3 ms·

> Q. Aren’t there people already doing this? A.To the best of my knowledge, no. Send me pertinent information like emails or links if you think it’s been done.

> Q. Aren’t there people already doing this? A.To the best of my knowledge, no. Send me pertinent information like emails or links if you think it’s been done. I'm curious if you've gotten many emails, and if so what the nature of them tend to be. > Q. Are you trying to change the world? The answer is no. I found this part a bit counterintuitive.

dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
>I'm curious if you've gotten many emails, and if so what the nature of them tend to be. No I don't get many emails. In the rare case when I do get one - it's one that is somewhat preachy. They think I'm a nut who needs therapy. >I found this part a bit counterintuitive. I believe that the vast majority of people who are stupid are innately stupid, meaning if circumstances change they are not going to be less stupid ( though they might be nicer). Trying to change stupid people would be a fool's errand and IMO an impossibility. If one were very rich one may attempt changing the world, though I suspect that the rich (who are more likely to be bright) know that that it can be difficult to budge the needle.
- mistermann 2y ago
  Do you think it is possible to make people even stupider? At scale? I believe it to be possible, and in play, at scale.
  - dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
    >Do you think it is possible to make people even stupider? At scale? Not intrinsically, but certainly the stupid under the right circumstances can be incited to commit acts that they will normally not think of, and yes it can be done at scale, govts, dictators, rulers, all do it.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      What role is "intrinsically" playing here? Do you think non-stupid people can have their stupidity: 1. increased by outside forces? 2.sustained due to a lack of outside forces?
      - dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
        >What role is "intrinsically" playing here? When I mean "intrinsically" or in 'intrinsic' I mean what is innate. To make the distinction clearer smart people can occasionally do stupid things, do to various factors like time constraint, ill luck etc, but they won't do it consusrtently. To give you a very simple example someone who earns reasonably well, if they are consistently out of money before their next paycheck, they are intrinsically stupid. >Do you think non-stupid people can have their stupidity: >1. increased by outside forces? No as a general rule. More specifically they are less likely to be manipulated by outside forces >sustained due to a lack of outside forces? For some it may be yes, others no I think. I'm not sure of the breakup. There are various categories of non stupid people, for some external influences are needed to stimulate their thinking, and there are others which are self-reflective even without targeted ( at them) external influences. The latter would be a category of truly independent thinkers. p.s: Since a few line of definition of what is/is not stupid can be inadequate, I have a page devoted to it https://quberoot.wordpress.com/dysfunctional/ https://quberoot.wordpress.com/dysfunctional/
        mistermann 2y ago
        > but they won't do it consusrtently On certain topics they will! > No as a general rule. Which logically resolves to Yes. > More specifically they are less likely to be manipulated by outside forces In the broad aggregate agree, but not on all topics. > For some it may be yes, others no I think. What if there is something like science that's yet to be invented (" a lack of outside forces"), thus people do not have access to the "intelligence" bonus it provides. Would this count, if there was such a thing?
        dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
        >thus people do not have access to the "intelligence" bonus it provides. Would is count, if there was such a thing? You mean will it count into sustaining stupidity? yes is the answer. ( and to be more nuanced I wouldn't call it stupidity, that's ignorance). On another note: science was never 'invented' - the spirit of inquiry was always there among minority of individuals since ancient times.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

dennis_jeeves2 2y ago

>I'm curious if you've gotten many emails, and if so what the nature of them tend to be. No I don't get many emails. In the rare case when I do get one - it's one that is somewhat preachy. They think I'm a nut who needs therapy. >I found this part a bit counterintuitive. I believe that the vast majority of people who are stupid are innately stupid, meaning if circumstances change they are not going to be less stupid ( though they might be nicer). Trying to change stupid people would be a fool's errand and IMO an impossibility. If one were very rich one may attempt changing the world, though I suspect that the rich (who are more likely to be bright) know that that it can be difficult to budge the needle.

mistermann 2y ago
Do you think it is possible to make people even stupider? At scale? I believe it to be possible, and in play, at scale.
- dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
  >Do you think it is possible to make people even stupider? At scale? Not intrinsically, but certainly the stupid under the right circumstances can be incited to commit acts that they will normally not think of, and yes it can be done at scale, govts, dictators, rulers, all do it.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    What role is "intrinsically" playing here? Do you think non-stupid people can have their stupidity: 1. increased by outside forces? 2.sustained due to a lack of outside forces?
    - dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
      >What role is "intrinsically" playing here? When I mean "intrinsically" or in 'intrinsic' I mean what is innate. To make the distinction clearer smart people can occasionally do stupid things, do to various factors like time constraint, ill luck etc, but they won't do it consusrtently. To give you a very simple example someone who earns reasonably well, if they are consistently out of money before their next paycheck, they are intrinsically stupid. >Do you think non-stupid people can have their stupidity: >1. increased by outside forces? No as a general rule. More specifically they are less likely to be manipulated by outside forces >sustained due to a lack of outside forces? For some it may be yes, others no I think. I'm not sure of the breakup. There are various categories of non stupid people, for some external influences are needed to stimulate their thinking, and there are others which are self-reflective even without targeted ( at them) external influences. The latter would be a category of truly independent thinkers. p.s: Since a few line of definition of what is/is not stupid can be inadequate, I have a page devoted to it https://quberoot.wordpress.com/dysfunctional/ https://quberoot.wordpress.com/dysfunctional/
      - mistermann 2y ago
        > but they won't do it consusrtently On certain topics they will! > No as a general rule. Which logically resolves to Yes. > More specifically they are less likely to be manipulated by outside forces In the broad aggregate agree, but not on all topics. > For some it may be yes, others no I think. What if there is something like science that's yet to be invented (" a lack of outside forces"), thus people do not have access to the "intelligence" bonus it provides. Would this count, if there was such a thing?
        dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
        >thus people do not have access to the "intelligence" bonus it provides. Would is count, if there was such a thing? You mean will it count into sustaining stupidity? yes is the answer. ( and to be more nuanced I wouldn't call it stupidity, that's ignorance). On another note: science was never 'invented' - the spirit of inquiry was always there among minority of individuals since ancient times.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]