Friday, May 28, 2004
More Stupid People Tricks, and maybe some Dishonest People Tricks as well
I don't listen to Neil Boortz's radio show. I can't testify to his qualifications to make the judgement that he has in this case. But I did take a moment to read the article that's referenced in Jody's post, and given that any fool can have an opinion, I feel uniquely qualified to offer my opinions on Neil's opinion, and on Jody's.
First, make no mistake - there are lots of idiots out there. 50 percent might be a high fraction, or as I'm going to point out anecdotally in a moment, it might even be low. The problem in Boortz's article, and even in Jody's response, is that he's basing an assessment of intelligence on what amounts to a personal assessment of reality.
To say that the "average" American is stupid for not recognizing that we're in the midst of economic recovery and impending economic boom based on the evidence that is present is somewhat like saying that a newborn baby is stupid for not knowing the alphabet, even though the information is out there to possess. The issue with asking about the popular perception of economic prosperity is that the answer has to be filtered through the prism of one's own circumstances. If you live in a hut, and everyone you know lives in a hut, then you're not going to readily believe that there are people who live in mansions. Even if you're shown pictures of people who live in mansions, and are shown data that suggest that more and more people are living in mansions, you'd still probably be hard-pressed to believe that you can also achieve enough to also live in a mansion. That's not stupidity. It is short-sightedness to a degree, and perhaps being ill-informed in general.
But in the end, it's more of a matter of being more self-connected than societally-connected. I don't know, maybe that's just a softer way of saying "short-sighted," but it also recognizes the degree to which perception affects reality. Jody and I have had a number of interesting discussions on the nature of reality, and maybe he or I will recount some of them sometime. But to say that people are stupid for putting more stock into their own personal realities than that of the greater society in which they "live" (but with which they aren't always intimitately connected) strikes me as being, well...stupid. Maybe it's just insensitive, but Neil doesn't seem to shy away from that label. I don't know him well enough, so I'll take his word for it.
Let's look at another view on the issue:
If half of us were just plain stupid, would any of the rest of us really be around to be worried about it? I think not.
But!
(I just like the way that word works...)
Perhaps it's useful to start considering what percentage of the population exhibits certain other (presumably) negative qualities. We could concentrate on how many people have no fashion sense or smell like onions, but let's really get to those issues that affect society at large. Here's one:
How many of us are habitually dishonest?
I was at Wal-Mart on Wednesday. When I was there, I did my part for the economic recovery by purchasing a bag of jellybeans, a box of cereal, and a bottle of dishwashing detergent. The cashier failed to do her part for the environment by putting my purchases into two different bags, and I did my part for stupidity by leaving one of my bags behind. I'd gone to Wal-Mart in the middle of a growing severe thunderstorm, which had broken in earnest by the time I managed to get home. So even after I realized that I'd left my dish detergent at Wal-Mart, I didn't go back to get it until today.
I wasn't really sure how to approach the situation, so I went to Customer Service and just explained the situation exactly as it fell out. The service rep didn't really interrogate me - after looking at at my receipt, she told me to go get a bottle of dish detergent and to bring it back to Customer Service. I did this, and when I got it back up there, another service rep who wasn't privy to what had happened assumed that I was stupid and told me that I'd need to take my purchase back to a register to pay for it - as though I didn't know that. But after getting everything squared away, the service rep who was handling my situation rang everything up and sent me on my way.
It wasn't until I got out to my car to drive home that I gave any thought to the issue that the entire transaction that had just occurred depended on my honesty, and the service rep's perception thereof. Granted, the entire story was plausible and supported by physical evidence - I had my receipt, and the receipt was dated this past Wednesday as opposed to the first Wednesday in March. And granted, the item in question wasn't a bank breaker - $2.78. It certainly though I was trying to claim that I'd somehow left behind a $200 piece of furniture or something.
But when it comes down to it, it's the principle of the thing. I could have gotten my dish detergent home that Wednesday, and just decided that I wanted another one for free. It violates all sorts of categorical imperatives, and I guess that's the point here. All sorts of people lie all of the time. But how many people do you suppose are chronically dishonest, and how great are the financial and societal costs that these people incur and heap upon those of us for whom the occasional white lie is a peccadillo as opposed to a way of life?
I don't really know - that's why I'm asking. And what other kinds of negative personality traits fall into that same category? As always, the thoughts of our "readers" are accepted in the same spirit in which they're offered.
Until the next time, remember:
This blog article uses 100% recycled electrons.
Notes:
1. Scott Adams, The Dilbert Principle, pp. 2-3.
Comments(0) |
I don't listen to Neil Boortz's radio show. I can't testify to his qualifications to make the judgement that he has in this case. But I did take a moment to read the article that's referenced in Jody's post, and given that any fool can have an opinion, I feel uniquely qualified to offer my opinions on Neil's opinion, and on Jody's.
First, make no mistake - there are lots of idiots out there. 50 percent might be a high fraction, or as I'm going to point out anecdotally in a moment, it might even be low. The problem in Boortz's article, and even in Jody's response, is that he's basing an assessment of intelligence on what amounts to a personal assessment of reality.
To say that the "average" American is stupid for not recognizing that we're in the midst of economic recovery and impending economic boom based on the evidence that is present is somewhat like saying that a newborn baby is stupid for not knowing the alphabet, even though the information is out there to possess. The issue with asking about the popular perception of economic prosperity is that the answer has to be filtered through the prism of one's own circumstances. If you live in a hut, and everyone you know lives in a hut, then you're not going to readily believe that there are people who live in mansions. Even if you're shown pictures of people who live in mansions, and are shown data that suggest that more and more people are living in mansions, you'd still probably be hard-pressed to believe that you can also achieve enough to also live in a mansion. That's not stupidity. It is short-sightedness to a degree, and perhaps being ill-informed in general.
But in the end, it's more of a matter of being more self-connected than societally-connected. I don't know, maybe that's just a softer way of saying "short-sighted," but it also recognizes the degree to which perception affects reality. Jody and I have had a number of interesting discussions on the nature of reality, and maybe he or I will recount some of them sometime. But to say that people are stupid for putting more stock into their own personal realities than that of the greater society in which they "live" (but with which they aren't always intimitately connected) strikes me as being, well...stupid. Maybe it's just insensitive, but Neil doesn't seem to shy away from that label. I don't know him well enough, so I'll take his word for it.
Let's look at another view on the issue:
When I first started hearing these stories I was puzzled, but after careful analysis I have developed a sophisticated theory to explain the existence of this bizzare workplace behavior: People are idiots.Those of you familiar with Scott Adams are no doubt familiar with that story, but I think speaks volumes as to our respective individual capabilities to be complete morons.
Including me. Everyone is an idiot, not just the people with low SAT scores. The only differences among us is that we're idiots about different things at different times. No matter how smart you are, you spend much of your day being an idiot. That's the central premise of this scholarly work.
I proudly include myself in the idiot category. Idiocy in the modern age isn't an all-encompassing, twenty-four hour situation for most people. It's a condition that everybody slips into many times a day. Life is just too complicated to be smart all the time.
The other day, I brought my pager to the repair center because it wouldn't work after I changed the battery. The repairman took the pager out of my hand, flipped open the battery door, turned the battery around, and handed the now functional pager back to me in one well-practiced motion. This took much of the joy out of my righteous indignation over the quality of their product. But the repairman seemed quite amused. And so did every other customer in the lobby.
On that day, in that situation, I was a complete idiot. Yet somehow I managed to operate a motor vehicle to the repair shop and back. It is a wondrous human characteristic to be able to be able to slip into and out of idiocy many times a day without noticing the change or accidentally killing innocent bystanders in the process.1
If half of us were just plain stupid, would any of the rest of us really be around to be worried about it? I think not.
(I just like the way that word works...)
Perhaps it's useful to start considering what percentage of the population exhibits certain other (presumably) negative qualities. We could concentrate on how many people have no fashion sense or smell like onions, but let's really get to those issues that affect society at large. Here's one:
I was at Wal-Mart on Wednesday. When I was there, I did my part for the economic recovery by purchasing a bag of jellybeans, a box of cereal, and a bottle of dishwashing detergent. The cashier failed to do her part for the environment by putting my purchases into two different bags, and I did my part for stupidity by leaving one of my bags behind. I'd gone to Wal-Mart in the middle of a growing severe thunderstorm, which had broken in earnest by the time I managed to get home. So even after I realized that I'd left my dish detergent at Wal-Mart, I didn't go back to get it until today.
I wasn't really sure how to approach the situation, so I went to Customer Service and just explained the situation exactly as it fell out. The service rep didn't really interrogate me - after looking at at my receipt, she told me to go get a bottle of dish detergent and to bring it back to Customer Service. I did this, and when I got it back up there, another service rep who wasn't privy to what had happened assumed that I was stupid and told me that I'd need to take my purchase back to a register to pay for it - as though I didn't know that. But after getting everything squared away, the service rep who was handling my situation rang everything up and sent me on my way.
It wasn't until I got out to my car to drive home that I gave any thought to the issue that the entire transaction that had just occurred depended on my honesty, and the service rep's perception thereof. Granted, the entire story was plausible and supported by physical evidence - I had my receipt, and the receipt was dated this past Wednesday as opposed to the first Wednesday in March. And granted, the item in question wasn't a bank breaker - $2.78. It certainly though I was trying to claim that I'd somehow left behind a $200 piece of furniture or something.
But when it comes down to it, it's the principle of the thing. I could have gotten my dish detergent home that Wednesday, and just decided that I wanted another one for free. It violates all sorts of categorical imperatives, and I guess that's the point here. All sorts of people lie all of the time. But how many people do you suppose are chronically dishonest, and how great are the financial and societal costs that these people incur and heap upon those of us for whom the occasional white lie is a peccadillo as opposed to a way of life?
I don't really know - that's why I'm asking. And what other kinds of negative personality traits fall into that same category? As always, the thoughts of our "readers" are accepted in the same spirit in which they're offered.
Until the next time, remember:
This blog article uses 100% recycled electrons.
Notes:
1. Scott Adams, The Dilbert Principle, pp. 2-3.
Comments(0) |
