Intelligence

[Avatar4321]

Why is it that no matter what the religious belief or lack of belief, humans naturally assume that anyone who disagrees with them is irrational/stupid/brainwashed/etc?

I don't believe that. I think people believe what they do for a reason. Otherwise why believe it? I think that often their positions are well reasoned in their own mind. We all have basic premises that are difficult to question because we often dont even recognize them. Its even harder to step back from them and try to look at them from another point of view.

I think we would learn alot more from our discussions with each other if we simply stepped back and asked ourselves, what reasons do they have for their beliefs? What premises lead to them? Simply labelling people stupid or irrational because they disagree with us is arrogant and isnt reality.

 

[hjmick]

There you go again, Av, trying to inject reason and common sense into a political message board. What could you possibly be thinking my friend?

 

[eagleseven]

Hubris, pure and simple. The assumption that one's opponents are not independent actors equal and opposed to oneself is a tragic flaw that plagues the successful.

 

[Avatar4321]

There you go again, Av, trying to inject reason and common sense into a political message board. What could you possibly be thinking my friend?

Eh, dont tell anyone else. I think it's easier for some to just label me an idiot and be done with it. Granted, to them I probably do come across as a fool for disagreeing. But at least my professors thought myself intelligent enough to get through school with excellent grades.

Course, I always put actual knowledge over the pieces of paper anyday. But hey, for some reason those expensive pieces of paper are ways to open doors in our society. I guess its just a convient way to filter people.

 

[Avatar4321]

Hubris, pure and simple. The assumption that one's opponents are not independent actors equal and opposed to oneself is a tragic flaw that plagues the successful.

Sadly, it's a flaw most are guilty of at some point in their lives. In fact, I think it's human nature to think this. Probably as a defensive mechanism of some sort.

 

[eagleseven]

Hubris, pure and simple. The assumption that one's opponents are not independent actors equal and opposed to oneself is a tragic flaw that plagues the successful.

Sadly, it's a flaw most are guilty of at some point in their lives. In fact, I think it's human nature to think this. Probably as a defensive mechanism of some sort.

I'm certain some Psychologist has written volumes on this topic

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm certain some Psychologist has written volumes on this topic

Oh, I'm confident you're correct. And as interesting as it is I think I need to cut back on new books till I finish the ones ive been reading already. Ive currently been reading 4 or 5 regularly. I just never get to the point where I am done with them.

 

[Diuretic]

Hubris is much easier if you don't have to do it face to face

 

[JBeukema]

Why is it that no matter what the (issue )humans naturally assume that anyone who disagrees with them is irrational/stupid/brainwashed/etc?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOmasp9hr4Q"]YouTube - Psychostick - The Dumb Song[/ame]

I don't believe that. I think people believe what they do for a reason.

Even if that reason is ignorance and disinformation?

Otherwise why believe it?

The fallacy is evident here: one does not choose what to believe, only whether they will allow themselves to question their beliefs

I think that often their positions are well reasoned in their own mind. We all have basic premises that are difficult to question because we often dont even recognize them.

Most are too scared to question them

Its even harder to step back from them and try to look at them from another point of view.

and isnt reality.

To assume it's not true they're stupid is fallacious as well

 

[KittenKoder]

Why is it that no matter what the religious belief or lack of belief, humans naturally assume that anyone who disagrees with them is irrational/stupid/brainwashed/etc?

The ironic thing is, anyone who does this is the truly brainwashed one ...

 

[KittenKoder]

JB being a "case in point" ... yet again.

 

[JBeukema]

Once again, KK, if you can't refute anything I say, don't bother posting, Your pathetic ad homs only make it clear that you are exactly the sort of person discussed in the OP. I know most discussions outside of the Flame Zone are beyond your comprehension, but if you stop with the personal attacks and try asking questions, I'm sure many people will be more than happy to explain things to you.

 

[editec]

The problem is, I think, labels.

People assume that they understand who and what a person is usually basing those assumptions on one point of view that the other has.

For example, if another has one position, typically thought to be a liberal or conservative position, we assume that we therefore understand every other position they have based on our presumption that we understand what all liberals or conservatives think about every subject.

None of us are the carttonish stereotypes the morons would like us to be.

Nuanced thinking confuses people.

 

[JBeukema]

The problem is, I think, labels.

People assume that they understand who and what a person is usually basing those assumptions on one point of view that the other has.

Of course, many people adopt labels or casts for themselves as well, in order to fit in or find a sense of mass-produced identity. This carries over into ideology, where people will often adopt a name or standard based on one issue or a few and not bother developing a meaningful opinion in other areas. This, for example, leads to the current two-party political system where people are largely unable to fathom anything other than Democrat Versus Republican. Similarly, people who adopt religious or philisophical identities oft refuse to examine their beliefs and dogmas for fear that their sense of belonging and certainty will be shattered and they might be left disillusioned and seemingly alone without the security they have gained from their closed-mindedness.

For example, if another has one position, tyrpically thought liberal or conservative, we assume that we therefore understand every other position they have based on our presumption that we understand what all liberals or conservatives think about ever subject.

Like when KK tried to accuse JB of being a Leftist

Nuanced thinking is beyond some people's ability to understand.

-and seemingly beyond some peoples desire (and ability?) to engage in

 

[editec]

The problem is, I think, labels.

People assume that they understand who and what a person is usually basing those assumptions on one point of view that the other has.

Of course, many people adopt labels or casts for themselves as well, in order to fit in or find a sense of mass-produced identity.

True enough. Many people simply pick a team and accept whatever that team stands for. Its easier than thinking for oneself.

This carries over into ideology, where people will often adopt a name or standard based on one issue or a few and not bother developing a meaningful opinion in other areas. This, for example, leads to the current two-party political system where people are largely unable to fathom anything other than Democrat Versus Republican.

Spot on

Similarly, people who adopt religious or philisophical identities oft refuse to examine their beliefs and dogmas for fear that their sense of belonging and certainty will be shattered and they might be left disillusioned and seemingly alone without the security they have gained from their closed-mindedness.

Yup

For example, if another has one position, tyrpically thought liberal or conservative, we assume that we therefore understand every other position they have based on our presumption that we understand what all liberals or conservatives think about ever subject.

Like when KK tried to accuse JB of being a Leftist

Yeah, I suppose...or when people are labeled liberal or conservatives or socialist or fascists based on one issue.

Nuanced thinking is beyond some people's ability to understand.

-and seemingly beyond some peoples desire (and ability?) to engage in

Can't or won't...hard to tell sometimes.

 

[N4mddissent]

It is a problem that many often think those that disagree are stupid or irrational. It is possible to be intelligent and rationalize almost any position.

I think it is important to distinguish between overt accusations of opponents being stupid -which are inappropriate- and implications of irrational thinking that are inherent when arguing against a position- which are unavoidable in debate. After all, if you thought someone's position was the most rational position, it seems likely you adopt the position yourself.

 

[Avatar4321]

The problem is, I think, labels.

People assume that they understand who and what a person is usually basing those assumptions on one point of view that the other has.

For example, if another has one position, typically thought to be a liberal or conservative position, we assume that we therefore understand every other position they have based on our presumption that we understand what all liberals or conservatives think about every subject.

None of us are the carttonish stereotypes the morons would like us to be.

Nuanced thinking confuses people.

Wait... I'm confused

 

[Big Black Dog]

My name and intelligence have never been used in the same sentence. So, forgive me for asking, but what are you talking about? I don't have a clue.

 

[Diuretic]

My name and intelligence have never been used in the same sentence. So, forgive me for asking, but what are you talking about? I don't have a clue.

I used to get my name and intelligence mentioned a lot in High School, I was just a bit confused about how they thought I was Russian or something, I mean, who the hell is "Lakov"?

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't believe that. I think people believe what they do for a reason.

Even if that reason is ignorance and disinformation?

You're begging the question. You're concluding that they are ignorant or misinformed without knowing a thing about what they know because they would only disagree with you if they are ignorant and misinformed. It could be quite the opposite. It could be you are ignorant and misinformed. It could be they looked at the same evidence and reached another conclusion because they hold different ideals or premises that are different than you.

The fallacy is evident here: one does not choose what to believe, only whether they will allow themselves to question their beliefs

Most are too scared to question them

Actually, youre wrong. You do choose what to believe. You weigh the evidence. Decide what's credible and you choose to believe. Most people do this instinctively. However, some do try to actively pursue it.

And many are too scared to question their beliefs. Of course, if you've already extensively questioned it and found answers, it seems rather stupid to continue questioning the same things over and over and doubting yourself. It also seems stupid to doubt yourself if you know youve searched extensively before making a choice or when you have concrete evidence. If you know the sun exists and will rise every day, do you have to worry every night whether it will happen again?

Its even harder to step back from them and try to look at them from another point of view.

I think you've demonstrated my point very nicely since you arrived at the board.

and isnt reality.

To assume it's not true they're stupid is fallacious as well

I disagree. To draw such a conclusion requires that you truly understand what's going on in their mind and conclude that your thought process is superior when in reality its simply different. In the end, you put yourself in a position where you cant learn from someone because you disparage their intellect. And if you put yourself in a place where you can't learn, then who is really the stupid one?