5 ms·

I got part way through and quit. I appreciate the author's perspective, but I'm kind of tired of people so adamantly avoiding empathy. It's easy to say someone

by ericyd 3y ago

I got part way through and quit. I appreciate the author's perspective, but I'm kind of tired of people so adamantly avoiding empathy. It's easy to say someone is acting stupidly; it's much harder to put yourself in their shoes and understand why they might be acting that way. I dunno, maybe there is some wisdom I missed because I didn't finish it.

theragra 3y ago
Agree. Moreover, I don't agree with the author that some people are just stupid and that's it. Especially, with the surgeon example. I really don't think a surgeon can be stupid per se. That should be very rate occurrence. More like people do stupid things all the time. Including author, who is too smug, which I also consider stupid.
- ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
  Abentmindedness is often mistaken for stupidity. In my area, we have at least two world-ranked labs. We have Nobel Laureates, driving around. I encounter "stupid" drivers, all the time. I am one, too. I'm no Nobelate, but I'm smarter than the average bear.
- SamPatt 3y ago
  This is the problem with redefining commonly used terms like stupid. We tend to view it as lacking intelligence, and intelligence we often define as something like IQ, but the author explicitly rejects that and makes it about destructive (to themselves and others) behavior. The doctors were likely not stupid according to the standard definition, but were harmful towards both their patients and themselves, thus stupid according to the new definition. If the article didn't bother bringing up intelligence at all and instead focused on destructive behaviors, it would have made more sense.
  - drewcoo 3y ago
    > This is the problem with redefining commonly used terms like stupid. Maybe like Eskimos have many words for snow, we need many words for stupid. Or idiots should learn to use thesauruses. /s
    - slowmovintarget 3y ago
      We have many words. Foolishness and stupidity are common companions, but one does not require the other. Intelligent people behave foolishly all the time. The distinction is one of a failure of either imagination or effort. We have other words like ignorance, incompetence, impairment, and none of these require a lack of cognitive ability, though the latter implies diminished capacity. Bombast, however, typically seeks to oversimplify for the sake of provocation.
- nazgulsenpai 3y ago
  The "smugness" of the author is what made me close the tab 3 sections in. And totally agree, some of the smartest people I know are also the most aloof.
- postexitus 3y ago
  Good point. Interesting that he claims all groups of people contain a certain percentage of "Morons" but then he says he only surrounds himself with brilliant people, which, by definition, makes him the moron.
xanathar 3y ago
I quote: > "The remainder are simply stupid. This is approximately the composition of the organization writ large. The number of people at this organization who dislike their job, their stakeholders, and their salary but don't leave even though they no longer have the energy to work is astonishing, and that alone is enough to constitute stupidity as per Cipolla's definition." Because, apparently, a person cannot be burned out and at the same time still need food, a home, or whatever they needs a salary for, not to mention they might be on temporary visas and cannot risk being unemployed or any of the other billions of totally sensible reasons keeping them from leaving their jobs. So to answer your "maybe"... nope, no empathy, no wisdom.
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago
  [dead]
- pdimitar 3y ago
  Well then we should further separate the stupids: (1) those who are not actively malicious because they are burned out or even with awful health conditions and cannot bring themselves to be more productive and benevolent but still need the paycheck and (2) the a-hole MBAs or careerists who simply use the company as a trampoline to a better paycheck somewhere else and to tell with the consequences if they set back 1000+ families' financial well-being.
cstrahan 3y ago
> It's easy to say someone is acting stupidly; it's much harder to put yourself in their shoes and understand why they might be acting that way. This statement presupposes that there is a reason. Many people simply act completely irrationally, so the only "reason" for their actions that one can come up with is the overly reductive "well, their neurons fired in such a way that resulted in them doing <whatever>". I suspect avoiding generalities would assist discourse, so here's a concrete example to analyze: consider a senior (maybe even staff level) software developer, trying to write a loop. He writes a bunch of code, runs it (via tests, or executing the software itself), and finds that it doesn't work. So now he he changes the "<" to "<=". Still doesn't work. Now he changes that to ">". Still doesn't work. Now he changes that to ">=". Still doesn't work. Now he thinks "prime numbers are sometimes important, hm...", so he rounds the end of the range to the nearest prime number. Still doesn't work. Now he increments by two, instead of one. Still doesn't work. On a whim, now he changes the numeric type from an integer to a float, though he (of course) couldn't explain why that would change anything (all other things being equal in this scenario, it wouldn't). It still doesn't work. Etc, etc, etc. This sort of pattern continues for the next couple hours until the code happens to work for the scenarios tested (though is still incorrect and will eventually fail in production). What is the "reason" for this behavior? Or, more importantly, why would someone regularly engage in such behavior? Why, as opposed to reasoning about the code, instead spend hours being superstitious, cargo culting, guess-and-checking, etc? Why never once consider pre-/post-conditions, loop invariants, sketch out a small informal proof by induction, etc? Yes, some instances of bad decision making are due to unfortunate circumstances (stress, mental health, etc). But there are times where people simply demonstrate that they are, putting it kindly, not competent. That doesn't make them any less deserving of love and care, but they are still (with no negative sentiment or judgement intended) incompetent.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Because the behavior "worked" (i.e., solved a sufficient number of problems) in the past? Maybe because it is easier than other approaches?
- ericyd 3y ago
  I totally agree incompetence exists in the world, and totally agree it can be frustrating to observe or deal with. If the article had been titled "Brotherhood of Incompetence" I might have reacted differently. Even so, I find the author's stance to be off-putting. They write > The first kind reads about "stupid people" and laughs. And then go on to suggest that this is the "wrong" reaction, that stupid behavior is an insidious societal ill that should be treated with grave seriousness (obviously I'm exaggerating the author's words a bit). I find that laughing about circumstances which are both 1) outside your control, and 2) annoying is a much better response than stewing in my negative emotions and blaming the world for being incompetent. Better for my personal health, and better for those around me in that I'm not so bitter and unpleasant. All that said, I love your closing line > That doesn't make them any less deserving of love and care, but they are still (with no negative sentiment or judgement intended) incompetent. This aligns very much with my personal perspective.
dboreham 3y ago
It's just an algorithm.
helpfulContrib 3y ago
[dead]
low_tech_love 3y ago
There is no wisdom, it's supposed to be a rant. I don't think empathy applies to this kind of wide-ranged broad-stroked text. If he was attacking someone specifically and there was some side to the situation that he was willingly ignoring I might agree with you, but I think in this specific case (i.e. just a brain dump) this is interesting; you either identify with it or you don't, and both reactions are just as valid. I for example identified completely, and enjoyed the text. You might be thinking now "oh ok, another asshole to go with the first one", but let me try to justify my view. I believe that the stupid people he describes are not "accidentally" stupid, or simply people who don't know better. These are people who are willingly, intentionally stepping on other people's toes as a way of life. Some people are just like that: they don't see it as a fundamental, basic tenet of social life to respect others, solve problems through dialog and --- yes --- have empathy towards them. Some people think that bothering and pushing themselves (and their views) against others is their god-given right; as if manipulating those around you (in all the possible meanings of manipulation) is not only a valid attitude but possibly the only way to achieve anything. I don't feel bad to discriminate against such people. Actually, I think it's unfair and disrespectful to bundle them together with those who are honestly ignorant or dumb, who can't really help but do stupid things because they don't know better. If we can't have honest conversations about this, i.e. about the differentiation between these two groups, all we are doing is validating and reinforcing the behavior of the first group (by not holding them accountable).
- ericyd 3y ago
  I agree that there are people in the world who regularly trample on common notions of ethics and morals. It is really sad and frustrating that such people exist. I still find empathy to be a better reaction than blame and contempt. It is foundational to the way I choose to live my life. And with this response, I'm pushing my values on you in a way which is probably immoral! The author suggests that this "Brotherhood of Morons" is a recurring theme in their writing. The recurring theme is my writing is a simple mantra which I find brings me peace: we are all just humans doing our best in a difficult world.
  - pdimitar 3y ago
ouraf 3y ago
Being a bit more empathic to the author, the frustration expressed is understandable and it's VERY HARD to put yourself in Ben Shapiro's shoes, even if it is for the greater goal of being able to call him stupid without being considered "apathetic".
nataliste 3y ago
FTA: >Then there is the third kind of person who, upon reading anything like the quote above, immediately insists that the complainant must secretly be the insufferable one, because actually smart people don't experience frustration for reasons unknown. The implication is that they're the smart ones because they live in a world where the ultimate marker of intelligence is not the ability to discern sound action from unsound, but instead a grotesque meta-intelligence which manifests as the inexplicable belief that no action is ever deserving of contempt, and any deviation from this belief is a humility problem. Their judgement usually comes with a vomitous attempt at a cutting remark which, coming from individuals best described as a sentient LinkedIn posts, invariably morphs into the flaccid "you aren't as smart as you think you are" or "you sound insufferable". >I just wanted to take a moment to tell the third group to go fuck themselves.
- ericyd 3y ago
  lol definitely didn't get this far in the article, sounds about right

by ericyd 3y ago

theragra 3y ago

Agree. Moreover, I don't agree with the author that some people are just stupid and that's it. Especially, with the surgeon example. I really don't think a surgeon can be stupid per se. That should be very rate occurrence. More like people do stupid things all the time. Including author, who is too smug, which I also consider stupid.

ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
Abentmindedness is often mistaken for stupidity. In my area, we have at least two world-ranked labs. We have Nobel Laureates, driving around. I encounter "stupid" drivers, all the time. I am one, too. I'm no Nobelate, but I'm smarter than the average bear.
SamPatt 3y ago
This is the problem with redefining commonly used terms like stupid. We tend to view it as lacking intelligence, and intelligence we often define as something like IQ, but the author explicitly rejects that and makes it about destructive (to themselves and others) behavior. The doctors were likely not stupid according to the standard definition, but were harmful towards both their patients and themselves, thus stupid according to the new definition. If the article didn't bother bringing up intelligence at all and instead focused on destructive behaviors, it would have made more sense.
- drewcoo 3y ago
  > This is the problem with redefining commonly used terms like stupid. Maybe like Eskimos have many words for snow, we need many words for stupid. Or idiots should learn to use thesauruses. /s
  - slowmovintarget 3y ago
    We have many words. Foolishness and stupidity are common companions, but one does not require the other. Intelligent people behave foolishly all the time. The distinction is one of a failure of either imagination or effort. We have other words like ignorance, incompetence, impairment, and none of these require a lack of cognitive ability, though the latter implies diminished capacity. Bombast, however, typically seeks to oversimplify for the sake of provocation.
nazgulsenpai 3y ago
The "smugness" of the author is what made me close the tab 3 sections in. And totally agree, some of the smartest people I know are also the most aloof.
postexitus 3y ago
Good point. Interesting that he claims all groups of people contain a certain percentage of "Morons" but then he says he only surrounds himself with brilliant people, which, by definition, makes him the moron.

xanathar 3y ago

I quote: > "The remainder are simply stupid. This is approximately the composition of the organization writ large. The number of people at this organization who dislike their job, their stakeholders, and their salary but don't leave even though they no longer have the energy to work is astonishing, and that alone is enough to constitute stupidity as per Cipolla's definition." Because, apparently, a person cannot be burned out and at the same time still need food, a home, or whatever they needs a salary for, not to mention they might be on temporary visas and cannot risk being unemployed or any of the other billions of totally sensible reasons keeping them from leaving their jobs. So to answer your "maybe"... nope, no empathy, no wisdom.

Slava_Propanei 3y ago
[dead]
pdimitar 3y ago
Well then we should further separate the stupids: (1) those who are not actively malicious because they are burned out or even with awful health conditions and cannot bring themselves to be more productive and benevolent but still need the paycheck and (2) the a-hole MBAs or careerists who simply use the company as a trampoline to a better paycheck somewhere else and to tell with the consequences if they set back 1000+ families' financial well-being.

cstrahan 3y ago

> It's easy to say someone is acting stupidly; it's much harder to put yourself in their shoes and understand why they might be acting that way. This statement presupposes that there is a reason. Many people simply act completely irrationally, so the only "reason" for their actions that one can come up with is the overly reductive "well, their neurons fired in such a way that resulted in them doing <whatever>". I suspect avoiding generalities would assist discourse, so here's a concrete example to analyze: consider a senior (maybe even staff level) software developer, trying to write a loop. He writes a bunch of code, runs it (via tests, or executing the software itself), and finds that it doesn't work. So now he he changes the "<" to "<=". Still doesn't work. Now he changes that to ">". Still doesn't work. Now he changes that to ">=". Still doesn't work. Now he thinks "prime numbers are sometimes important, hm...", so he rounds the end of the range to the nearest prime number. Still doesn't work. Now he increments by two, instead of one. Still doesn't work. On a whim, now he changes the numeric type from an integer to a float, though he (of course) couldn't explain why that would change anything (all other things being equal in this scenario, it wouldn't). It still doesn't work. Etc, etc, etc. This sort of pattern continues for the next couple hours until the code happens to work for the scenarios tested (though is still incorrect and will eventually fail in production). What is the "reason" for this behavior? Or, more importantly, why would someone regularly engage in such behavior? Why, as opposed to reasoning about the code, instead spend hours being superstitious, cargo culting, guess-and-checking, etc? Why never once consider pre-/post-conditions, loop invariants, sketch out a small informal proof by induction, etc? Yes, some instances of bad decision making are due to unfortunate circumstances (stress, mental health, etc). But there are times where people simply demonstrate that they are, putting it kindly, not competent. That doesn't make them any less deserving of love and care, but they are still (with no negative sentiment or judgement intended) incompetent.

RandomLensman 3y ago
Because the behavior "worked" (i.e., solved a sufficient number of problems) in the past? Maybe because it is easier than other approaches?
ericyd 3y ago
I totally agree incompetence exists in the world, and totally agree it can be frustrating to observe or deal with. If the article had been titled "Brotherhood of Incompetence" I might have reacted differently. Even so, I find the author's stance to be off-putting. They write > The first kind reads about "stupid people" and laughs. And then go on to suggest that this is the "wrong" reaction, that stupid behavior is an insidious societal ill that should be treated with grave seriousness (obviously I'm exaggerating the author's words a bit). I find that laughing about circumstances which are both 1) outside your control, and 2) annoying is a much better response than stewing in my negative emotions and blaming the world for being incompetent. Better for my personal health, and better for those around me in that I'm not so bitter and unpleasant. All that said, I love your closing line > That doesn't make them any less deserving of love and care, but they are still (with no negative sentiment or judgement intended) incompetent. This aligns very much with my personal perspective.

dboreham 3y ago

It's just an algorithm.

helpfulContrib 3y ago

[dead]

low_tech_love 3y ago

There is no wisdom, it's supposed to be a rant. I don't think empathy applies to this kind of wide-ranged broad-stroked text. If he was attacking someone specifically and there was some side to the situation that he was willingly ignoring I might agree with you, but I think in this specific case (i.e. just a brain dump) this is interesting; you either identify with it or you don't, and both reactions are just as valid. I for example identified completely, and enjoyed the text. You might be thinking now "oh ok, another asshole to go with the first one", but let me try to justify my view. I believe that the stupid people he describes are not "accidentally" stupid, or simply people who don't know better. These are people who are willingly, intentionally stepping on other people's toes as a way of life. Some people are just like that: they don't see it as a fundamental, basic tenet of social life to respect others, solve problems through dialog and --- yes --- have empathy towards them. Some people think that bothering and pushing themselves (and their views) against others is their god-given right; as if manipulating those around you (in all the possible meanings of manipulation) is not only a valid attitude but possibly the only way to achieve anything. I don't feel bad to discriminate against such people. Actually, I think it's unfair and disrespectful to bundle them together with those who are honestly ignorant or dumb, who can't really help but do stupid things because they don't know better. If we can't have honest conversations about this, i.e. about the differentiation between these two groups, all we are doing is validating and reinforcing the behavior of the first group (by not holding them accountable).

ericyd 3y ago
I agree that there are people in the world who regularly trample on common notions of ethics and morals. It is really sad and frustrating that such people exist. I still find empathy to be a better reaction than blame and contempt. It is foundational to the way I choose to live my life. And with this response, I'm pushing my values on you in a way which is probably immoral! The author suggests that this "Brotherhood of Morons" is a recurring theme in their writing. The recurring theme is my writing is a simple mantra which I find brings me peace: we are all just humans doing our best in a difficult world.
- pdimitar 3y ago

ouraf 3y ago

Being a bit more empathic to the author, the frustration expressed is understandable and it's VERY HARD to put yourself in Ben Shapiro's shoes, even if it is for the greater goal of being able to call him stupid without being considered "apathetic".

nataliste 3y ago

FTA: >Then there is the third kind of person who, upon reading anything like the quote above, immediately insists that the complainant must secretly be the insufferable one, because actually smart people don't experience frustration for reasons unknown. The implication is that they're the smart ones because they live in a world where the ultimate marker of intelligence is not the ability to discern sound action from unsound, but instead a grotesque meta-intelligence which manifests as the inexplicable belief that no action is ever deserving of contempt, and any deviation from this belief is a humility problem. Their judgement usually comes with a vomitous attempt at a cutting remark which, coming from individuals best described as a sentient LinkedIn posts, invariably morphs into the flaccid "you aren't as smart as you think you are" or "you sound insufferable". >I just wanted to take a moment to tell the third group to go fuck themselves.

ericyd 3y ago
lol definitely didn't get this far in the article, sounds about right