Oh, so many jokes, so little time…
Stupidity is neither ignorance nor organicity, but rather, a corollary of knowing and an element of normalcy, the double of intelligence rather than its opposite. It is an artifact of our nature as finite beings and one of the most powerful determinants of human destiny. Stupidity is always the name of the Other, and it is the sign of the feminine. This course in Critical Psychology follows the work of Friedrich Nietzsche, Gilles Deleuze, and most recently, Avital Ronell, in a philosophical examination of those operations and technologies that we conduct in order to render ourselves uncomprehending. Stupidity, which has been evicted from the philosophical premises and dumbed down by psychometric psychology, has returned in the postmodern discourse against Nation, Self, and Truth and makes itself felt in political life ranging from the presidency to Beevis and Butthead. This course examines stupidity.
Hey!!! I rezemble that!!!
she reminds me of pedro and alfred1
bobbo,
I can accept that self-identified atheists have higher average I.Q.s. (Atheists certainly point this out, enough!)
My guess, though, is that is a positive correlation rather than causation. I could postulate a number of reasons why that might be. (most which are flattering of atheists, BTW.)
The older I get, the more I am convinced that people either have a part of their brain that perceives “spiritual reality” or not.
We can argue whether it is accurate or delusional but I see no reason to believe it is tied to native I.Q.
By the way, I tend to believe that Einstein had this “spiritual” part of his brain.
Have your read is writing on faith and spirituality? Like “What I Believe.”
He wasn’t traditionally religious, for sure but — dare I say it? — he seemed to believe in “intelligent design” as a kind of religion. (But, to be clear, it was nothing like the myth-as-science views of the fundamentalists.)
As I understand him, Einstein’s “religion” (his word, not mine) was more of an “awe” that elevated to something like religion . But, in the option of many theologians, awe is one of the the main underlying impulses of mysticism.
I, personally, would not call Einstein religious (which has to do more with ritual, tradition and community/shared-narrative) but he did seem very spiritual.
As for Darwin, he seemed to have a similar belief of complexity and “ordered-ness” but I have read less of his writing on spirituality and that was a long time ago.
#40–Greg==correlation and a weak one at that, of course. I’ll say it without further pedantry that when discussing religion and stupidity/intelligence the EMOTIONAL factors causing one ((causation!)) to COMPARTMENTALIZE an issue are many. Compartment–an area of life one does not apply one’s intellect to.
I also believe ((believe as in “no proof”)) that the intelligent religious types I have met are not the bible thumpers like Alfie ((HEY ALFIE!!)), rather they are the “oceanic spirits at one with the mystery of the universe” like Einstein. We do tend to lump dissimilar things together under one label, and with that label, forget there are differences so vast and signfiicant that indeed a different label could be applied.
Just as you have done.
Oh, and besides COMPARTMENTALIZATION, we also have lying for various reasons. Very common about religion. Lying to oneself, to others. To avoid criticism, to avoid the stupidity of others. Einstein.
#31 pedro
“#29 Thank you very much for making my point on #27. The important thing is stopping it and disabling the enablers.”
What point?
I repeat, if there’s a takeover, someone is leading the takeover and the important thing is knowing who it is, so we can stop him or her.
Once again:
Who’s leading this takeover, Mr. Pedro?
# 40 Greg Allen said,
I can accept that self-identified atheists have higher average I.Q.s. (Atheists certainly point this out, enough!)
BASED ON WHAT??? On what # 1 bobbo, not entirely definitional, said::
“Without stupid functionals, we wouldn’t have war, religion, or politics.”
His head is stuck up his ass when it comes to Bell Curve theory.
The pseudoscience of psychometry
When studying Physics at Rutgers,
Rutgers’s President about lost his job for making similar comments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
Bell Curve is not a theory.
Sumners was right and got into trouble because science aptitude does not fall on a normal bell shaped curve–its bi-polar. ((hee, hee!!!))
Also regarding Christianity vs. Science…
Many who have studied advanced math theory, walk away amazed at just how smart and committed to the truth in general and Christ in particular many of the early thinkers where.
Here is a list of many of those early thinkers interested in
Truth, peace and not WAR.
# 46 bobbo, just because it is so easy,
“Bell Curve is not a theory.”
Very Lame!
What is it Theory, Hypothesis or FACT. Since you say it’s not Theory it must be FACT. If you say it’s FACT, you would be wrong.
#32 bobbo
“And it all still continues TODAY.”
Thanks for the assist but in future you can probably take it for granted I’m generally aware of the obvious. I was just curious about the “illegal take-over” pedro mentions.
I think he actually meant “takeover by illegals” but he hasn’t figured that out yet and since he’s so nasty, I just didn’t feel like letting him off the hook.
🙂
I like this word “stupid” because 80% of the people I hear using it uses it wrong. Simply put most think stupid = ignorance. Stupid is a nasty word. I hesitate to call anyone this unless warranted or unless I’m really upset and don’t know which end is which 😀
Second word I like the best is “irregardless.” Yep, love it when people use it.
Third is “often.” This one is more funny than anything. Say it, say it….”..TEN” errr not exactly 😀
#48–nosense==another example only because it is so easy. You have heard of the google and the interwebitudes that make available to us all a vast archive of knowledge?
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bell_curve
You might guess or assume or hypothesize that a certain data set will assume a normal bell curve shape but that would not make it a “theory” in and of itself in any common parlance. The same is true of crayons. You may use them to file your personal assessments at work, but that doesn’t make your long term employability a theory either.
#49–weary==its obvious to me that knowing people don’t taunt and tease the disabled. Course, when the road is bumpy, we can always fall off the wagon.
#50 bobbo
“…knowing people don’t taunt and tease the disabled.”
You’re right, of course and I feel absolutely terrible.
Things not to have on your resume:
Occidental College – 180.Stupidity – 91%
# 50 bobbo, your verbiage is just that verbiage, meaningless B.S. Do you even know what 6 sigma means????????
Human Intelligence is learned. The learning process is a very, very varied process, the most learned would say, it is not well controlled or understood. That is, learning can’t be reproduced at will.
On top of that there is
*the innate (call it genetic) learning capability
*the opportunity or exposure to knowledge
*the person’s intrests or focus
*money
*…..
I work with controlled processes every day and these processes have a normal distribution (bell curve, Gaussian curve) because the process is a definable, controllable process.
Learning is anything but definable, controllable process. Just take a look at our educational system and how much we are still experimenting with get the right formulation.
I would recommend you stop showing you ignorance so willingly.
#55–heh, heh.
Half the words you use don’t mean what you intend them to mean.
All your ideas are tangential, irrelevant, or self-evidently incorrect.
How is it we are all typing in English here???
Good job.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Ignorance is bliss.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Which would you rather be, Wise or Intelligent.
After ten years in therapy, my psychologist told me something very touching, he said, “no hablo ingles.”
Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
that article makes me feel stupid.. most of these multi-syllable words I never read before. Yet sounds sexists for the parts that did make sense to me.
But that sounds like that’s the whole point when it states, “that we conduct in order to render ourselves uncomprehending.”
just like a lawyer!
# 56 bobbo,
Next time I’ll dumb it down for you, small words and easy sentences. Maybe I should use sentences like, see spot run?
I know, that will aid greatly your reading comprehension.
Sad, I guess, the subject matter is way beyond your grade level.
I will almost cry for you.
#54 pedro
“#52 Oh, don’t feel bad. I promise I will not make you look like an idiot next time.”
It’s OK, pedro. I realize your entire self image depends upon you seeing yourself as a grand legend in your own mind.
I’ll be seeing you around, mi amigo.
🙂
#43, Mr. G. Reaper,
With all due respect (and that is substantial), asking pedro an intelligent question, is, well, stupid.
😉
#64, ‘dro,
Of all the posts you have made here at DU, can you point to any that have contributed to the conversation?