The "Stupidity Hypothesis"

[Immortal4life]

I think many skeptics like to believe that a materialistic, or even atheistic way of viewing things indicates higher intelligence, being more educated, or having a better understanding of things.

 

Video on the "Stupidity Hypothesis" and why it is actually skeptics who are often ignorant, misinformed about the issues, uneducated, or irrational. It explains that in fact the educated people statistically believe in Psychic phenomena more than the uneducated people do, and are more informed about the evidence and scientific data supporting it. If you ask me, I think the reason skeptics are often ignorant or uneducated is because they take science as religion but don't realize that's what they are doing, nor really understand it. It's in fact the materialists and atheists, ignorant deniers and the like, who take science as a religion because they are in fact simpler than the educated people who are more open minded towards psychic phenomena. Often skeptical people will just dismiss everything out of hand and not even be open minded at all, or don't want to fairly or objectively research things. They just want to say "I don't believe any of that stuff"!

 

It shows also that intuition is just as important as knowledge.

 

Video about "The Stupidity Hypothesis"-

Edited February 21, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Immortal4life]

[Sloppy Zhang]

There's a lot of fluidity when it comes to wordplay. Different people define "skeptic" differently depending on how they want to use it.

 

The definition I most often associate with skepticism is:

 

Looking at the facts and withholding a judgment until all of the facts are carefully reviewed. The arrival of new facts means appraising the situation once more, had a judgment already been reached in the past.

 

It is just as dangerous to blindly believe as it is to blindly disbelieve.

[Immortal4life]

Absolutely, either extreme is bad.

 

What I don't like, is when people try to claim that people who disagree with them, do so because of some kind of short coming. "You only disagree with me because you are stupid, You only disagree with me because you are not educated, If you disagree with me, you must be inadequate etc. " , when that is not the reason.

 

Plus, the mental plane, and reasoning, is only one tool, and one method of discerning truth.

[Sloppy Zhang]

Absolutely, either extreme is bad.

 

What I don't like, is when people try to claim that people who disagree with them, do so because of some kind of short coming. "You only disagree with me because you are stupid, You only disagree with me because you are not educated, If you disagree with me, you must be inadequate etc. " , when that is not the reason.

 

Plus, the mental plane, and reasoning, is only one tool, and one method of discerning truth.

 

Yes, but at the same time, you don't get very far by saying, "I know because I just know and you can't prove me wrong."

 

Over the years we have developed a lot of methods and means by which we can come to learn and teach various things. These methods and means have come about because most of us don't have the penchant for reading peoples' minds, to suddenly know stuff without being told, and things like that.

 

Some of these systems have been called various things throughout the times, like logic, and rationality. We come to be able to prove things through debate, offering evidence for our position, and things of that sort.

 

It's the social norm, a convention which we all (or at least, most of us) know and take part in pretty much every day in our lives. One can recognize it as a convention. One can choose not to take part in the convention.

 

But that doesn't mean that the convention is without value, or that we should look down on that convention or hold up some other means of convention as the "better" one, simply because we either can't/won't succeed by working within that convention.

[Marblehead]

Well, I am a skeptic but I am not "ignorant, misinformed about the issues, uneducated, or irrational."

 

It is so sad that people have to put negative labels on anyone who does not believe exactly as they do.

 

Judge yourself before trying to judge others.

[2netis]

Good video, thanks for the link!

 

Well there is this paradigm:

"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, it must be a duck."

~ my brother-in-law

 

 

And this one:

"....be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and to try to love the questions themselves like locked rooms and like books that are written in a very foreign tongue. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now."

~Rilke

 

Fear or the lack of it, as much as anything, determines a person's actualizing of curiosity and creativity. Curiosity and creativity are not dependent on IQ. But I get his point.

 

For some people every day is an Orange Alert day. Being able to recognize "ducks" is white knuckle survival business and positively not birdwatching. Survival is psychological survival first when all the necessities of materialist consumer society are fully present. However some things, all things, are not at all what they seem...not even close. To find this out or to re-cognize what is found, everything we think we know - all the answers - must first be lost. That seems to be the only place of aliveness, creativity and discovery. For far too many, this is the face of fear itself - not knowing - even for a moment. Actually it is all there really is.

 

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick (fearful) society."

~J Krishnamurti - ( I added the fearful thing)

Edited February 22, 2011 by 2netis

[Immortal4life]

Those are some good quotes. My favorite one came from you though....

 

Fear or the lack of it, as much as anything, determines a person's actualizing of curiosity and creativity.

 

Fear is the enemy. Fear is tension. Anytime a person fails in something, the cause can usually be found in them having fear or doubt.

 

When you are acting emotionally, you will lack judgement, reason, and intuition.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Marblehead]

 

Fear is the enemy. Fear is tension. Anytime a person fails in something, the cause can usually be found in them having fear or doubt.

 

When you are acting emotionally, you will lack judgement, reason, and intuition.

 

It is nice seeing others in support of my views concerning fear.

[Immortal4life]

 

Fear creates tension, when you are tense you are not in a state of receptivity to what comes your way and to the universal energies, you close yourself off and limit yourself.

[Marblehead]

 

Fear creates tension, when you are tense you are not in a state of receptivity to what comes your way and to the universal energies, you close yourself off and limit yourself.

 

Yep. I like to also include that fear limits our potential for full self-actualization. (We cannot fully develop if we are afraid to test our limits.)

[-O-]

Had an entertaining thought the other day... truth versus computer science...

 

In my profession I deal with programmers and in a conversation about good code versus bad code the idea of "loose coupling" up.

 

Loose coupling, I was told is when a bit of processing code has "no knowledge" of what it is processing or the context of it....

 

example.... I write a bit of code to make the home button on my webpage light up. That code could be something like this...."If mouse is over HOME then light up HOME if not the dim HOME".

 

However this bit of code is "tightly coupled" and bad code. What makes it tightly coupled is the reference to HOME... my bit of code has knowledge of what it is affecting that knowledge is the direct reference to the HOME button...

 

.. so a loosely coupled example would be "For [bUTTON = THIS] if mouse is over THIS then light up THIS if not then dim THIS"

 

What makes this code better is I can now use this bit of processing for anything that I want to light up when the mouse is over it.......

 

 

The other thing that indicates good code is how it is organized. If you have a bunch of bit of processing like the examples above then these things are grouped together by different methods.... say with the above example we put all of the bit of code together that handled all of the functions for our buttons into one file... well this would be "coincidental Cohesion"... if we put our bit of code with all the other bits which light things up and dim things down then this would be "logical cohesion" the best cohesion is when bits of code which accept the same input in the same place.... this make sense when you are debugging or extending the code... because well if you are tracking down a specific error it will have to do with a specific bit of data... so it stands to reason that if all of your bits of processing which affect that bit of data are in the same place then you will find your error quicker.... (smart folks those computer guys)

 

 

 

In academia the pursuit of truth or the accuracy in testing a truth come down to "Correspondence and Cohesion" Correspondence being that your theory of explanation directly references something in the world or state of affairs you are referring to... Simple enough, if I say "sky" my reference to sky is the thing above our heads - it corresponds to that item or attribute etc..... So in this regard Truth is "Tightly coupled"

 

Cohesion refers to how well the theory comprehends all relevant information.. essentially how complete the explanation is.... and this is a tough one because we can never know all of the data involved unless we are say god... so this one is a bit of a sliding scale.

 

So with this background an interesting idea came to mind.... what makes for good code also makes for good BS.

 

If you have a theory which is loosely coupled then you can take that bit of theory and apply it all over the place. Then this applicability gives the appearance of Cohesion... of completeness...

 

Anyway, I think the uneducated sceptics are not really sceptics as much as they are close minded (fearful) people who justify their aversion to differing views than their own with sceptical arguments. I think healthily skeptisism is the type which brings up questions which can then be new avenues of learning...

 

sort of a -we're missing something over here. If we understand what is missing in our explanation then we have a good idea of what questions to ask, where to put our attention; essentially gain clarity on, and set the direction for, the next exploration.

 

On the other hand without doing this our explanations may have nothing at all to do with the things we are trying to understand (they might be loosely coupled) and those beliefs might have more to do what we are wanting to hear or wanting to avoid hearing.... and to me that is a worse place to be than the dunce cap sceptic. At least the sceptic an gain a clue on their motive... the clue being the topic they are disbelieving.... the foundationless belief IMHO is well- blind.

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

Hi -O-,

 

I see the theme of "faulty logic" running throughout your post.

 

Nice thing about computers is that they operate according to pure logic - no emotions.

 

But then there is the old saying "garbage in - garbage out".

 

In the early days of computers I got into programming with my Apple IIE. Had fun while it lasted but the knowledge and technology advance so darn fast that I just couldn't keep up with the progress (it was, afterall, just a hobby) and had to let that go.

 

And it is true, if we use faulty logic in our every-day life we are doing nothing but creating illusions and delusions that have no true logical support.

 

Being a skeptic is one thing but to investigate why we are skeptical of whatever requires work. Most of us leave the work part out and this is sad.

[Jetsun]

Yep. I like to also include that fear limits our potential for full self-actualization. (We cannot fully develop if we are afraid to test our limits.)

 

So how do you deal with fear?

 

People here seem to be suggesting that to deal with fear you need to rely on logic and only pay attention to your logical mind, but isn't that just repression?

[Marblehead]

So how do you deal with fear?

 

People here seem to be suggesting that to deal with fear you need to rely on logic and only pay attention to your logical mind, but isn't that just repression?

 

Excellent questions!

 

I do not feel qualified to speak authoratively concerning the questions but I will give it a shot.

 

But first let me restate that I hold to the importance of intuition in our life so I am not claiming that logic is the 'only' way.

 

There are many forms of fear. I will speak to only those fears experienced from the unknowns in our life.

 

Let's take the subject of snakes. Most people fear snakes. Mostly this is a result of religious teaching.

 

Yes, there are many snakes on this planet that are poisonous and capable of killing humans. But, the fact is, against humans, the snake is acting in defense. We are not on a snakes menu of things to eat. If we do not threaten a snake it has no reason to strike.

 

But also, snakes serve a very useful purpose on this planet in that their normal diet includes animals that are hazardous to us so they are actually doing us a favor by eating those animals that cause us harm.

 

A non-poisonous snake is of no harm to us at all. No need to fear them. And if we avoid the poisonous ones there is no need of fear. True, when the poisonous ones come into 'our' territory we should find someone who knows how to capture and remove it from our environment.

 

Our fears of the unknown are rooted in the concept of being a pessimist. We contemplate the unknown and we envision the worse case scenario. So we avoid that whatever. If we are optimistic and envision the best case scenario our fears are dispelled and we can go forward (with much caution I must add). (Remember, one of the traits of the Sage is being cautious.)

 

So our first challenge is to know the unknown. We learn from observation and from those with knowledge and wisdom. Once we understand reality (the physical, I'm not talking about the spiritual) we are then able to apply logical thinking to the situation. And at this point I would suggest that our own best interests should be key to any decisions. (Intuition works differently.)

 

So we observe and learn what is important in our life. Then we apply logic in order to dispel our fears. Once our fears are controlled we can go forward with caution. And I emphasize caution because we need be able to stop in time. (Knowing when to stop - an important Taoist concept.)

 

And I will add a side note: We don't have to be logical with spiritual affairs. That's a different level of our reality.

[2netis]

About fear

 

I find that fear (like anger or any other emotion) has an entirely physical component. Just sitting or standing or even moving mindfully with this physical aspect in unwavering attention is a beginning. A bit hard to do at first but it can actually be developed - there are some fears that can be called up usually. I did this for myself anyway and I'm betting it will work for anyone. Really investigate the energetic aspect as it is in the body and it tends to de-fuse it quickly. It separates the energy from the personal story and that is the most important thing for me. I recall that for the first few times it felt very strange but oddly satisfying - almost like a purification of some kind. The same one may come back again - even many times, but just repeat or stay with it.

 

I get the personal story separated out and then pay very close attention to the energy of it in the body. There really is a personal story in it. If it is an emergency, then intuition with exceptional energy is there to work automatically for the duration and when "time" does return, the personal story creeps in. So I practice on anger, frustration and such as training for the emergency. Driving in traffic gives plenty opportunity for me!

 

Additionally, I look directly at what the mind thinks about death - repeatedly in meditation - and watch the energy in the body. I've learned some things in this one especially. I recommend this practice without reservation. Surprises await!

 

Reasoning this out has limited usefulness for me when angry or fearful. I just defuse it by actually embracing the nameless energy and studying it with some curiosity. After all, it is the energy of the impersonal cosmos. I don't engage the mind any more than necessary, exactly as in certain kinds of meditation. Mind is the enemy in the beginning here. Contemplation of certain Buddhist sutras - and I'm sure Taoist ones too - is very helpful a little later and if studied beforehand, they are accessible at the right time after the more immediate energy work.

 

Best wishes

[Immortal4life]

Had an entertaining thought the other day... truth versus computer science...

 

lol

[Mark Saltveit]

Judge yourself before trying to judge others.

 

Good idea. Hmmm (pondering). I judge myself to be wise, good looking and rather charming!

This is fun. Who next?

[Marblehead]

Good idea. Hmmm (pondering). I judge myself to be wise, good looking and rather charming!

This is fun. Who next?

 

 

Is there the possibility that you have altered the data upon which you have based your judgement?

 

 

 

I think I mentioned somewhere here recently that I don't judge myself. I leave that to others. (Of course, their opinions mean nothing to me. Well, not entirely.)

[Immortal4life]

Good idea. Hmmm (pondering). I judge myself to be wise, good looking and rather charming!

This is fun. Who next?

 

Lol. These are very important and good traits to have, so long as they are used for good, rather than for evil or to boost one's ego.