3 ms·
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 l
by 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 agoWe 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.