Willful Ignorance

[Pedersen]

Willful Ignorance: The absolute refusal to apply a minimal amount of brain power to learn a small amount of material that will save yourself, and others, a great deal of heartache and headache.

There is nothing in the world that bothers me more than this. And I mean absolutely nothing.

Watching someone commit a stubborn refusal to learn something when the information is handed to them on a golden platter makes me want to commit violence, it really does.

I have seen numerous examples in all kinds of locations, as have we all. I'll post a few of them here, to give you all an idea:


A simple set of instructions is handed to an accountant on how to make bills in a new computer system. The instructions include "Click this button, type amount, click this button, please ask me if any of this is at all unclear" type of stuff. Said accountant is unable to follow these instructions, and does not call for help, resulting in a few hundred bills being created incorrectly.

A second set of instructions is written, which includes extra highlighting over the instructions that were given before, but missed, and the same result is achieved.

Final result: That accountant loses her job a few months later when she is deemed untrainable on the new system, as she refuses to learn it.
While training a person at a new job, this person writes down their own instructions for a complicated procedure, and does so with extreme detail, resulting in well over 100 steps on his list. He then spends two weeks on this, and repeatedly makes the same mistakes (skipping steps that he wrote down until I circled, highlighted, and starred the steps).

Final result: He was let go after two weeks, deemed untrainable.
Asking a question, being told to google for a specific set of terms, and demanding that links be handed back instead of what to google for.

Final result: Very unpleasant bit of flameage.


Willful ignorance is one of two things that I simply do not deal well with (the other being the stop and go traffic on I78 in NJ), mainly because it does not make any form of sense to me. The closest thing to it is some sort of entitlement on the part of the person doing it, something like "I refuse to learn this, so you're going to have to do it if it's going to get done at all."

I admit that I'm guilty of it in some areas as well. For instance, I have no chance of fixing my car if anything goes wrong with it. My reason for it though? I haven't had the time to learn anything beyond how to change a tire or add oil. Too much to do to keep up with the computer world.

But if I go to a mechanic, and ask for help, I will listen to what he says, and I will do my best to understand it. I very much try to avoid doing the willful ignorance.

And to have so many people in the world absolutely refusing to learn the knowledge that is freely available right now just sickens me.

[DesignFox]

Oh, I understand. Do you have any idea how many customers I just want to shout, "Read the Fucking Manual!" at?

I don't do that of course. But it starts to drive me batty when people can't figure out basic functions like, how to turn the phone on. :rolleyes:

I am always willing to help people, especially because I am a total hands on learner (so I understand why they need a hands on lesson). But I get frustrated when people don't take the time to at least peruse the manual before they come screaming at me that the phone doesn't work properly, or how they can't figure out how to send a text message, etc.

Nice patient people I don't mind helping. Asshats that couldn't be bothered waste my time and piss me off- especially the ones that didn't get their phone from me in the first place. Those people literally cost me money.

And yes, that is willful ignorance. You have a manual, online tutorials AND a tech support number to call. 3 sources...all not me...that teach you how to use your phone... (general you)

[AFPheonix]

Pretty much anyone who just buys into soundbites on the news instead of going and getting context for the articles kill me. This is why there are still people making a big deal about Obama's middle name being Hussein.
The Swiftboat Veterans For Truth are another example. Stuff like that shouldn't last for 2 seconds before moral outrage about lying and slandering should shame them into shutting up, but it doesn't because people are too lazy to spend 30 seconds to figure out the truth.

In this day and age with the number of ways we can access information, digital and manual, there just isn't any excuse whatsoever.

And that goes for the one moronic floater pharmacist we have who has issues with Plan B because she thinks it's main function is to cause an abortion. I know that she had to have the same classes as I to get her degree, I also know she has access to the same studies that I've read. There's no excuse for her except that she is relying on religious teachings to inform her on biological and chemical matters.

[blas87]

I am not sure if I hate ignorance or willful ignorance more.....

I totally hear you though, Pederson.

[Pedersen]

Oh, I understand. Do you have any idea how many customers I just want to shout, "Read the Fucking Manual!" at?

If you're anything like me, it's somewhere around 99% of the customers :)

Seriously, I understand exactly what you mean. Instead of just repeating myself, though, I'll just point to my first post.

In this day and age with the number of ways we can access information, digital and manual, there just isn't any excuse whatsoever.

Depends. I can make an excuse for not knowing. I can't make an excuse for spreading the disinformation, though.

I am not sure if I hate ignorance or willful ignorance more.....

Willful ignorance.

See, something I left out, and didn't even realize I left out, is some definitions. Here they are:

Stupidity: The person does not know the subject matter, and no amount of teaching, from any teacher, can get the subject matter taught to the person. Honestly, I'm not even sure that people with Downs Syndrome are stupid on any subject. I'm not sure that true stupidity even exists.

Ignorance: The person doesn't know the subject matter yet, but can be taught. Very common, because there's just too many possible things to know in this world. It's impossible to know it all. As a result, being ignorant is not a real problem, not in my book.

Willfull Ignorance: The person does not know the subject matter, and prevents him/her self from learning the material. Very common, and this is the type that pisses me off. These are the people that make more work for their co-workers, they are the SC's, they are the people who just need a sound beating with a clue-by-four.

I don't mind ignorance. I could even accept stupidity. Willful ignorance, though? Ship 'em off to a colony on the moon. Or in Golgafrincham Ark B. Just get rid of them.

[AFPheonix]

Depends. I can make an excuse for not knowing. I can't make an excuse for spreading the disinformation, though.




I'm not expecting people to know everything about everything. I was mainly referring to the prevalance of the misinformation I was talking about, and that there's no excuse for those to last any amount of time since people have access to pages like Snopes, or if they're feeling motivated, the primary sources of info.
There's no excuse for people like Limbaugh and his ilk to still being able to spout lies and get away with it. Kent Hovind should have been in jail along time ago, not spreading his crap all over.

I'm mostly irritated at people who parrot stuff they heard from dubious sources without actually being bothered to learn about what they're talking about.

[Slytovhand]

There in lies the problem....

'Willful Ignorance' can come about because someone truly believes what they have been informed about. And that will come from making decisions in one's life (usually from the original information that they have recieved).

Religious people who choose to 'ignore' what you try to 'teach' them, willfully ignore it because they have been 'taught' better (well... different). And that will override any other teaching if it goes against it.

As for 'Go and google' rather than 'give me the links', I'm one for the direct links. Because, if there's a particular thing you want me to be aware of, give me a particular place with the information. Google will give a semi-random assortment of bits of information - not all of it accurate, and not all of it will take you to where you can use it (like, needing to register). Even Wiki has its issues, so that can't always be trusted.


But I do agree with the topic here... especially when you use logically constructed sentences, and base information on a certain amount of research and application - and then have it thrown in your face by said ignorance!

And it annoys me no end when I get emails from fairly intelligent friends about 'that jet fighter that almost shot at a police radar, because it had tracked an unknown source".... or about the free money that AOL and MS will pay you for passing on an email.....

I also hate dumbness.....


Slyt

[protege]

Stupidity: The person does not know the subject matter, and no amount of teaching, from any teacher, can get the subject matter taught to the person. Honestly, I'm not even sure that people with Downs Syndrome are stupid on any subject. I'm not sure that true stupidity even exists.

There's a difference between Downs Syndrome, and stupidity. Many of them *want* to learn things...however, it sometimes takes a bit longer to sink in. This is not their fault at all, and many times, they overcome their problem.

Stupid people choose to be ignorant about the world around them. They simply don't *want* to learn things. These people are the reason for many of the warning labels on various products, and why various computer help desks are constantly busy.

And it annoys me no end when I get emails from fairly intelligent friends about 'that jet fighter that almost shot at a police radar, because it had tracked an unknown source".... or about the free money that AOL and MS will pay you for passing on an email.....

That pisses me off too. If I get one more hoax email from a certain friend, I'm going to smack her. Even after she's been pointed to Snopes.com, they still keep coming. I, on the other hand, always run them through the Bullshit meter before passing them on.

It's no different than people getting stirred up years ago when "War of the Worlds" was read over the radio. Many people got caught up in that, since "it's on the radio, it must be true" and went nuts :rolleyes:

[Pedersen]

'Willful Ignorance' can come about because someone truly believes what they have been informed about. And that will come from making decisions in one's life (usually from the original information that they have recieved).

Well, that's a different aspect of it than what I was getting at, but you are correct.

The only part I might contest is when the ignorance is religious based, and cannot be verified. For instance, if someone believes in a specific deity, and someone else believes in a specific other deity, there is no way to prove (or disprove) either one of them. I can't call that willfull ignorance, just a need to believe in something that may (or may not) be true as a way to help give your own life meaning.

As for 'Go and google' rather than 'give me the links', I'm one for the direct links. Because, if there's a particular thing you want me to be aware of, give me a particular place with the information. Google will give a semi-random assortment of bits of information - not all of it accurate, and not all of it will take you to where you can use it (like, needing to register). Even Wiki has its issues, so that can't always be trusted.

Well, in that particular case, a request was made for a broad category of information. It was loosely equivalent to saying "I have never heard of people selling USB flash drives. What are you talking about?" and being told "Google for the terms USB flash drive and you will get all the results you can handle".

I can see the desire for specific links, but for that sort of question, being told the Google terms is as good an answer as the specific links.

There's a difference between Downs Syndrome, and stupidity. Many of them *want* to learn things...however, it sometimes takes a bit longer to sink in. This is not their fault at all, and many times, they overcome their problem.

I did not mean to imply that people with Downs Syndrome are stupid, and am sorry if that was the message that came across. I'll try to explain it better below.

Stupid people choose to be ignorant about the world around them. They simply don't *want* to learn things. These people are the reason for many of the warning labels on various products, and why various computer help desks are constantly busy.

That's a difference of definition between you and me. I define a stupid person as someone who is actually incapable of learning a given topic for some reason. This is a very poor analogy, but it would be like trying to teach colors to a person who has been blind since birth and has no means of recovering eyesight in this lifetime. Such a person is incapable of seeing or understanding colors as a person with sight can.

When it comes to learning, I define a stupid person as someone who is genuinely incapable of learning a given topic. Not that they will take a long time to learn it. Not that it might take them the rest of their natural lives to get even the basics. Not that it might take a team of teachers working around the clock to teach the person. But that the person is genuinely incapable of learning the topic.

As such, even people with Downs Syndrome (the people who admittedly will have some of the hardest times learning things due to what nature has done to them), even they are not stupid by my definitions. And that's the point I tried to make above (and made poorly).

Ignorant people just haven't had the chance or reason to learn something as yet. But, given the chance and/or reason, they can and will.

Your definition of stupid is my definition of willful ignorance.

By the way, before someone gets offended because they have poor math skills and feel I've called them stupid, no, I have not done so. Even for those of you who state you can't do math, you've always gotten poor grades, etc. I still haven't called you stupid.

Stop and think about what you actually know. You can do it. What's 1+1? What's 2-1? You can do it. You just need more time to do it, and that's something society does not always give. The worst thing I can say about you is that you're ignorant in some areas of math. Guess what? So am I. It's just different areas.

[protege]

I hope you didn't think I was slamming you. That wasn't my intent. I agree though, that we're all ignorant about something. That doesn't mean that we're stupid, just that we have different interests, and might not keep up to date on things we're not interested in.

For example, I've been reading up quite a bit about some of my MG's electrical and other systems. Why? Because most mechanics locally don't understand them. It's not that they're stupid, but simply because most cars do not have carbs (the MGB has two), there's no "troubleshooting" port on the electrical system (in fact, there's no computer at all!)...because the expertise is only needed for a very small percentage, they don't bother learning about them. I can't really fault them for that, nor do I fault them if they can't fix it, even if they do understand. Car mechanics changed quite a bit from 1969 to 2008 ;)

With that said, I've been reading up on cars my entire life. Does that mean I know everything about all of them? Er, nope. Too many to keep track of. It's bad enough to have a crapload of manufacturers, and once you include all the "etceterinis" (one-offs), it becomes downright mountainous. Soooo I've decided to stick with what I know, older cars, mainly MGs, and MGBs from '62 to about '70.

Ignorance and stupidity are two different animals. What I was getting at, are people who see a warning--like they'll get an electric shock if they stick their finger in a light socket--read the warning, and then can't understand why they get fried. I know a guy from school who did just that. Except, he stuck a *wire* in an electrical socket, and nearly electrocuted himself :eek:

I agree though that society doesn't always give people time. What bugs the hell out of me, is that they'll put someone down over a learning disability...and then put people like Paris Hilton up on a pedestal. WTF?

Speaking of Paris, I will give her credit. Why? Simple--she may be stupid, but she's also managed to make a buttload of cash...because she's marketing to people dumber than she is.

[Slytovhand]

The only part I might contest is when the ignorance is religious based, and cannot be verified. For instance, if someone believes in a specific deity, and someone else believes in a specific other deity, there is no way to prove (or disprove) either one of them. I can't call that willfull ignorance, just a need to believe in something that may (or may not) be true as a way to help give your own life meaning.



Oh... I wasn't going there at all. What I had in mind (and I suspect you'll agree with me on it) is things like "The Bible says the world is only 6000 years old, so all of your science is crap".

But since you've raised the point... what about different interpretations? People in the world today will go out and kill other people, because it says that in their holy book... yet if you read it 'right', it would say the opposite. Does that sort of thinking fall into the 'willfully ignorant' category?



Well, in that particular case, a request was made for a broad category of information. It was loosely equivalent to saying "I have never heard of people selling USB flash drives. What are you talking about?" and being told "Google for the terms USB flash drive and you will get all the results you can handle".

I can see the desire for specific links, but for that sort of question, being told the Google terms is as good an answer as the specific links.



Ah! Context... useful thing :P Yeah, I can agree with that...(not that my agreement is particularly required or even useful :D) I use "define: " fairly often

That's a difference of definition between you and me. I define...

I would say on this bit... that creating your own definitions for things falls into the sort of categories you are talking about. By creating your own definitions, it is going to lead to misunderstandings that could be easily prevented. There are definitions for words, so if a person chooses to 'wilfully ignore' them, and creates their own....???? Especially since we have easy access to such information at our fingertips (literally... while online :D). Granted, there are times when we want to use a particular term and make it a bit different to normal usage.. but when it comes to communicating, it doesn't work too well (I recall a CS post about 'strips' of sausages....."Oh well.. that's what I call them!"

(btw - I'm a 'stupid people', who are the 'wilfully ignorant' types you are referring to)

So... is ignorance an excuse for the law? :p (I get the 'I didn't know' crap at work all the time, and I'd just love to use a line like "Did you try to find out?"...(oh.. hang on, I have used that line :D)

Slyt

[Pedersen]

Oh... I wasn't going there at all. What I had in mind (and I suspect you'll agree with me on it) is things like "The Bible says the world is only 6000 years old, so all of your science is crap".

You are correct. That group has to go into the willfully ignorant category.

But since you've raised the point... what about different interpretations? People in the world today will go out and kill other people, because it says that in their holy book... yet if you read it 'right', it would say the opposite. Does that sort of thinking fall into the 'willfully ignorant' category?

That group... That group I don't know about. Some of them, yes, but others of them, no. The ones that don't are the ones that know what their holy books say, and selectively quote to support their position. And have already figured out answers when you counter them with the other parts of what it says. Those are malicious.

The ones who just spout what they're told by that other group? They're just ignorant. And, for some of them, I'm not even sure it's willful ignorance. Reading some of those books is hard. They can be very difficult to understand. Add in that arguments can come up depending on which translation of the book you're reading, and it's very hard to call them willfully ignorant sometimes.

I would say on this bit... that creating your own definitions for things falls into the sort of categories you are talking about. By creating your own definitions, it is going to lead to misunderstandings that could be easily prevented. There are definitions for words, so if a person chooses to 'wilfully ignore' them, and creates their own....???? Especially since we have easy access to such information at our fingertips (literally... while online :D). Granted, there are times when we want to use a particular term and make it a bit different to normal usage.. but when it comes to communicating, it doesn't work too well (I recall a CS post about 'strips' of sausages....."Oh well.. that's what I call them!"

Fair enough. So, let's see what shows up on Google.

Stupid (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Astupid): "lacking or marked by lack of intellectual acuity". Not very specific. But the next link down shows a wikipedia entry. Follow the link in that entry (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=4&oi=define&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupid) for the noun to the entry on Stupidity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupidity), and you get this:

Stupidity is the property a person, action or belief instantiates by virtue of having or being indicative of low intelligence or poor learning abilities. Stupidity is distinct from irrationality because stupidity denotes an incapability or unwillingness to properly consider the relevant information.

Before I discuss that, let's see what ignorant shows:

Ignorant (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aignorant): "uneducated in general; lacking knowledge or sophistication; "an ignorant man"; "nescient of contemporary literature"; "an unlearned group ...". And a highlight from the wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorant): "Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Ignorance is also the state of being ignorant or uninformed. For example, "Bill lost the debate because he was ignorant of that subject. ..."

As you can see, my definition of ignorant fits very well with the accepted definition of ignorant.

Also, my definition of stupid agrees with one half of the definition of stupid; namely, the half which states "poor learning abilities". I am more strict than others, so if I say that someone is stupid, others will know a more generalized version of what I am talking about, and be able to agree or disagree with me. No communication loss actually occurs there.

I choose not to like the other half of the definition of stupid (the part which says "unwillingness to properly consider the relevant information"), because there are two separate items occurring there. On the one hand, you have people who are incapable of taking in the information for whatever reason. The only reason not to like calling them stupid is because stupid is considered an insult, and they don't deserve to be insulted.

The "willfully ignorant" phrase is the phrase I've coined, personally, for the people who are unwilling to properly consider the relevant information. It's a more descriptive phrase, and communicates what I mean more precisely than to call someone stupid.

Add in one other thing: I don't believe in stupid of the variety where someone is incapable of learning something. I really don't believe it exists. There are people who are hard to teach, yes. But if a person wishes to learn something, they can learn it. I may not be able to teach them. In fact, no one may be able to teach them right now, because no one has figured out a way, but that way does exist. If a person wishes to learn something, they can learn it. They might never be able to perform it well, but they can understand it.

As a result, I do not remember the last time I said that someone was stupid. I will say that someone is ignorant, and then quickly remind them that it's not an insult, as I myself am ignorant on a great many topics. I will also call someone willfully ignorant, and that is an insult, and more plainly so.

Am I willfully ignorant because of this? Quite the opposite, I think. I understand the terms being used, and am using them more precisely than much of the general population.

(btw - I'm a 'stupid people', who are the 'wilfully ignorant' types you are referring to)

If you're calling yourself stupid, tell me one thing that you are actually incapable of learning.

If you're calling yourself ignorant or willfully ignorant, I can't really argue with that.

And if you need to know who I'm calling willfully ignorant, check out the post at the top of this thread, the one I made to start it. I gave three examples of willfully ignorant types there.

So... is ignorance an excuse for the law? :p (I get the 'I didn't know' crap at work all the time, and I'd just love to use a line like "Did you try to find out?"...(oh.. hang on, I have used that line :D)

Unfortunately, no, it's not. God, I wish I could make it so, though. The problems with that... Well, it could be its own thread, but suffice to say this: What would happen if someone moved into this country and did not know that murder was illegal, and then used ignorance as an excuse? Before you say that it couldn't happen, let's just use it as a hypothetical example, and pretend it could :)

[Slytovhand]

Am I willfully ignorant because of this? Quite the opposite, I think. I understand the terms being used, and am using them more precisely than much of the general population.



Actually, I was more being the pedantic little shit that I am... and picking up on the one line that you used.."my definition".. that's all :D



If you're calling yourself stupid, tell me one thing that you are actually incapable of learning.

Dunno... yet.... (although, it's pretty unlikely that I'll 'learn' what it's like to be pregnant... subjective experience is always a learning mode). Although, by the definition provided, that has nothing to do with intellectual ability, but physical (assuming the 2 are indeed different... what's the nature of the mind?...).



If you're calling yourself ignorant or willfully ignorant, I can't really argue with that.

Very.. it's called 'beliefs'.. and some of them go against currently taught ideologies. Let alone all the other stuff I haven't bothered to learn yet (or research, and then get into debates about :p)


And if you need to know who I'm calling willfully ignorant, check out the post at the top of this thread, the one I made to start it. I gave three examples of willfully ignorant types there.

Yep - got that at the beginning :D And I agree...


Unfortunately, no, it's not. God, I wish I could make it so, though. The problems with that... Well, it could be its own thread, but suffice to say this: What would happen if someone moved into this country and did not know that murder was illegal, and then used ignorance as an excuse? Before you say that it couldn't happen, let's just use it as a hypothetical example, and pretend it could :)


Ooh.. hypotheticals (there used to be a program on our ABC years back called Jeffrey Robertson's Hypotheticals.. he'd get a panel of celebs and the like together, and start up a situation... see how people think and all.....)

Why did you say 'unfortunately'?? I'd think it was more fortunate... otherwise, you end up with...

... your hypothetical... you come to a new country, about the first thing you find out is its laws! (maybe only shortly after its language).

What think you??

Slyt

[ebonyknight]

As for 'Go and google' rather than 'give me the links', I'm one for the direct links. Because, if there's a particular thing you want me to be aware of, give me a particular place with the information. Google will give a semi-random assortment of bits of information - not all of it accurate, and not all of it will take you to where you can use it (like, needing to register). Even Wiki has its issues, so that can't always be trusted.


Well, in that particular case, a request was made for a broad category of information. It was loosely equivalent to saying "I have never heard of people selling USB flash drives. What are you talking about?" and being told "Google for the terms USB flash drive and you will get all the results you can handle".

Of course I may have the 'particular case' but if I am wrong you can correct me.

No Ped, it was a request for a SPECIFIC piece of information. What "black only" scholarships are you guys are talking about? As can be seen in the thread, NONE were talked about, until my question.


I can see the desire for specific links, but for that sort of question, being told the Google terms is as good an answer as the specific links.

As another poster proved, by asking me whether I had heard of the UNCF, they had the information all wrong. They said that UNCF was a "black only" scholarship. I showed otherwise. Thus, no refutation.

As I had proved from that, people will take what they hear and take it as fact (as was that particular incident), but it was in fact incorrect. Where was the "willful ignorance" there on their part,Ped? :confused:

You instead assuming "all knowledge" and correct information, get upset?!?! To me that is akin to asking a question then getting offended because I don't know the answer to the question, I just asked?!?!?! That's "willful ignorance"????

[the_std]

Uh, ebonyknight, I think you're taking it a little personally. Other people have done it too. I know I have, and it caused some confusion and frustration until I clarified.

Pedersen isn't just referring to you. It's a general annoyance that happens from time to time.

[Pedersen]

Dunno... yet.... (although, it's pretty unlikely that I'll 'learn' what it's like to be pregnant... subjective experience is always a learning mode). Although, by the definition provided, that has nothing to do with intellectual ability, but physical (assuming the 2 are indeed different... what's the nature of the mind?...).

Damn... Now that could be an interesting question to ponder. What is the nature of intelligence itself.... Well, would you prefer to start that new thread, or should I?

... your hypothetical... you come to a new country, about the first thing you find out is its laws! (maybe only shortly after its language).

Hmm, I'm not so sure. You see, it's also in human nature to believe that the people around you behave/act as you do. Extrapolating outwards, it's easy to believe that the laws of a new country are substantially similar to the laws of the country you came from, and that as long as you don't flagrantly violate those laws, you are likely to be okay.

It's a bad assumption, but it's an easy one to make.

Of course I may have the 'particular case' but if I am wrong you can correct me.

Whether you are right or wrong is irrelevant. That question was discussed in that thread.

On review, I realize that it could look like I accidentally hit submit, when I meant to continue. It was not an accident.

[ebonyknight]

Whether you are right or wrong is irrelevant. That question was discussed in that thread.

On review, I realize that it could look like I accidentally hit submit, when I meant to continue. It was not an accident.

You lost me. I have no idea what you are talking about.




Again (it didn't come out right the first time), assuming that the particular case you were speaking of was me, the question was not answered before you melted down.

I wanted to know what "black-only" scholarships people were talking about. That is SPECIFIC information, not broad as you contend.

Why, because people can sometimes get the information wrong. And what happened? Exactly that. Someone called the UNCF a "black-only" scholarship, when it's not.

You can't have a discussion with bad information. Garbage in, garbage out. Where was the "willful ignorance", there?

[ebonyknight]

Uh, ebonyknight, I think you're taking it a little personally. Other people have done it too. I know I have, and it caused some confusion and frustration until I clarified.

Pedersen isn't just referring to you. It's a general annoyance that happens from time to time.

Well, he didn't seem to deny it. :)

[Pedersen]

Well, he didn't seem to deny it. :)

Nor did I confirm it. I stated that it was irrelevant. And that is all I have to say on that.

[MadMike]

This is why there are still people making a big deal about Obama's middle name being Hussein.


That one annoys me as well. He has no control over what his parents named him.

Ignorance and stupidity are two different animals.

Exactly. It's just like a teacher of mine once said: There's a difference between being ignorant, and just plain stupid.

[AFPheonix]

That one annoys me as well. He has no control over what his parents named him.


Even beyond that, it's not a bad name. It's just people's racism that cause them to be suspicious of a fairly common middle eastern name. That's what bothers me the most about it.

[MystyGlyttyr]

Oh, oh, I have a stupid!

I can NOT be taught to drive a stick shift.

I'm not kidding. At least half a dozen people have tried over a decade. I've probably put a few thousand man-hours into trying to coordinate all four limbs at the same time to make the car run. With only one notable fluke where the car very nearly went into orbit (it turns out pushing the gas pedal to the floor and popping the clutch does bad things), I have never been able to shift gears, brake, etc., without killing the car. ANY car. We've tried three different ones. I've nearly destroyed at least one.

So, I would put forth in that area, I am in fact, stupid. Whoo!

And freely admit to it because holy crap if I can concentrate well enough to throw someone on my shoulder and then spin them and toss them to the ground, I should be able to get stick shifts at least once out of every ten tries or so, but nope.

[AFPheonix]

I had trouble with manuals until I learned how to ride a motorcycle. One I got the feel down on the bike, it transferred easily to a car.

[Seshat]

As you can see, my definition of ignorant fits very well with the accepted definition of ignorant.

Also, my definition of stupid agrees with one half of the definition of stupid; namely, the half which states "poor learning abilities". I am more strict than others, so if I say that someone is stupid, others will know a more generalized version of what I am talking about, and be able to agree or disagree with me. No communication loss actually occurs there.

I choose not to like the other half of the definition of stupid (the part which says "unwillingness to properly consider the relevant information"), because there are two separate items occurring there. On the one hand, you have people who are incapable of taking in the information for whatever reason. The only reason not to like calling them stupid is because stupid is considered an insult, and they don't deserve to be insulted.

The "willfully ignorant" phrase is the phrase I've coined, personally, for the people who are unwilling to properly consider the relevant information. It's a more descriptive phrase, and communicates what I mean more precisely than to call someone stupid.

Pederson's definitions mesh precisely with the definitions I - and my circle of friends - have been using for years. Many years before I even heard about this website.

And yes, I detest willful ignorance, but am perfectly fine with general ignorance.

I'm also fine with people whose attitude is 'I don't know, but I'll hire an expert and let them deal with it': for instance, getting a plumber to fix their pipes, or a roofer to fix their roof, or a programmer to write their program.

I do, however, expect those people to accept the limitations of their knowledge and LET the expert do the job - but that's a different matter.

Add in one other thing: I don't believe in stupid of the variety where someone is incapable of learning something. I really don't believe it exists. There are people who are hard to teach, yes. But if a person wishes to learn something, they can learn it. I may not be able to teach them. In fact, no one may be able to teach them right now, because no one has figured out a way, but that way does exist. If a person wishes to learn something, they can learn it. They might never be able to perform it well, but they can understand it.

How much experience do you have with the intellectually disabled? I've known a couple of them. In my estimation, they could, with enough effort put in, probably learn simple algebra: the sort of algebra that gets presented to primary school children with triangles or squares or circles for the missing numbers, and only one operand in the equation (other than the = sign).

As a great achievement - a Nobel-prize or Olympic-Gold-Medal amount of effort - they might eventually manage to simultaneously solve two equations. It'd probably take their whole lives to reach that level of achievement.

I don't say this to belittle them! Their minds are handicapped, just as my body is. It's just life, just the luck of biological die rolls, and doesn't affect their (or my) value as a person.

I believe there's another kind of inability to learn, one which hasn't been taken into account in this discussion yet (that I'm aware of, anyway - I haven't read the whole discussion, I'll admit).

I believe that everyone's mind is slightly different. My best friend thinks in pictures. I think in abstract concepts. Some things that are easy for her - such as pattern recognition or facial recognition - are almost impossible for me. Some things that are easy for me - such as N-dimensional arrays - are almost impossible for her.

So when someone hears about the things I can do (programming, writing books and being published, etc) and acts awed, I just smile and tell them 'maybe, but I'd be horrible at <whatever they do for a living>'. I firmly believe that everyone has types of knowledge or types of thinking they're good at, and types they're bad at.

So there's another kind of 'stupidity' aka inability or difficulty learning: some people have more trouble learning Thing X than others do. In some cases, this trouble is so great it becomes an inability, even though the person may be perfectly capable of learning Thing Y.