Are dumb people worth talking to?

[chickpea]

depends on the topic. people are intelligent in different ways and can be related to on different levels. some conversations aren't worth it with certain people though.

 

[Stanton Moore]

If you were drowning, would you care about the intelligence of the person who jumped in to save you?

 

[cascadeco]

I think it's more about the persons' character and heart. There are dumb and smart people who are unkind and ignorant and completely self absorbed, and smart and dumb people who are open, sincere, and kind. I don't associate with the former. And, those who might be book smart yet can't get out of their own head and worldview, and look down upon others...I view them as incredibly dumb in other ways.

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

I think it's more about the persons' character and heart. There are dumb and smart people who are unkind and ignorant and completely self absorbed, and smart and dumb people who are open, sincere, and kind. I don't associate with the former. And, those who might be book smart yet can't get out of their own head and worldview, and look down upon others...I view them as incredibly dumb in other ways.

It's incredibly lonely to pretend to care about things that you don't so that people who in all likelihood will never care for you anyhow can feel a bit less uncomfortable.

 

[cascadeco]

It's incredibly lonely to pretend to care about things that you don't so that people who in all likelihood will never care for you anyhow can feel a bit less uncomfortable.

I can certainly relate to loneliness and feeling alien to many people/differing values and concerns than most. I'm not sure I'm super great at pretending to care, though, if I actually don't. If I genuinely don't, I will probably try to interact less. I'm not very good a all at faking things.

 

[Lady Lazarus]

I am.

 

[nonsequitur]

It's incredibly lonely to pretend to care about things that you don't so that people who in all likelihood will never care for you anyhow can feel a bit less uncomfortable.

Or... You can ask enough questions to find something interesting? I'm able to talk to most people casually because I ask loads of questions and don't make assumptions about their experiences or level of intelligence. Being in the industry that I'm in, I'm surrounded by a lot of high IQ people. It means nothing in terms of loneliness and being able to connect. I find loads of them boring because they have such narrowly defined experiences/perspectives and goals and have a weak sense of self - in spite of their academic intelligence.

I used to think that the barrier to communication was either character or lack of common interests or differences in intelligence. It's none of the above, it's a lack of curiosity in what other people have experienced, why they have the perspectives that they do, and a focus on your own experiences and perspectives.

Everyone thinks that people who don't agree with their way of seeing the world is dumb. That comes from not wanting to listen because it takes cognitive and emotional work. But if you're not willing to put in the work, you'll either end up surrounding yourself with people exactly like yourself or you'll have no one at all. Both are lonely existences.

 

[Zangetshumody]

Those with a low intellectual IQ often have a high emotional IQ, while many of those with a high intellectual IQ often have a low emotional IQ.

Watch me bothering:

I just want to point out that Mole mentions a factual claim pertinent to the thread's general topic, while completely ignoring a direct treatment of the question.

Diversions like this are based in a skeptical outlook, that are obsessed with factual judgement which portend to supersede an exchange among those held to enjoy equivalent standings. Here we are all being offered a definition by Mole, with a built in formula that neatly divides various points of view as being morally wrong— if they don't similarly accept the same factual distinction: in analysis on this subject. What is morally right is imposed by a factual assertion or claim, which presumes to do the work of answering the question for everyone (including Mole), while condemning those who don't similarly concede to this pernicious claim to a moral authority.

_____

My answer to this particular matter: it first depends on the "dumb" persons claim or powers that are extending upon you, or whose influence subsists counter to my plans and the reasoning thereof. But this 'dumbness' gauging, is not a useful way to initially perceive people, its more of a secondary concern with deciding how to respond in the way that conserves a fully deliberate attitude: which is an attitude that is more difficult to be in the pursuit of when contracting (in a liberal sense of the word 'contract': i.e. consciously consenting to contract the energies held through 'the self') with "dumb" people.

 

[Kanra Jest]

There are no dumb people then? Can't judge because we're all smart and dumb in our own ways? Eh well, whatever you call it, there ARE certain people who make my head hurt. And with regards to anything beyond small talk and simplistic things they are sorely lacking so thus I avoid them or 'tolerate' if I can't avoid them. Playing the friendly game because I don't just shut people out like that. But still nothing wrong with that, for we all have our preferences. And some people literally make my head hurt being around so that must mean something, eh? Rather than just "Arrogance, how dare you think you're superior"

But yes. Life is about more than that so if they have other things they excel in other than "that's what she said, hardy harr harr" then good on them. Not worth judging solely on that considering some just have different things to offer, where in other areas they may be lacking for you. It's personal preference really. If they lack in the fields you desire then move on to someone else who has whatever you're looking for. People fit for different types. Different groups, clichés, whatever.

Some cases like I've known have been hard for me to explain things without having to go into detail I expect them to just 'get'. But that's in the case of them being heavy sensors who's too grounded to see where I'm branching off to. Basically different wavelengths.

 

[Lark]

I hang out with mentally disabled people all the time.

What I can't stand are dumb people with lots of opinions on things they know nothing about.

Yeah, that's more like it.

The amount of one time great news feeds and newsgroups I unsubscribe from and block on Amazon these days because they've degenerated from philosophy, wit and opinion to the whole sale promotion of drug addiction and drug addicted lifestyles.

Often some work's gone into creating videos from video game segments or stock footage from youtube and movies, which is a shame, it shows there's something resembling talent and skills, which I dont possess, and creativity and its all being channeled into telling people that using drugs is a great idea, rationalising the choice to use drugs themselves and the, by now cliched, attacks on anonymous, vague authorities who whether or not they disapprove arent approving or validating the choices involved and, hey, that's enough to count as "oppression" these days.

What irks me the most is when you try and sound a note of skepticism, and I'm not meaning some kind of all out evidence based lambast of addictive lifestyles, just asking questions which dont run exactly in the direction of "BRILLIANT! DO DRUGS!", you'll get a torrent of abuse in the comments from 1001 ballbags of the "I've got an opinion, its got to be respected, because its my opinion, so there" variety.

The closest any liberal opinion got to recognising contradictions in their thinking like this was with things like Rebel Sell or RATM's lyric about "got you thinking that buying is rebelling" and the, supposedly, post-modern ironic marketing of Che and Mao mugs and T-shirts.

Then again it goes a lot wider than that whole section of society that's trapped in a moody teen moment and imagining the government is their parents.

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

Or... You can ask enough questions to find something interesting? I'm able to talk to most people casually because I ask loads of questions and don't make assumptions about their experiences or level of intelligence. Being in the industry that I'm in, I'm surrounded by a lot of high IQ people. It means nothing in terms of loneliness and being able to connect. I find loads of them boring because they have such narrowly defined experiences/perspectives and goals and have a weak sense of self - in spite of their academic intelligence.

I used to think that the barrier to communication was either character or lack of common interests or differences in intelligence. It's none of the above, it's a lack of curiosity in what other people have experienced, why they have the perspectives that they do, and a focus on your own experiences and perspectives.

Everyone thinks that people who don't agree with their way of seeing the world is dumb. That comes from not wanting to listen because it takes cognitive and emotional work. But if you're not willing to put in the work, you'll either end up surrounding yourself with people exactly like yourself or you'll have no one at all. Both are lonely existences.

This Facial Analysis Software Picks Out Terrorists, Smart People, Brand Promoters & More | SnapMunk

 

[Mole]

Watch me bothering:

I just want to point out that Mole mentions a factual claim pertinent to the thread's general topic, while completely ignoring a direct treatment of the question.

Diversions like this are based in a skeptical outlook, that are obsessed with factual judgement which portend to supersede an exchange among those held to enjoy equivalent standings. Here we are all being offered a definition by Mole, with a built in formula that neatly divides various points of view as being morally wrong— if they don't similarly accept the same factual distinction: in analysis on this subject. What is morally right is imposed by a factual assertion or claim, which presumes to do the work of answering the question for everyone (including Mole), while condemning those who don't similarly concede to this pernicious claim to a moral authority.

_____

My answer to this particular matter: it first depends on the "dumb" persons claim or powers that are extending upon you, or whose influence subsists counter to my plans and the reasoning thereof. But this 'dumbness' gauging, is not a useful way to initially perceive people, its more of a secondary concern with deciding how to respond in the way that conserves a fully deliberate attitude: which is an attitude that is more difficult to be in the pursuit of when contracting (in a liberal sense of the word 'contract': i.e. consciously consenting to contract the energies held through 'the self') with "dumb" people.

Yes, I do regard the question above as a leading question. I see it as naively manipulative and it deserves to be ignored as not worth responding to. At the same time it does raise a moral issue of the worth of individual human beings.

The question is in fact an insult to so called dumb people. But this is normal here. When many members find their beliefs threatened, or their ways of life called into question, or simply if they meet critical thinking, they resort to insult.

Insults are the norm. Why, the next putative President of the United States openly and publicly insults Mexicans, women and the press. So why shouldn't members here follow his example and insult one another?

The insult has now become a popular psychological defence. And what we should be asking on this site devoted to psychology is: what are they defending?

 

[nonsequitur]

This Facial Analysis Software Picks Out Terrorists, Smart People, Brand Promoters & More | SnapMunk

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...e-determine-if-youre-terrorist-murderer.shtml

The practice of trying to figure out human tendencies and traits through facial features isn't new. It's been going on for centuries under the term "physiognomy", and its history is long and dubious. The overwhelming general consensus is that it's nonsense, with anecdotal evidence for its successes being more the result of confirmation bias and self-fulfilling prophecy than anything else.

 

[prplchknz]

if someone thinks i'm not worth talking to because they don't perceive me as smart, i'd rather not talk to them as i don't like arrogant people

 

[Hawthorne]

My neglected inner idealist likes to think that even "dumb" people are able contribute new and interesting perspectives.

But I'm also the sort of person who thinks anyone and anything can be made more interesting with a little bit of effort and give a care.

 

[Rune]

I think that not talking to certain people can be limiting.. but I guess it depends on what you're looking for out of life.. If you only want to speak to like-minded individuals, you might get more answers you are looking for, but that doesn't make the people without those answers "dumb".. it just means they aren't adding anything of value to your life [atm.]

I think that people that ONLY speak to people that think the same way they do are trying to reinforce their "rightness" and it can be sort of an egotistical thing..
allowing yourself to look at other peoples' perspectives leads to more growth potentially..

so I can sort of see it as a perspective thing.
Are you a pessimist about people or an optimist?
If you are pessimistic, you might write people off right away as "wrong" or lacking information that is useful to you when they might still have things to teach you if you look hard enough.
but if you are an optimist, you might hear something that is untruthful [whether intended as untruthful or not].

Observing people can teach you a lot about a person, so you might never even have to bother speaking to anyone.. but I guess it depends on your way of learning and gaining information.

When you're dealing with a group, though, if you refuse to speak to your peers just because you disagree with them, you might find yourself being a bad team player.
You'll hurt the group with your insolence, basically.
but maybe a person is bringing the group down with their lack of knowledge..

who leads the group? maybe that's the person to turn to to decide what should be done and who is in the wrong. to me a leader is a person with a great deal of experience that might be working with people that are less skilled or knowledgable.
What is the group trying to accomplish? What are the individuals trying to accomplish? Are you really happy in that group?

Even geniuses need some down-time to be silly, crazy or stupid from time to time.. to relax.. maybe play around with words, languages, concepts..

 

[Norrsken]

No issues with dumb as long as you are kind. I will cut off contact with an intellifgent asshole and migrate towards a dumb sweet person.

You're like, the reason why I think ISTPs are the greatest, seriously.

 

[RedAmazoneFriendZone]

In my very humble opinion, one can always learn a good lesson from a fool. Never ever frequent them if you respect yourself.

Leave them alone once you've learnt the lesson. Like you leave an old book gathering dust on a shelf, you'll choose the book that you need at the right time.


Anyway, what is a dumb is the question and everyone has different opinions about it. From an intellectual point of view, everybody could be stupid.

From a human point of view almost everything could be accepted.

 

[sprinkles]

They aren't dumb if they can understand what I say.

 

[human101]

I grew up around criminals, crooks, low lives. Pretty much everyone from my childhood dropped out of school early and spent sometime in prison. Over the course of time, these guys have been my greatest teachers when it comes to human nature. There is more to intelligence than being articulate or being a great scientist. Intelligence can be simply surviving difficult circumstances, making the most of your environment, understanding people. In my experience very few people are actually dumb. Some may look at life from a very narrow angle or have a lack of curiosity, but few are truly stupid.