How to deal with Idiots?

Post Reply New Topic

Every time I try to explain something, I usually just keep making things worse.

But, I suppose if one can glean enjoyment out of the act of researching, and later writing about their results, it's not a complete waste.

I have no idea how to deal with people so thickheaded as to suggest harmful therapy. Maybe cannabis, or an anti-psychotic drug.

As far as people believing that a vaccine may cause autism, that would be swiftly dealt with by disproving that a vaccine may cause autism.

I'd ignore them and if that doesn't work, I'd tell them to talk to the hand.

I am sort of amused and sort of disappointed to realize that my firm belief that clear, rational explanations will convince people is one of those viewpoints that resists facts.

On the other hand, at least it's informative for others who may agree or be undecided or be less committed to holding that perspective.

I either avoid them or tell them to read a book!

everyone who can listen to me can understand what i say.
"idiots" (i.e severely mentally ret*d people) can still be communicated with.
i will talk about simple things to simple people, and i enjoy talking about simple things, and my love has no reference to intelligence or capacity.

i think "judgements" are for other people to make.

Somewhere in his Complete Herbal, Culpeper declares: "To the vulgar, I have nothing to say."
Never argue with somebody who doesn't appreciate the Doctrine Of Signatures.

encrusted in shale will be that deceased idea in the fullness of time

Ignore any idiot, like its been said before, they are the kind of people who believe in anything and won't question until some celebrity speaks out on tv.

Well, I've just replaced my belief that rational discourse should hold sway with the "fact" of human cognitive biases. Here's a nifty list if you haven't seen it before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Fittingly, I recently got into a debate with someone on another site who was convinced that bonobo chimpanzees were "male-dominated" based on ONE article written by ONE psychologist (Ian Parker) who based his findings on ONE research expedition to the Congo. The majority of the evidence points to bonobo society being female-dominated (or, at least, not entirely male-dominated), and I was more than happy to supply the myriad of information available on the web, several book recommendations, and even two articles that contested Parker's findings. The result? The dude I was debating with simply declared that Ian Parker's article was "obviously more important" and didn't bother with explaining how or why the ONE article was so much more definitive than the buttload of research to the contrary. Oh, and other posters felt the need to point out that I was "weird" for knowing so much about "monkeys."

Ultimately, the guy found the idea that bonobos are female-dominated to be emotionally unappealing; therefore, he clung to the one scanty piece of evidence that seemed to confirm his viewpoint, and automatically rejected anything that challenged it. This is a form of "selective abstraction."

I've stated elsewhere that this is one of the reasons I avoid political debates, and take any other "debate" with a grain of salt. Humans are inherently inclined to pick out "facts" that bolster their preconceived opinions, and automatically reject "facts" that don't gel with their preconceived opinions. What people actually "see" is heavily influenced by what they expect to "see."

I just say, "Screw it," and I go get a latte from Starbuck's.

I also read online in a blog that when you try and correct people they are wrong about, they just tend to stick with their beliefs more. Lot of people do this, even autistic people, part of human nature. I haven't met anyone who doesn't do this. Anyone that claims they aren't like this, I may test them by telling them something they are strongly against and if they don't change their minds about it, they have proved to me they are like that and I will point that out to them so they know. But then again they may still choose to believe they are not like that.

All very interesting, and I know that people won't abandon their biases, but I suspect that the next argument that comes along, I'll be back to citing sources.

Actually, I already did that ~15 minutes ago on another site. Maybe I just like listing factual counters to annoying-to-me points of view.



I like this. I really dislike the way a lot of people conflate intelligence and how much someone agrees with their point of view. I don't think someone who disagrees with me is necessarily less intelligent just because of that disagreement. I am more likely to think they're just uninformed (or sometimes, I'm the uninformed one).