Forum Thread

Yes, It's True, Americans Really Are Stupid

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 14 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Bird Box Challenge?

    This is more proof that Americans really are dumb, or stupid, with probably nothing else to do.

    usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/01/...

    How about this? I'll blindfold some fool and drive them onto an interstate highway and make them get out onto the pavement and tell them to stroll around till something finds them?

    I wonder if people doing the bird box challenge are Trump voters?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dockadams Wrote:

    Bird Box Challenge?

    This is more proof that Americans really are dumb, or stupid, with probably nothing else to do.

    usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/01/...

    How about this? I'll blindfold some fool and drive them onto an interstate highway and make them get out onto the pavement and tell them to stroll around till something finds them?

    I wonder if people doing the bird box challenge are Trump voters?

    Thus providing more proof for Bird's Theorem: "We the People" are stupid.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Very stupid actions for sure. It was a great movie though. Huge success.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    A 2006 science fiction comedy film called Idiocracy depicted life 500 years from now when over the coarse of five centuries, the most intelligent humans fail to have children, while the least intelligent reproduce prolifically; and thus through the process of natural selection, generations of people collectively became increasingly dumber and more virile with each passing century. Hence after 500 years we have a "dystopian society where anti-intellectualism and commercialism run rampant, and which is devoid of intellectual curiosity, social responsibility, and coherent notions of justice and human rights."

    The bird box challenge happened in Utah. Maybe that tells us something.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I have expressed interest in this website on the topic of emotions versus thinking in our evolutionary history. Trump, as has been largely reported even by himself, makes decisions "from the gut" or more accurately his instinct, which is largely controlled by the mammalian part of the brain responsible for emotions, feelings, and instinct. On the other hand, decision makers who delve deeply into critical thinking are tapping the neocortex, the part of the brain responsible for problem solving, conscious thought, and language.

    In politics, the emotional brain appears to be winning of late. That's why a deep thinker like Hillary Clinton is at a decided disadvantage to someone who knows how to stoke emotions -- and let's face it, Trump knows how to appeal to our darker sides, both on the left and right, through emotions. If you say you hate or like Trump -- that's an emotion -- but it should not be the reason for casting your vote for or against him, or for or against Hillary as the case may be.

    If one were to do a blind issues test asking where each of us stands on each of the main issues of the day and how strongly we believe in those views, we would end up with a certain political profile that could be used as a "match test" to see which candidate comes closest to our views. The test would be somewhat akin to those dating match websites except that it would be entirely political issues based.

    However, people might be aghast at the findings. "I don't like him (or her)!" might be the emotive response. Therefore, as the Democrats whittle down their presidential candidates from a list of maybe 25 -- 30, look for likeability to be among the biggest deciding factors.

    I would posit that if "likeability" becomes the main litmus test for candidates for the next 500 years, then like the movie, Idiocracy, you can look at a pretty stupid society in the future...our neocortex part of the brain will have shrunk while the mammalian part has swelled.

    Just thinking out loud...hopefully not too deeply. Crying

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    I have expressed interest in this website on the topic of emotions versus thinking in our evolutionary history. Trump, as has been largely reported even by himself, makes decisions "from the gut" or more accurately his instinct, which is largely controlled by the mammalian part of the brain responsible for emotions, feelings, and instinct. On the other hand, decision makers who delve deeply into critical thinking are tapping the neocortex, the part of the brain responsible for problem solving, conscious thought, and language.

    In politics, the emotional brain appears to be winning of late. That's why a deep thinker like Hillary Clinton is at a decided disadvantage to someone who knows how to stoke emotions -- and less face it, Trump knows how to appeal to our darker sides, both on the left and right, through emotions. If you say you hate or like Trump -- that's an emotion -- but it should not be the reason for casting your vote for or against him, or for or against Hillary as the case may be.

    If one were to do a blind issues test asking where each of us stands on each of the main issues of the day and how strongly we believe in those views, we would end up with a certain political profile that could be used to "match test" to see which candidate comes closest to our views. The test would be somewhat akin to those dating match websites except that it would be entirely political issues based.

    However, people might be aghast at the findings. "I don't like him (or her)!" might be the emotive response. Therefore, as the Democrats whittle down their presidential candidates from a list of maybe 25 -- 30, look for likeability to be among the biggest deciding factors.

    If likeability becomes the litmus test for candidates for the next 500 years, then like the movie, Idiocracy, you can look at a pretty stupid society in the future...our neocortex part of the brain will have shrunk while the mammalian part has swelled.

    Just thinking out loud...hopefully not too deeply. Crying

    Schmidt you are thinking correctly. My only comment is if "likeability" is an "norm" then "enforced rules/laws/screening" should counter that related to "knowledge/education/mentality/background/world wide knowledge/common sense/being open minded"/want to learn etc. However the selection of our present "leaders" have none of "likeability" let alone of what I mentioned.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I will check out Idiocracy if I can find a copy. It's directed by Mike Judge who directed Office Space, an outrageously funny movie about typical f'ed up dysfunction in Corp America.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    likeability

    Do we need to like a person to vote for them? Sometimes it helps.

    Talking about dysfunction, we still have a dysfunctional government, it cannot even agree to pay it's own federal workers.

    I seem to recall the "jackass" series which came out some years ago, after some people watched, they went out and tried to do some of the crazy shit they'd just watched.

    listverse.com/2016/05/04/10-moronic-tee...

    "In July 2014, 30-year-old Mark Ramiro and his friend of 15 years, Darnell Mitchell, were on an all-night binge of drugs and alcohol when the duo began daring one another. Mitchell was dared to lick a toilet, which he did. Afterward, he decided to up the ante by taking a bullet to the chest while wearing a bulletproof vest.

    The duo’s intention was to create a Jackass-style video that would bring them fame and fortune. As the camera began to roll, Mitchell instructed Ramiro to shoot him in the chest. But Ramiro’s aim was a little high, and he shot Mitchell once in the upper chest."

    Oddly enough, I have not heard or read of anyone in other countries trying to do stupid shit. Just Americans.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dockadams Wrote:

    likeability

    Do we need to like a person to vote for them? Sometimes it helps.

    Talking about dysfunction, we still have a dysfunctional government, it cannot even agree to pay it's own federal workers.

    I seem to recall the "jackass" series which came out some years ago, after some people watched, they went out and tried to do some of the crazy shit they'd just watched.

    listverse.com/2016/05/04/10-moronic-tee...

    "In July 2014, 30-year-old Mark Ramiro and his friend of 15 years, Darnell Mitchell, were on an all-night binge of drugs and alcohol when the duo began daring one another. Mitchell was dared to lick a toilet, which he did. Afterward, he decided to up the ante by taking a bullet to the chest while wearing a bulletproof vest.

    The duo’s intention was to create a Jackass-style video that would bring them fame and fortune. As the camera began to roll, Mitchell instructed Ramiro to shoot him in the chest. But Ramiro’s aim was a little high, and he shot Mitchell once in the upper chest."

    Oddly enough, I have not heard or read of anyone in other countries trying to do stupid shit. Just Americans.

    The stupid shit started already in 1700 and continued ever since; cowboys never had laws; then we invented "lawyers" who multiplied like cockroaches and forgot on purpose to write operating manuals for our leaders related to "governing" Along came the "Constitution" which became an 1800's "Bible" like document as for the Model T Ford, but no modifications other than "mistakes/amendments" were made, which created even more shit and "guns" and never was adapted to 2019 and its present day requirements.

    Lets use coat hangers for abortion attitude. What a country!

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:

    Schmidt you are thinking correctly. My only comment is if "likeability" is an "norm" then "enforced rules/laws/screening" should counter that related to "knowledge/education/mentality/background/world wide knowledge/common sense/being open minded"/want to learn etc. However the selection of our present "leaders" have none of "likeability" let alone of what I mentioned.

    Dutch -- Thanks for the comments. Yes, knowledge/education/mentality/background/world wide knowledge/common sense/being open minded"/want to learn etc. are all important. I was a bit remiss in generalizing "likeability" and should have been more specific.

    When Obama first came into the limelight with his keynote speech at the Democratic Party convention, I was one of those who "instantly liked him", and I certainly acknowledge that I knew very little about where he stood on the issues. At the same time in reading about other's views on the internet, there was a segment of the population that "instantly disliked" him. Some of these like-dislike examples included husband-wives where the wife liked him and the husband did not.

    The Donald Trump presidency is another example of "like-dislike" but with opposite camps again with a lack of critical thinking. I accept that I have an innate dislike of bullies and have a hard time getting past that. I've always been that way as long as I can remember.

    I don't know what combination of emotions triggers a like-dislike view of a person, but perhaps fear is one near the top but ignorance certainly plays a part. Genetically there are people who tend towards conservatism and religious doctrine no matter what the facts. Tribalism plays a part as well, but overall the human psyche is very complicated, and the more I study it, the more I realize I don't know.

    In any case, our emotions cause us all to do stupid things at times in our lives, and one of them collectively was electing Trump.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dockadams Wrote:

    likeability

    Do we need to like a person to vote for them? Sometimes it helps.

    Talking about dysfunction, we still have a dysfunctional government, it cannot even agree to pay it's own federal workers.

    I seem to recall the "jackass" series which came out some years ago, after some people watched, they went out and tried to do some of the crazy shit they'd just watched.

    listverse.com/2016/05/04/10-moronic-tee...

    "In July 2014, 30-year-old Mark Ramiro and his friend of 15 years, Darnell Mitchell, were on an all-night binge of drugs and alcohol when the duo began daring one another. Mitchell was dared to lick a toilet, which he did. Afterward, he decided to up the ante by taking a bullet to the chest while wearing a bulletproof vest.

    The duo’s intention was to create a Jackass-style video that would bring them fame and fortune. As the camera began to roll, Mitchell instructed Ramiro to shoot him in the chest. But Ramiro’s aim was a little high, and he shot Mitchell once in the upper chest."

    Oddly enough, I have not heard or read of anyone in other countries trying to do stupid shit. Just Americans.

    My cynical view of the "jackasses" killing themselves from stupid antics is that their particular gene pool is reduced.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    A 2006 science fiction comedy film called Idiocracy depicted life 500 years from now when over the coarse of five centuries, the most intelligent humans fail to have children, while the least intelligent reproduce prolifically; and thus through the process of natural selection, generations of people collectively became increasingly dumber and more virile with each passing century. Hence after 500 years we have a "dystopian society where anti-intellectualism and commercialism run rampant, and which is devoid of intellectual curiosity, social responsibility, and coherent notions of justice and human rights."

    The bird box challenge happened in Utah. Maybe that tells us something.

    It's funny you brought this movie up.

    My wife and I re-watched it a few days after the 2016 election and have also shown it to some friends who never heard of it before. It's amazing how remarkably prescient that movie is.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I have often observed and thought about how some religions (e.g. Mormons, evangelicals) have large families to grow their religious sects from within. In the long run this is perhaps more effective than recruiting new members. I also believe that there are certain genetic traits that drive some people to be more religious than others.

    One doesn't have to be a mathematician to understand that if this form of population growth is effective, then our society should be increasing in religiosity rather than declining. I believe, however, the overall trend is downwards -- but maybe not for the Mormons and evangelicals. Maybe there is not enough data to measure yet, but for most of the Mormons and evangelicals I have known, their beliefs are strong.

    I have known Mormon and evangelical engineers and geologists, for example, who seem to not be bothered about the conflict between science and religion. It's like their brains have two hard drives of knowledge -- one full of their religious learnings and the other with scientific data. I don't know how they process that conflict mentally.

    Okay, the subject is stupidity and sometimes I have to shake my head at some of the stupidity of the religious beliefs of some faiths. Sarah Palin is not an intellectual for sure, but she epitomizes the populism of many of the believers. Maybe 500 years from now her genes and those like her will be more prevalent as America truly becomes a theocracy like Iran. Ha.

    Okay, I'm just thinking out loud again. No comment necessary.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    One more for MLK day:

    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” -- Martin Luther King, Jr.