Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Like gliding backwards through porridge.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                         

Converting to stupidity

A new religion that believes in uneducated decisions
  (+3, -1)
(+3, -1)
  [vote for,
against]

The leaders of this new religion believe in the right to remain uneducated, and rely on pseudo-truths gleaned from reading article headlines only, or watching conspiracy theory videos.

This religion looks down at intellectuals of any sort, and despise research of any kind. It is a political and cultural movement that advances brutality and stupidity as the "wish of god". Their moto: If god wanted us to be smart why did he create us stupid?

pashute, Nov 30 2015

[link]






       Take a look at Roman Catholicism, they've been doing this for a thousand years ...
8th of 7, Nov 30 2015
  

       What [8th] said. Baked by any religion you care to name.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 30 2015
  

       Where do I sign? I can do stupidity on an industrial scale.
not_morrison_rm, Nov 30 2015
  

       Head for Syria. ISIL are looking for people just like you. So are the drones, but not in a good way.
8th of 7, Nov 30 2015
  

       //and rely on pseudo-truths gleaned from reading article headlines only, or watching conspiracy theory videos.//
Is this what religions do? One of the advantages of a dogma is that your position on headlines and tinfoil youtubes is already determined for you (and almost invariably in support of existing power structures) rather than the inbuilt flexibility of a dynamic collage-based conspiracy religion, which seems to me to be what's proposed.
  

       That said, paragraph 2 of the idea is close to the practical manifestations of many organised religions (and is therefore by some margin the less interesting of the two), so maybe that's what's prompting people to ignore para 1 and do the Ol' Halfbakery Religi-lol.
calum, Nov 30 2015
  

       // It is a political and cultural movement that advances brutality and stupidity as the "wish of god". //   

       Actually, paragraph 2 sounds remarkably like unreconstructed National Socialism. Or Maoism. Or any other dictatorship...
8th of 7, Nov 30 2015
  

       Sorry [pashute] this idea is against individual liberty, liberty might seem stupid, but usually things that are done freely people who would form a disciplinary order otherwise, or assume the implicit naivete as a way to control. Nietzche comments on this as antithesis of value in metaphysics and is included in a very special axis.
guncandy, Nov 30 2015
  

       This Idea doesn't really consider stupidity in an accurate way. Consider the IQ scale, which is presumed to measure how smart (non-stupid) people are. (Yes, I know that there are arguments about the accuracy of THAT, but bear with me for a bit.) Well, it is logically obvious that that scale automatically measures stupidity, too. The lower the IQ (or whatever equivalent scale you choose), the higher the stupidity, see? Nobody is 100% smart, so everyone is at least somewhat stupid.   

       The point of the preceding relates to the title of this Idea. Since everyone is already somewhat stupid, no "conversion" is necessary!
Vernon, Nov 30 2015
  

       Reminds me a bit of Discordianism.
notexactly, Dec 01 2015
  

       We clever people often conflate being uneducated with being stupid. It's a dangerous mistake to make.
DrBob, Dec 01 2015
  

       As is ignoring the obvious fact that there are many more "stupid" people than "smart" people, and that they typically hold more power, use less prudence in exercising it, don't like being called stupid, and are quick to take offense. No effect in telling a large "stupid" group that they are wrong except to undermine your own security, which is pretty stupid.
LimpNotes, Dec 01 2015
  

       I don't think that there are many more 'stupid' people than there are 'smart' people. There are far more conditioned than non-conditioned people though. Maybe they will not take the same offense to being told they are wrong as will the few 'less than smart' people who tend to follow the crowd.   

       //I don't think that there are many more 'stupid' people than there are 'smart' people.//

What I'm saying is most people think they are right (smart), so if others don't agree with their conclusions, others are wrong (stupid). If a person has a set of conclusions, the majority of people out there will disagree with you in one form or fashion, and therefore be stupid from your point of view. More "stupid" people than "smart" people. When a large group of like-minded individuals gets together, calling them stupid doesn't change their thinking because the group is self-validating, it only makes them into enemies.
LimpNotes, Dec 01 2015
  

       I don't know. I never assume that someone with an opinion different from one I hold is less intelligent than me.
Maybe they know something I don't which makes them feel that way.
Maybe my assumptions are faulty and their opinion sways me.
Maybe mine sways them.
  

       Group size opinion ratios shouldn't matter one whit to open discussion. I'm almost certain that every 'truth' we hold as known was fought for first by a single individual against all of whichever society surrounded them at the time.
Were every one of these individuals 'stupid' to dig in their heels against the tide?
Was Rosa Parks stupid?
Was Galileo?
Gandhi?
  

       I don't think so.   

       If might made right... empires would never fall. It is that cycle which needs to, (and will be), broken.   

       // I never assume that someone with an opinion different from one I hold is less intelligent than me. //   

       But that is likely to be because you are yourself intelligent. That is how, and why, science works.   

       You observe a white horse. You conclude "All horses are white" on the basis of the available data.   

       You are then presented with a field containing animals that fulfill all your criteria for "horse", except that not all of them are white.   

       You can then conclude either (a) "Some, but not all, horses are white", or (b) "There exist creatures resembling horses that are not actually horses because they are not white" *   

       In either case you are willing to modify your conclusions as and when more verifiable data are available.   

       Stupid people do not do this.   

       Stupid people persist in their opinions despite all evidence to the contrary.   

       Stupid people fall back on non-sequitur or hermetic arguments when confronted with facts.   

       * In this case, (b) is actually correct. If you look closely, the large brown herbivorous quadruped over in the far corner by the fence is in fact a cow.
8th of 7, Dec 01 2015
  

       //I don't know. I never assume that someone with an opinion different from one I hold is less intelligent than me.//

And that is why you have few enemies and are beloved, or fewer enemies and more beloved than someone who goes around calling people stupid. Also, I wasn't necessarily referring to you or anyone really when I said "you", more like people in general.
LimpNotes, Dec 01 2015
  

       ^ That's not it.   

       //In either case you are willing to modify your conclusions as and when more verifiable data are available.   

       Stupid people do not do this.
Stupid people persist in their opinions despite all evidence to the contrary.
Stupid people fall back on non-sequitur or hermetic arguments when confronted with facts.//
  

       Yeah... conditioning can be a bitch to overcome.
Actual mentally deficient people I've met just want a village to belong to.
  

       //Was Galileo?//

Well Galileo certainly was stupid. He wrote his book in a way that was calculated to make the pope look like a prize imbecile even though that same pope had been supporting Galileo's efforts at doing science.
DrBob, Dec 02 2015
  

       See... now I've got to go see if the pope during Galileo's day deserved to look like a prize imbecile or not.
{heavy sigh}
  

       m'yes, not much listening to reason going on I see...
...man, I would have been SO burnt alive back then.
  

       Yes, sad how all the old skills are dying out ...
8th of 7, Dec 02 2015
  

       Much cooler though.   

       //I've got to go see if the pope etc//

2fries, I expect that he probably did deserve it but that isn't the issue. The issue is, was Galileo notably dumb to go ahead & do it, thus turning an all-powerful ally into an all-powerful enemy. It's not even that Galileo was bravely revealing truth to the world in the face of religious persecution, because the Pope was already letting him do it (within limits) & not persecuting him.

[For those not familiar with Galileo's book, it is presented as a dialogue. The character defending the papal doctrine is named Simplicio.]
DrBob, Dec 03 2015
  

       From what I read, the pope insisted that his own words and arguments be placed into the book after it had already been written, so Galileo placed these words in Simplicio's mouth rather than interweave another perspective.   

       Yeah, probably not his brightest move, but history sees which men sought truth even to their own detriment and which men sought stagnation.
From the record of his thought processes I'd say he probably felt he had a pretty good reason for angling things the way he did, even if nobody else understood, (or yet understands) why.
  

       I think the dude totally rocked. The balls it must have taken to make the journey to doorstep of the second most powerful man in his society to basically tell him to go piss-up-a-rope for not taking a rational stand when the evidence could be seen and tested by all is... epic.
How long would Heliocentrism have languished had he truly recanted?
  

       E pur se mouve indeed.
Nope. Not a stupid dude, just a reeeeeally stubborn smart dude.
  

       //How long would Heliocentrism have languished had he truly recanted?// For the record, Aristarchus invented the heliocentric model back in the -300's. I mention this only because he was a really cool guy who also invented the combover and nail-polish.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 17 2016
  

       Well, yes, fair enough, but his discus-throwing was never prize-winning, and he never put quite enough seasoning in his mousakka.
8th of 7, Jun 17 2016
  

       Paradoxically, Galileo's belief in his own genius made him somewhat stupid regarding heliocentricity; in particular, he completely ignored Kepler's improvements to the model, because he, Galileo, not Kepler, had to be the genius. This is a pity, because, IIRC, he really was a genius in other areas (I'm thinking of mechanics).   

       I suppose it can be argued from this that self-belief, as well as religious belief, can engender stupidity.
pertinax, Jun 18 2016
  

       Spare him his life from geocentricity ...
8th of 7, Jun 18 2016
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle