4 ms·

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

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.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      Is there nothing novel in the thing itself that so many people refer to, with reverence, as "science"?
      - dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
        True, I don't think there is any novel concept in the term "science". ( i.e if I understood your correctly).

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.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    Is there nothing novel in the thing itself that so many people refer to, with reverence, as "science"?
    - dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
      True, I don't think there is any novel concept in the term "science". ( i.e if I understood your correctly).