3 ms·

A very humane post, thank you. I'd argue that the universal quantifier "all people are not trained" should be changed. Surely we can say that some people are t

A very humane post, thank you. I'd argue that the universal quantifier "all people are not trained" should be changed. Surely we can say that some people are trained in at least some of the tools to fight stupidity we, humanity as a whole, developed over the millennia. So a phrase like "not all people are trained" seems to be more on the mark to me. Beyond that I have little to say of substance, but I am curious. How do you fit "stupid actions", like putting your cat into a microwave oven, racing downhill on a gravel road in a shopping cart, or not running away from a blazing fire, into this framework? Is this a failure of reasoning, and therefore lack of training? (Training understood as guided or unguided learning) Is all stupidity avoidance empirical or are there stupidities (as an ontological object, LOL) that could be avoided on first principles?

openrisk 2y ago
Recklessness seems like a good case study of misunderstood "stupidity". The fact that younger people tend to be more prone to it is already an important clue. On the one hand their need to stand out in a competitive society creates an internal state that outsiders may not be able to appreciate. On the other hand their ability to assess the actual risk (take a calculated risk) may not be fully developed. E.g. unless trained formally (mock circumstances, games, history lessons, whatever), people will "train" simply through their own lived experience which in most cases is woefully inadequate for the range of situations they might face.
drcwpl 2y ago
This is better, thank you "not all people are trained" - agree, it is a generalization , we are trained to an extent - I guess a curriculum on stupidity would raise the bar of awareness. Ha - stupid actions were in the dumb and dumber category which I avoided, but would be fun on a course in Stupidity
0x3444ac53 2y ago
Logically, the universal quantifier and a negated existential quantifier are equivalent.
- Propelloni 2y ago
  True, hence we did not transform, but replace the quantifier. The original statement "all people are not trained" was false and we wanted to make a true statement. There are people who are trained, thus we say "there exist people who are not trained", which allows us to say "there exist people who are trained". Of course, this is not an equivalent statement to the original statement.

openrisk 2y ago

Recklessness seems like a good case study of misunderstood "stupidity". The fact that younger people tend to be more prone to it is already an important clue. On the one hand their need to stand out in a competitive society creates an internal state that outsiders may not be able to appreciate. On the other hand their ability to assess the actual risk (take a calculated risk) may not be fully developed. E.g. unless trained formally (mock circumstances, games, history lessons, whatever), people will "train" simply through their own lived experience which in most cases is woefully inadequate for the range of situations they might face.

drcwpl 2y ago

This is better, thank you "not all people are trained" - agree, it is a generalization , we are trained to an extent - I guess a curriculum on stupidity would raise the bar of awareness. Ha - stupid actions were in the dumb and dumber category which I avoided, but would be fun on a course in Stupidity

0x3444ac53 2y ago

Logically, the universal quantifier and a negated existential quantifier are equivalent.

Propelloni 2y ago
True, hence we did not transform, but replace the quantifier. The original statement "all people are not trained" was false and we wanted to make a true statement. There are people who are trained, thus we say "there exist people who are not trained", which allows us to say "there exist people who are trained". Of course, this is not an equivalent statement to the original statement.