There's your twenty percent.

[Lord Baal]

The scary part of that is that the emus won.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

I must have missed this joke.

What is the Emu war? Care to fill me in?

 

[Narz]

Which one I like the most.

That's subjective dude.

Not only that but it will change over time (unless you're kind of a dull person).

 

[Earthling]

You guys really should check out many of the studies showing that certain populations are far less intelligent than others, rather than going off of gut feelings or anecdotes of knowing a dumb person once.

Moderator Action: Please stop trying to derail this discussion into racial or ethnic areas. It is not about intelligence or IQ.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Moderator Action: Edit: My mod tags were only 9 months late.

 

[Lord Baal]

I must have missed this joke.

What is the Emu war? Care to fill me in?

The Emu War is the name given to an attempt by the Australian government to cull emus - they were becoming a pest - by sending the military to shoot them, including from helicopters. The operation was a miserable failure, as emus very quickly learnt to run to places where the helicopters couldn't get to them.

That's subjective dude.

Only if you're not objectively perfect. I am.

Not only that but it will change over time (unless you're kind of a dull person).

And all of my changes in opinion are equally as objectively perfect as the last opinion I held. I'm like the Pope.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

@44

Nah. Regardless of my misuse of the "bell curve" reference (I was referring more to the curve you'd find when grading on the curve, or percentiles or something... really bad use of the term "bell curve"...) I do not believe that certain races or religions or cultures are necessarily more or less intelligent than others.

I don't subscribe to that because it's something you would conclude unless everyone on earth was exactly the same level of intelligence. After all, if you sample randomly, and not everyone is the same level of intelligence, you might falsely conclude that some races are superior than others. And then you have the problem of reducing intelligence to one number. Then you have the cultural biases of the test. And how about the systemic oppression of minorities over the various centuries, and what about economic handicaps?

I've seen brilliant people of all stripes and dumb ones. I don't trust the conclusion that certain whole populations are dumber than others, because I have a problem with how scientific such a study is.

 

[nonconformist]

I like this.

 

[JerichoHill]

@ Pizza Guy

The issue you're noting "people with crazy beliefs" is likely only to get worse, because of diversification of media (how many channels are there on cable tv? Is the History Channel about history or history of conspiracy?) and the online world. We can now much better self-segregation into groupthink camps (see: stormfront)

And while there's a "representative" normal distribution for all groups for all characteristics, the ability to state one is X better than Y is silly because the confidence intervals overlap so much

 

[Hygro]

Definitely a post worth reading!

I will say, one of your wittier lines was how some people are too dumb/lazy to climb the bell curve. However, it is worth noting that there are two sides to a bell curve: another 20% will be early adopters, will understand the truth before the rest, and will sometimes be ignored for no good reason despite knowing a better way or the real truth.

Herein lies the problem: who decides who is one of the crazies, and who is among the Cassandras? We know now that many things trumpeted as mainstream science or medicine were terrible, and laughable ideas like the significance of micronutrition or that AIDs is caused by HIV turn out to be true. And sometimes we later find out there was a conspiracy in government.

The main solution is simply to remember the wisdom of crowds. The greater diversity of thought, including dumb thought if no other smart thoughts are present, the smarter the crowd. The better the system of aggregation, the better the results will be of that crowd wisdom. As long as we allow free information and commit ourselves to the truth, the truth will win.


p.s. ridicule does twice as much harm to the finders of unpopular evidence as it does to the conspiracy theorists because the reasonable people are terrified of being lumped with the crazies. But the crazies are crazies and will stick around. Best to not resort to ridicule.

 

[JerichoHill]

Holy necro!

 

[Joecoolyo]

Heh, I remember this thread.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Herein lies the problem: who decides who is one of the crazies, and who is among the Cassandras? We know now that many things trumpeted as mainstream science or medicine were terrible, and laughable ideas like the significance of micronutrition or that AIDs is caused by HIV turn out to be true. [...]

p.s. ridicule does twice as much harm to the finders of unpopular evidence as it does to the conspiracy theorists because the reasonable people are terrified of being lumped with the crazies. But the crazies are crazies and will stick around. Best to not resort to ridicule.

Important points. We really do need to track individuals, because the crazies do need to be dropped from normal discussion, if normal discussion is to be rewarding. The crazies will reveal themselves in the long run by consistent non-response to (or lack of interest in*) evidence and logic.

(*: This type is easier to spot.)

In the cases where evidence is inconclusive, it's better to have a low False Positive rate for "crazy" even if it makes for a lot of work.

I think half of them are the same and qualify as neither left or right, just nuts. A good percentage of people hate any type of authority or government.

Yeah, I wonder how much of "the" twenty percent are actually the same people holding the crazy views on different topics. Or at the other extreme, maybe we are each crazy 20% of the time.

 

[Narz]

Definitely a post worth reading!

I will say, one of your wittier lines was how some people are too dumb/lazy to climb the bell curve. However, it is worth noting that there are two sides to a bell curve: another 20% will be early adopters, will understand the truth before the rest, and will sometimes be ignored for no good reason despite knowing a better way or the real truth.

Herein lies the problem: who decides who is one of the crazies, and who is among the Cassandras? We know now that many things trumpeted as mainstream science or medicine were terrible, and laughable ideas like the significance of micronutrition or that AIDs is caused by HIV turn out to be true. And sometimes we later find out there was a conspiracy in government.

The main solution is simply to remember the wisdom of crowds. The greater diversity of thought, including dumb thought if no other smart thoughts are present, the smarter the crowd. The better the system of aggregation, the better the results will be of that crowd wisdom. As long as we allow free information and commit ourselves to the truth, the truth will win.


p.s. ridicule does twice as much harm to the finders of unpopular evidence as it does to the conspiracy theorists because the reasonable people are terrified of being lumped with the crazies. But the crazies are crazies and will stick around. Best to not resort to ridicule.

With due respect Hygro, I'm not so confident in this "wisdom of crowds" stuff. Fine for guessing jellybeans but claiming it's universality across the board? The majority in the United States has been buying bigger & bigger houses, eating junk food more & preparing their own less, becoming more materialistic & less social, becoming less politically active. In general doing a lot of things that don't lead to more well being (not to mention long-term social, moral & environmental costs).

The "the masses will inevitably get it right in the end" sounds a bit too much like "the free market solves all", studying the jellybean effect within certain contexts sounds valuable but applying it across the board sounds like feel-good magical thinking to me.

It's also noteworthy that for many of humanity's most important decisions (such as that of whether to go to war or not, who with & who to supply with weapons [that we may later go to war with]) are not a matter of crowds at all. The day to day lanscape & lifestyle of the masses are also largely detrimined by factors beyond their control. I don't think many people think, when connecting via a 1-mile stretch of strip malls from the New Jersey Turnpike to Route 295, about why they have to connect this way. I don't know the full story myself but I imagine it is about generating more money for the town & other political reasons nevermind the slowdown of traffic, inconvenience to drivers, extra pollution in the town where the connection takes place.

The chemicals offgassing from your computer now, the style of shoes or food or motor vehicles available to you, none of these has a whole lot to do with the choices of the masses.

It's kind of like lunch at school, the higher ups make the important choices & the masses choose between a cheeseburger & pizza & perhaps feel a tiny bit empowered not considering the politicals & profit behind their choice (and lack thereof).

I didn't go back & read the thread & am probably a zillion miles off topic. But that's kind of my style. If all threads flowed predictably from the OP forums would be quite boring.

By the way, I agree about the ridicule thing. Our world would be much better off if ridicule was far, far less socially acceptable.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I've discussed the Socialism issue, so I'll discuss the other four.

"Obama is a Muslim

Truth be told, I think if this were true, the biggest problem if this were true would be he lied about it. If he were a radical Muslim, we'd know it already. So IF this is true, he's a moderate Muslim who prays in private and isn't too extreme, but is worried about Islamophobia causing political problems for him. This is a VALID IDEA. There is no proof, and I don't buy it, but given the Islamophobia in this country, it is possible.

Most likely he is Christian, but its clear religion means little if anything to him either way. He's probably a Cultural Christian, but it means nothing to him.

Obama was born in Kenya

I used to be absolutely certain this is true, then I switched to "Its probably true,", and then "It might be true."

Is it totally IMPOSSIBLE that SCOTUS, you know, wanted him to be President? And that they refused to review the case because of their liberal leanings? There isn't really any proof, but its not IMPOSSIBLE.

Also, there were a lot of suspicious seeming things that happened before he was elected. I believe he was born here at present, but I'm not willing to say "Birthers are insane," yet.

Barack Obama did many of the things Hitler did.

OK this is insane... What?

Barack Obama "May be the antichrist."

This is definitely true. George Bush may have been the antichrist as well. This statement proves absolutely nothing. YOU could be the antichrist for all I know, its very, very unlikely, but not impossible.

Now, if you were to change it to what they actually meant and say "There's a good chance Obama is the antichrist,", well that's just slanderous and wrong.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you. "Obama is doing many of the things Hitler did" is indisputably true.
Not only in the "Converting oxygen into carbon dioxide" field but "Wearing pants" "Wearing shoes" and even in the very exclusive fields of "serving as a head of state" "appearing on television" "Running for President" "writing a political autobiography" and more.

 

[Takhisis]

You forgot 'having black hair' .

@D3k: Aren't birth certificates enough for you? What about the names of the parents? Seriously.

 

[Tee Kay]

One out of every five people is an absolutely crazed, fundamentalist, extremist, conspiracy theorist, selfish, dangerous moron. They are this way because they lack the intelligence to be anything else, and they lack the self-examination of other people, and believe they can do no wrong, and their beliefs are absolute. They don't hesitate to resort to fear, propaganda, and violence to force their views on others.

I don't believe the twenty-percenters, as you call them, are stupid, or dumb, or lazy, or even ill-informed. If they lack intelligence any more than your average person, they wouldn't be so influential as they are. I believe they are simply misinformed. Ultimately what separates your "crazies" from other people is not lack of intelligence in the former group but what they were taught. If you grow up seeing something presented as fact, and repeatedly so, even if it's not actually true, then you will hold on to your "facts" and it's very difficult to overturn that, especially if they're surrounded by other people who believe in the same "facts".

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

I don't believe the twenty-percenters, as you call them, are stupid, or dumb, or lazy, or even ill-informed. If they lack intelligence any more than your average person, they wouldn't be so influential as they are.

They're only influential given the fact that this is a democracy and a free market, meaning someone out there is interested in getting their votes or their money.

The system makes them influential; it is NOT because of any innate talent or worth.

I believe they are simply misinformed.

That's a big assumption. That assumes they have never come across the correct information and rejected it. Some of these things are things that you would have to be pretty dense or shut off from the world not to have gained access to the correct information, such as "Obama is a Muslim".

Given the fact that his Christian pastor was a controversial (read: idiotic) figure, and was all over the news, you'd have to be dense not to know Obama is a Christian.

You're giving these people credit they don't deserve. They have access to the facts, they just aren't interested in reality. They're interested in what they agree with, and what they agree with is often koo-koo nuts fantasyland.

Ultimately what separates your "crazies" from other people is not lack of intelligence in the former group but what they were taught.

If you taught me that two plus two equals five, and I grew up believing that, but then one day I had a package of brand new toothbrushes and a toothbrush holder with five holes in it, but the package had 4 toothbrushes in it, and I took them out and put them in the toothbrush holder, and I had an empty space left over, don't you think even a slow, extremely misinformed person would realize that 4 does not equal 5?

People were taught that Santa Claus was real. They figured that stuff out when they were kids, kids who aren't even supposed to be questioning authority yet.

Even the most intellectually un-curious among us would have come across certain facts contradicting what they were "taught" unless they have been living under a rock, in which case it's pretty irresponsible for these people to be voting, since they haven't the foggiest clue what's going on around them. For all they know, they could indeed be voting for the next Hitler, so best get informed before voting.

If you grow up seeing something presented as fact, and repeatedly so, even if it's not actually true, then you will hold on to your "facts" and it's very difficult to overturn that, especially if they're surrounded by other people who believe in the same "facts".

Not really. I was told all about the power of prayer and Jesus and miracles and God, et cetera, and I was also surrounded by thousands of people who accepted that stuff as fact.

Simple experiments involving prayer quickly teaches you that stuff isn't true, and since the Bible says that literally anything you pray for will come true, as in if my faith is great enough, I can walk through walls and on top of water, guaranteed by the power of Jesus, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize this stuff cannot be taken literally.

It's very easy not to believe what the crowd believes, especially when the crowd is often full of completely ignorant people who don't recognize facts when they slam into them like a wall; like when someone believes that prayer can make them walk through walls, and then BAM, it suddenly dawns on you, and the truth becomes a much more tangible reality than what you've been taught. This usually happens just when the swelling begins and the holes in your gums where your teeth used to be start to bleed.

If you live in the real world, where someone can lie to you, and you can later find out that's not true, and this happens more than once to you in your life, then you'd have to be very thick-headed to not recognize the pattern: The pattern is that there are people out there who are interested in lying to you for personal gain. This includes marketers who want your money, and politicians who want your votes.

Now, the level of intelligence you'd have to have not to realize this after a few years in the real world, and therefore get a pass and be absolved of responsibility for being so dense, is on a level where you're literally bumping into walls because you can't figure out the difference between a wall and a door, and therefore you should be under constant medical supervision, and have a nanny constantly wiping up all your drool.

Everyone else is responsible for their lack of pattern recognition there, and so therefore their ignorance is willful, not innocent. It takes two to lie at that point, one to lie and one to listen. More likely, these are people who have already formed their opinion because they're ignorant and prejudiced, and so therefore they will accept anything, including fantasies instead of facts, to reinforce their own opinion so they will feel justified in believing in total bull****.

When they come across better-informed people, they will cling to their "everyone has a right to their ill-informed opinion" as a defense for their indefensible positions, and they will, without checking any facts or being curious enough to see if they're not actually talking out of their ***, conclude that the better informed person is actually the idiot, a helpless sheep being taken advantage of by the masses, all without realizing that this is a projection. They're projecting their own faults onto others, because deep down, they assume everyone is just like them; clueless of the facts, and believing whatever the crowd tells them to believe.

And, in a vacuum of facts, you can't tell which of the two is the idiot. But that's the lovely thing about facts; they do exist, and we're not in a vacuum of facts. They are easy to get, this is the freaking information age. Living in the dark ages of not bothering to read isn't an excuse anymore. There are libraries. You can borrow a newspaper. You can consult the internet. You can ask someone for some facts before forming an opinion. You can even (gasp!) change your opinion when new facts are brought to light.

I don't blame people for not having facts, even if they are too lazy to get them for themselves before forming asinine opinions. What I blame people for is stumbling across the facts, and ignoring them outright because it gets in the way of their idiotic opinions.

What makes a person an idiot is not being medically ********; those people are disabled, and are blameless for what they cannot know. What makes a person an idiot is not recognizing the difference between facts and lies when they are capable of distinguishing between them, being too lazy to figure out which is which, and once finding out which is fact and which is spin, choosing to believe the spin. Reality is not a la carte and you can just pick and choose what reality to believe in.

People are not idiots because of things they cannot know. They're idiots because of things they consciously choose not to know.

Those are your twenty percenters. People who prefer to have their prejudices confirmed by anyone in a position of authority, and choosing only to believe what they're told, and what they already agree with. These are often people who have strong "beliefs" and they are very motivated to change the system in order to make it conform to their beliefs.

They want Obama impeached because they believe he's not qualified to be President, even though it's been proven that Obama satisfies all qualifying conditions. They don't care about that; they choose to believe that it is still open for debate, because the propagandists who play off of their ignorant beliefs for political gain phrase the discussion as if there are still unresolved questions that are being deliberately ignored.

It's very simple to take advantage of such people. Find out what they believe, state it as a fact, and sneak in other misleading phrases or outright lies to reinforce these beliefs, and then package the entire boatload of failure as Fox News. When contradicting evidence is brought to light, don't discuss it, and then repeat the tagline "we report, you decide" which goes right along with the concept of consensus reality.

If 50 million people believe that Obama eats aborted fetuses for breakfast, does that make it true? We report, you decide. Reality is whatever you want it to be. Just vote how we say, and be sure to donate to our campaigns.

 

[Tee Kay]

They don't care about that; they choose to believe that it is still open for debate, because the propagandists who play off of their ignorant beliefs for political gain phrase the discussion as if there are still unresolved questions that are being deliberately ignored.

That is exactly right. The only sure and fast way to convince a man of his error: present the information in a way that can leave absolutely no doubt whatsoever in his mind to the validity of that information. Unfortunately, as long as he thinks there is a possibility that the information being presented to him is somehow false or falsified, it doesn't work.

We tend to believe what we want to believe. And we tend not to like being corrected. That is true of everyone, I think. It takes a lot to change belief, especially when that belief is being constantly reinforced. The Information Age leads to greater access to information but also greater access to misinformation. In some cases it probably serves to reinforce the "facts" of the twenty-percenters: "oh look, all these people agree with me" and helps spread falsehood to a new generation of twenty-percenters.

I actually agree with most of your post but I still maintain that the key is not people but misinformation. I believe the twenty-percenters can be reasoned with and can accept facts. It's just very hard.

 

[GhostWriter16]

If 50 million people believe that Obama eats aborted fetuses for breakfast, does that make it true? We report, you decide. Reality is whatever you want it to be. Just vote how we say, and be sure to donate to our campaigns.

No, but if 50 million people said this, I would wonder why and not just say "Oh, they're just being stupid." HOWEVER, since this isn't even possible, that many people won't accept it.