ways you are a cosmic shmuck, you can eventually stop jerking off to your own intelligence, and make a lot fewer head-in-the-clouds, not-receptive-to-what-you-should-probably-receive style errors.
Chao Te Ching, Chapter 51
If you want to be serious,
don't take yourself seriously.
Be open to change,
and bold enough to be the butt of the joke.
When you walk with total certainty,
your head high
like a cosmic schmuck,
you are vulnerable to the old banana peel shtick.
When a schmuck slips,
their face becomes red with embarrassment.
Eris showed them what they did not perceive.
And,
be honest,
it was funny.
What I'm hearing within what you wrote, seems to be a lot about people getting emotionally invested in ideas. It's when people also feel identified with an idea, so any attack or criticism or an idea is in turn a personal attack.
What I also see, kind of, is your engineering perspective come into play: whatever method furthers the ultimate goal in a better way, is the correct method... but there's one omission I think - the ultimate goal in itself can be extremely flawed, so I would say we need to be not only careful about our emotional investment in the ideas or the methods, but also of doing the same thing with the end goals.
I think it's a pattern that becomes ingrained over time under specific conditions:
The person is kept under continuous pressure
Their attention span is divided thin (see doctors with 60 seconds or less per patient)
Being forced to make decisions without all the information in stupidly short often arbitrary timeframes
Having to seriously undercut a system for time money or effort and then suffering the legacy debt that would have been better "If only they had listened to me" creates a kind of Cassandra Complex.
I'm sure I do this a lot but only with the management above me, I rely on the knowledge and expertise of my team, because they are the ones who know where the cracks are when all I can see is the overall design.
I think I know why lawyers escape it too: their whole job is based on convincing someone why they are right, and what they need to do to support that.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 12, 2019, 05:56:14 PM
Of course, this works far better in theory than in practice, at least at first. Because it WAS my idea. It was a bad idea, but it was MINE and now you bastards have killed it. For which I will inflict an appropriate vengeance.
This is appropriate in some situations being presented with nothing but terrible solutions, if we have to go with a terrible option, its going to at least be one my gut says to go with.
You're allowed to be arrogant only if you're competent, and one of the most important markers of competence is ability to recognize your mistakes, admit them, and correct them. Unsurprisingly, this makes arrogance and competence a rare combination.
When was the last time you saw someone screw up spectacularly, own their mistake with grace and confidence, and keep on going? It probably wasn't in politics.
My thinking is that "being right now" is far more important than "never being wrong". So, if your idea is better than mine, I will demonstrate my superiority by stealing it, and then loudly giving you credit for it.
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on December 12, 2019, 11:50:35 PM
You're allowed to be arrogant only if you're competent, and one of the most important markers of competence is ability to recognize your mistakes, admit them, and correct them. Unsurprisingly, this makes arrogance and competence a rare combination.
When was the last time you saw someone screw up spectacularly, own their mistake with grace and confidence, and keep on going? It probably wasn't in politics.
My thinking is that "being right now" is far more important than "never being wrong". So, if your idea is better than mine, I will demonstrate my superiority by stealing it, and then loudly giving you credit for it.
:mittens:
The best way to be
Just popped in to say I like all of this.
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on December 12, 2019, 11:50:35 PM
You're allowed to be arrogant only if you're competent, and one of the most important markers of competence is ability to recognize your mistakes, admit them, and correct them. Unsurprisingly, this makes arrogance and competence a rare combination.
When was the last time you saw someone screw up spectacularly, own their mistake with grace and confidence, and keep on going? It probably wasn't in politics.
My thinking is that "being right now" is far more important than "never being wrong". So, if your idea is better than mine, I will demonstrate my superiority by stealing it, and then loudly giving you credit for it.
Paul Crik once said:
Arrogance + Charisma = Charm
Arrogance Without Charisma = Vulgar
(though he's talking more about vanity than the "stupified by their own intelligence" brand of arrogance Roger describes above)
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on December 12, 2019, 11:50:35 PM
You're allowed to be arrogant only if you're competent, and one of the most important markers of competence is ability to recognize your mistakes, admit them, and correct them. Unsurprisingly, this makes arrogance and competence a rare combination.
When was the last time you saw someone screw up spectacularly, own their mistake with grace and confidence, and keep on going? It probably wasn't in politics.
My thinking is that "being right now" is far more important than "never being wrong". So, if your idea is better than mine, I will demonstrate my superiority by stealing it, and then loudly giving you credit for it.
Arrogance precludes competence, although it may not be noticeable at first.
Quote from: The Johnny on December 12, 2019, 11:25:14 PM
What I'm hearing within what you wrote, seems to be a lot about people getting emotionally invested in ideas. It's when people also feel identified with an idea, so any attack or criticism or an idea is in turn a personal attack.
What I also see, kind of, is your engineering perspective come into play: whatever method furthers the ultimate goal in a better way, is the correct method... but there's one omission I think - the ultimate goal in itself can be extremely flawed, so I would say we need to be not only careful about our emotional investment in the ideas or the methods, but also of doing the same thing with the end goals.
Flawed goals are the only ones that have any opera in them, though.
Seriously, was there any actual reason to go to the moon? No, of course not. It is basically just more Arizona, which nobody wants or needs.
But the goal WAS there, and we did 100 years of science in 10 years, immeasurably improving human existence, in the furtherance of a few buzz-cut white dudes driving golf balls across a dead rock.
On the downside, it also gave us Tang. Most of you are blissfully too young to remember Tang, but it was to my generation what dying of starvation was to Germans in 1634. An immediate, existential horror.
Quote from: Faust on December 12, 2019, 11:46:39 PM
I'm sure I do this a lot but only with the management above me, I rely on the knowledge and expertise of my team, because they are the ones who know where the cracks are when all I can see is the overall design.
If you have a trained crew and you don't use "mission tactics," you aren't really managing. Also, any metric that is more than one step away from "getting the job done" is automatically garbage.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 13, 2019, 03:06:43 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 12, 2019, 11:46:39 PM
I'm sure I do this a lot but only with the management above me, I rely on the knowledge and expertise of my team, because they are the ones who know where the cracks are when all I can see is the overall design.
If you have a trained crew and you don't use "mission tactics," you aren't really managing. Also, any metric that is more than one step away from "getting the job done" is automatically garbage.
Going to expand on this:
I have seen companies where inside personnel who will NEVER meet a customer face-to-face must wear a tie and jacket (Nalco used to be infamous for this), or face disciplinary action. This was supposed to aid professionalism. What it actually aided were "the resumes of all the competent people going into the fax machine".
That dress code was a metric that did not aid "getting the job done," which almost
always means "actually inhibited the job getting done."
This was a direct result of authoritarian management tactics. All their skilled folks moved to other offices, and Nalco went into a decline that they are still addressing badly.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 13, 2019, 03:09:48 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 13, 2019, 03:06:43 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 12, 2019, 11:46:39 PM
I'm sure I do this a lot but only with the management above me, I rely on the knowledge and expertise of my team, because they are the ones who know where the cracks are when all I can see is the overall design.
If you have a trained crew and you don't use "mission tactics," you aren't really managing. Also, any metric that is more than one step away from "getting the job done" is automatically garbage.
Going to expand on this:
I have seen companies where inside personnel who will NEVER meet a customer face-to-face must wear a tie and jacket (Nalco used to be infamous for this), or face disciplinary action. This was supposed to aid professionalism. What it actually aided were "the resumes of all the competent people going into the fax machine".
That dress code was a metric that did not aid "getting the job done," which almost always means "actually inhibited the job getting done."
This was a direct result of authoritarian management tactics. All their skilled folks moved to other offices, and Nalco went into a decline that they are still addressing badly.
The modern push for ISO seems to be to put barriers between the goal and how to accomplish it, all it cares about is process and meaningless paperwork to demonstrate the process without any thought for quality.
The worst part is it does expose a goal driven mentality, but the goal is to have that box ticked so the company can apply for tenders for people who require that box ticked, it says "Our goal is money, and we will ruin a companies culture to get it"
Uniforms or a dress code in anything other than face to face with customers or a kitchen is a controlling overbearing gesture that says "we dont trust you to be able to do your job"
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2019, 09:12:13 AM
The modern push for ISO seems to be to put barriers between the goal and how to accomplish it, all it cares about is process and meaningless paperwork to demonstrate the process without any thought for quality.
S'truth. My employer is ISO-blah-blah-blah certified, and we have periodic internal and external audits to that effect. All this compliance means is that we have documented processes, and that we document following those processes. Although some of the processes, in principle, could improve quality, they have enough
documented loopholes to be ineffective, and middle management treats them as a problem to be worked around, rather than a useful tool.
Our quality assurance department, as far as I know, has never been involved in actual testing of either developed systems or shippable product. Their function appears to be limited to the curation of said process documents, and occasionally playing pool in the break room. I would have thought a QA department should have a more adversarial relationship with engineering and manufacturing (adversarial in the sense of "we found an issue with the design" not "why haven't you filled out pre-development plan template S23 yet").
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on December 17, 2019, 01:07:23 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2019, 09:12:13 AM
The modern push for ISO seems to be to put barriers between the goal and how to accomplish it, all it cares about is process and meaningless paperwork to demonstrate the process without any thought for quality.
S'truth. My employer is ISO-blah-blah-blah certified, and we have periodic internal and external audits to that effect. All this compliance means is that we have documented processes, and that we document following those processes. Although some of the processes, in principle, could improve quality, they have enough documented loopholes to be ineffective, and middle management treats them as a problem to be worked around, rather than a useful tool.
Our quality assurance department, as far as I know, has never been involved in actual testing of either developed systems or shippable product. Their function appears to be limited to the curation of said process documents, and occasionally playing pool in the break room. I would have thought a QA department should have a more adversarial relationship with engineering and manufacturing (adversarial in the sense of "we found an issue with the design" not "why haven't you filled out pre-development plan template S23 yet").
As you say, ISO has one selling feature: It requires established procedures.
For us, it has one additional selling feature. The big boys cannot buy from anyone who is not ISO, so our competitors who don't have deep enough pockets to waste a shit ton of labor and money on paperwork cannot even bid.
This allows us to be slobs with good paperwork, charge what we like, and still get contracts.
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2019, 09:12:13 AM
Uniforms or a dress code in anything other than face to face with customers or a kitchen is a controlling overbearing gesture that says "we dont trust you to be able to do your job"
It actually says "You are a replaceable cog, and we can in fact replace you at any time, and nobody will smell the difference."
Huh.
https://eand.co/this-is-how-a-society-dies-35bdc3c0b854
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 20, 2019, 02:43:45 PM
Huh.
https://eand.co/this-is-how-a-society-dies-35bdc3c0b854
Very good read. Damn.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 20, 2019, 02:43:45 PM
Huh.
https://eand.co/this-is-how-a-society-dies-35bdc3c0b854
Dok, how well versed are you on China? Everyone in their right minds must get goosebumps thinking about their totalitarian tendencies BUT, how well do they take care of their own? How do they compare to the USA in that matter?
I mean, Cain or anyone else for that matter, does anybody know?
Quote from: The Johnny on December 20, 2019, 11:04:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 20, 2019, 02:43:45 PM
Huh.
https://eand.co/this-is-how-a-society-dies-35bdc3c0b854
Dok, how well versed are you on China? Everyone in their right minds must get goosebumps thinking about their totalitarian tendencies BUT, how well do they take care of their own? How do they compare to the USA in that matter?
I mean, Cain or anyone else for that matter, does anybody know?
China was not developed, it's emergent, they have horrible human rights violations and a poor standard of living.
The US chose that.
Quote from: nullified on December 13, 2019, 01:53:11 AM
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on December 12, 2019, 11:50:35 PM
You're allowed to be arrogant only if you're competent, and one of the most important markers of competence is ability to recognize your mistakes, admit them, and correct them. Unsurprisingly, this makes arrogance and competence a rare combination.
When was the last time you saw someone screw up spectacularly, own their mistake with grace and confidence, and keep on going? It probably wasn't in politics.
My thinking is that "being right now" is far more important than "never being wrong". So, if your idea is better than mine, I will demonstrate my superiority by stealing it, and then loudly giving you credit for it.
:mittens:
The best way to be
Many individuals seem to think that if they made a mistake they have to wrap their mistakes up in their identity. They begin to identify their mistakes as their flaws, and then they identify with those flaws in turn. They are afraid of losing a part of themselves by acknowledging they are fallible people. When you put a lot of time and money into knowing things, you begin to see the things you learned as immovable objects instead of making sure your hunger for knowledge is an unstoppable force. Or some other cheesy statement like that.
People in science fields are prone to this because they'd like to believe our understanding of reality and of our own existence within it is something we can pin down to computer generated atom counts and offer to our lady of perpetual flow charts. But I don't think legal professionals have as hard of a time understanding that their line of work is still a practice. Law doesn't usually fall into that same category of meticulous ass blowery because the individuals involved usually exclusively get through law school on free food, perserverence and hatred. Law students taking the flying leap off of asshole mountain when they begin to view their work as boundaries to test. It stops being about proper litigation and turns into a test of will. No one goes to law school if they dislike arguement, and lawyers get pedantic as fuck about debate when they start to become bored with their profession.
Also, the funny law facts do rot the brain a bit. It's frankly unavoidable.