The insecurity of ignorance

[el dub]

....... I could never get why, when they are clearly not that bright, they were so confident in what they said,

GMT: How ironic. When I read some of your posts, it makes me think the same thing. Understanding and enlightenment must occur on many different levels. And my guess is that these comments will go right over your head just as your "suggestions" seem to be beyond those you have deemed in need of your advice.

lw

 

[GMT]

If you deem my statements to be less than enlightened, and that I should leave those I disagree with to continue without passing comment, and if you feel that you have gained enlightenment, then given your greater position than mine, could you explain why you need to pass comment when you disagree with me?

 

[Panoramical]

I have no fear of opposing views, of evidence that goes against previous assumptions, of someone else teaching me an error in my ideas. I only require that they have evidence and reasoning behind it and not fantasy.

I'm a firm believer in this. I actually enjoy being told I'm wrong, as long as I'm provided with evidence to prove so. It's exciting to have your ideas straightened out or corrected by someone with more knowledge in that field. And I can't help but appreciate them for sharing what they know.

I'd expect IB isn't a believer in this. He only believes what he chooses, in an attempt to protect his own ego.

Do you think that Hawking is coming up with all that shit? I don't.

You ideas get more and more radical with each post. Still no evidence.

It's clear you're a conspiracy theorist. Have you read/watched much of Peter Joseph's theories?

 

[el dub]

Basically, the original poster, imo, has been attempting to edify himself by tearing down others.

lw

 

[el dub]

Btw, I don't claim to have the ability to pull you up from your unenlightened position. That work is up to the individual in question, imo.

I only bring it to your attention as you appear to have an interest in intellectual development.

lw

 

[GMT]

Ah so you're servicing my interest, thankyou. If you read the thread. you'll see that the purpose was to try to identify a method of dealing with this situation. It then got expanded in its scope. In asking others for help, I thought I was stating my lack of superiority in dealing with the situation, in most of my posts I try to put forward a balanced position, and the thread has clearly caught your interest. If you feel that any of my posts in particular are offensive to you, then please identify which ones, and your opposition to what I wrote so that I may understand your objections fully.
Once I understand your objections, I will then be in a better situation to either explain why I feel you are wrong, or understand my mistake so that I may avoid it in the future.
I hope you continue to support this thread and my continued development by assisting in this matter.

 

[ibjamming]

I'm a firm believer in this. I actually enjoy being told I'm wrong, as long as I'm provided with evidence to prove so. It's exciting to have your ideas straightened out or corrected by someone with more knowledge in that field. And I can't help but appreciate them for sharing what they know.

I'd expect IB isn't a believer in this. He only believes what he chooses, in an attempt to protect his own ego.





You ideas get more and more radical with each post. Still no evidence.

It's clear you're a conspiracy theorist. Have you read/watched much of Peter Joseph's theories?

Bullshit...I was all ready to agree with you and then you say that... Uncalled for. As was the comment by "el dumb" (yes, you may have left out a letter when registering).

PROVE to me you're right and I'll listen. Don't show me a bunch of inconclusive "guess" studies. Don't tell me I'm wrong when you don't know how what you're talking about happens.

It's like some prick arguing about nutes and he doesn't understand how osmotic pressure works. Or how molecules pass through cell membranes.

There are a LOT of people here who SEEM to know a lot...because they know a lot of words...but they DON'T know how it applies in the real world. They live in a "textbook" fantasy. You MUST step back and look at the big picture. See how it relates, how it effects other things. Nothing happens in a vacuum. I've said it over and over...people have trouble seeing the forest for the trees. Meaning, they get too hung up on details and lose sight of what's actually happening.

actually, I have watched. listened to, and read a LOT of conspiracy shit...right along with the official version. Only a FOOL doesn't. And that's my problem with "you"...I'm expected to, and do read "your side", but you laugh and disregard "my" (meaning anything that upsets your precious world view) side. YOU are what you accuse ME of being...and you don't see it.

The ignorant is the one who refuses to consider another possibility... That sounds like you and Head to me. You refuse to listen to my side, to even consider it, you shrug it off as nonsense.

Not to get political...but speaking of "disregarding", it's what "you" did with Ross Perot, Ron Paul, EVERY Libertarian or third party candidate. You dismiss them as idiots...yet they've been proven correct.

I've got news for you...there are other "silly people" out there who you won't consider listening to who are correct too.

You're being led by those who rule you. You're being fed what they want you to know. They're doing a mighty fine job with MOST of the population...because you all think that politically correct way they want you to think. They're doing it to you right now...turn on the TV, read a magazine...it's FULL of propaganda and people lying to you to sell you something...a prodiuct OR an IDEA. Whole channels are dedicated to separating you and your money...DIY, HGTV... And you swallow it hook line and sinker.

Can I ask the same question I ask other (in my opinion gullible) people? Are you religious? The answer to that...answers my other question...

 

[GMT]

bs0, fascinating, I wasn't aware of that.
.............

Or since I'm fairly confident of my own abilities, should I consider the fact that I may myself be impared? Tricky one that.

........................

Nice post, thanks.

Given that you partially posted from that particular post, may I draw your attention to another part of the same post. I hope that you noticed that I continually try to present a balance.

 

[Green lung]

bs0, fascinating, I wasn't aware of that. So in essence, the less intelligent someone is, the less likely they are to realise it lol. Or can that area of the brain be less developed without that relating to other areas of the brain? Though it does say that the jury is still out on whether this is innate or learned, therefore are we wrong to point out their shortcomings, or are we helping to develop their cognitive abilities? Or since I'm fairly confident of my own abilities, should I consider the fact that I may myself be impared? Tricky one that. It makes sense, I could never get why, when they are clearly not that bright, they were so confident in what they said, (and I'm talking generally there not making ref to anyone in particular).
Nice post, thanks.

check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

 

[el dub]

GMT: I wouldn't be wasting my time here if I didn't think there was hope.

ibj: Name calling... Really?

lw

 

[sac beh]

check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

This is related to the study bs0 and I posted. The metacognitive ability is really what we're looking for in this thread, not necessarily quantity of intelligence or knowledge, but the ability to reflect upon ones own thoughts critical... and change them when reason dictates. This is why Aristotle said what he said, if someone can't given an account (a logos or reason) of anything, much less will they have the ability to understand someone else's accounting and compare it to their own.

 

[ibjamming]

GMT: I wouldn't be wasting my time here if I didn't think there was hope.

ibj: Name calling... Really?

lw

You're right...it's beneath me. I apologize.

 

[GMT]

Greenlung, again interesting, but that's the problem with psychology, its mainly cultural. That article states that the phenomenon is only prevelant in the usa, whereas here it doesn't affect us at all, and in the far east the reverse is true. I guess if a conclusion was to be drawn, it would be offensive to americans, so I wont draw it here. But deffinately relevant to the thread, thanks.

 

[ibjamming]

It just shows what we've known all along...people cannot see themselves objectively.

Americans are taught self-esteem is the most important thing, everyone get's a trophy, and nobody is better than you...many Asians are taught that you're 7 of 9 and to get ahead you have to work your hardest and always improve. I could have told you that BEFORE reading the link. BTW, I choose door number 2, the Asian way.

You guys argue the obvious! It's funny...

Smart people KNOW they don't know shit...ignorant ones think they do.

Actually GMT, I'd love to talk about the failing of American culture and it's entitlement mentality. How we're doing a disservice to our kids by building them up for the inevitable fall/disillusionment they experience when they enter the real world.

 

[GMT]

Go ahead, but I don't have anything to add to it since the only experience I have of american culture is its influence on the uk, the 10 days I spent there, and what I can gather from the tv. Therefore not much at all.

 

[sac beh]

It just shows what we've known all along...people cannot see themselves objectively.

But the article and the other studies posted don't suggest such an extreme view. People can and do possess a metacognitive ability in degrees. If you want to suggest that no one can reason reflectively and critically, or that we can't know anything because everyone has a different opinion, you have a much more difficult task than just referring to the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Smart people KNOW they don't know shit...ignorant ones think they do.

By the way, Socrates' belief that he of all people knew the least and that in this was his wisdom never prevented him from searching for knowledge and encouraging the search in others. You seem to use the principle as a fatalistic barrier to discussions and people who wish to come to understanding.

Its a truism really, which only says that someone who thinks he knows something beforehand will never seek to know it better. But someone who knows he has much to learn about the matter will seek to know it better. The statement is really the catalyst to seeking knowledge, not a barrier. Socrates, the originator of the truism, was not a nihilist but a believer in true knowledge coming from reason.

 

[ibjamming]

But the article and the other studies posted don't suggest such an extreme view. People can and do possess a metacognitive ability in degrees. If you want to suggest that no one can reason reflectively and critically, or that we can't know anything because everyone has a different opinion, you have a much more difficult task than just referring to the Dunning–Kruger effect.

By the way, Socrates' belief that he of all people knew the least and that in this was his wisdom never prevented him from searching for knowledge and encouraging the search in others. You seem to use the principle as a fatalistic barrier to discussions and people who wish to come to understanding.

Its a truism really, which only says that someone who thinks he knows something beforehand will never seek to know it better. But someone who knows he has much to learn about the matter will seek to know it better. The statement is really the catalyst to seeking knowledge, not a barrier. Socrates, the originator of the truism, was not a nihilist but a believer in true knowledge coming from reason.

Really? How DO you know? Socrates NEVER wrote anything down! You pretend to KNOW things...yet they're second hand hearsay...

You REALLY don't get it...you're being fed things in anothers' name...and you're taking it as gospel. Just like Jesus...yup...NEVER wrote ONE WORD...yet there are a few billion Christians out there who are willing to give their all in his name...because of "what he said"...but NOBODY can know what he said. Because neither Jesus NOR his disciples wrote anything down. Don't you find it funny that such widely quoted people didn't write anything down? EVERYTHING attributed them...can't be verified? It's like Muhammad getting the "word from God". Pretty convenient for him huh?

Christianity isn't Jesus it's Paul

Islam isn't God, it's Muhammad

Socrates is really Plato.

And science is today's best guess.

You're ALL ignorant...I'm ignorant. We believe what we WANT to believe and hopefully we use a logical path to get there.

Nobody can be sure of anything that has happened unless they were standing right there when it happened.

You see...I've been around long enough to spot the tricks. Like the "glitches in the matrix". I can now FINALLY see through a lot of the tricks. Marketers, advertisers, handlers, EVERYONE uses them to "spin" their side, to get you on their side...or buy their product.

This should be life 101 stuff...why is it so hard for you to see the deliberate manipulation? You're being kept ignorant by those of authority.

This reminds me of a few years ago...our governor was pleading for his new taxes...he kept going on and on about how the budget is already stripped to the bone and the poor students because the teachers were broke.

Well, it turns out that it was one lie after another. The budget still had shit like a million dollars for beauty pageants...that kind of crap. Then I checked teacher pay and found that for a state with it's cost of living, the teachers were some of the best paid in the nation. WTF?

There are more lies...they're everywhere...and everyone tells them.

We're being kept ignorant. And we don't know it. We are...we're living in the damn matrix... But instead of it being fake...it's full of lies...so I guess it is fake.

So yes...you can't reason effectively because you're starting with false data.

 

[sac beh]

Settle down, bro. No gospel here. I'm referring you to an authority on the principle you stated. Referring you to an authority isn't preaching, its sourcing your knowledge to investigate it further. I know you don't like the word authority, because you pre-load it with other meanings. But its simply to say someone who has developed the idea more than others, to the extent that its helpful to refer to him when approaching the topic.

If you're confused about how someone could refer to Socrates' thoughts when he was a character developed by Plato, you probably need to take a class on Plato or at least study the texts. As is, you're just putting fatalistic barriers in the way of the discussion.

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

I'd like to interject a quote from Bertrand Russel.

The problem with the world is the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt.

To be intelligent we must be full of doubt. This includes how we approach the "conventional wisdom" of the "experts." There will always be a better explanation of a given thing, therefore we should never hold "facts" to be "incontrovertible." What if our facts are incorrect after all? Perhaps a better title would be The Insecurity of Arrogance?

And is the Wise Man always right?
No! He can play the Fool

Listen to Ronnie James Dio

 

[GMT]

Well, not that I like to make a habbit in agreeing with IB sac lol, but the case for stating that a lot of what we refer to as the teachings of socrates, actually being the teachings of Plato does stand up. Its true that socrates did exist, and therefore isnt just a figment of platos imagination, and its true that socrates taught plato the art of philosphy. Its true that socrates was put to death for being a disruptive influence, (subversion was the actual charge) but given that Plato saw the fate of socrates, its reasonable to assume that he was keen to avoid the same fate. Also there is no account of plato and socrates ever being in disagreement. It is possible that plato wanted to give weight to his words, and escape punnishment for them by using the name of socrates as the origin of those words. Much in the same way it can be said of other groups who claim to pass on the teachings of those who died for them. However IB, when socrates said that he knew nothing, he was refering to the principles of deductive logic and concepts that later philosophers developed further. Plato developed the idea in the 4 levels of knowledge, and so separated the absolute requirements of deductive logic. Socrates himself would not have argued that science does not have a use, or that inductive logic when utilising large volumes of data, was entirely irrelevant to the aquisition of knowledge of our world.
You could say, that's because science didn't exist in his time, which is true, but had he known of it, I feel fairly confident he would have approved of it.
Though I do make one request of you IB, please dont get this thread shut down by making references to religions by name, or by using examples of a political nature, as even where we disagree, many are enjoying dissagreeing, and it would be a pitty to give someone the excuse to close it down.