My "Stupidity is the new Normal" theory

[Redundant]

There is one aspect of this theory I have been thinking about, and haven't thus far discussed.  There's a reasonable argument that having stupid as the new normal isn't entirely negative.  I share very few attributes with my father, for which I am eternally grateful, but one we did share is possibly intelligence.   A large part of my fathers less than pleasant persona was due to alcohol, but I think this in itself was exacerbated by frustration.  Through both circumstance and personality he was probably frustrated most of his life by not being able to use his intelligence effectively.

An idiot doesn't have this kind of problem and we only have to look at local councils, members of various parliaments, organisations etc to realise being an idiot doesn't rule out success.   What I mean, I think, is that if circumstance and personality prevent an idiot from living a perceived successful life, he or she may not necessarily ever examine their lives to any extent.   An intelligent person on the other hand, almost certainly will if also prevented or denied, for whatever reasons, this perception.

I know there are many factors that determine success or failure.   I know too that there are many definitions of success or failure.   All that said, perhaps there is some truth to the statement that being stupid isn't necessarily the worst prospect given the direction our world is taking.  Feel free to disagree!

[Mince]

I would question whether a person who spends his life frustrated by circumstance and personality has ever examined his or her life.

[Redundant]

I would question whether a person who spends his life frustrated by circumstance and personality has ever examined his or her life.

The answer is there in your comment, the mere fact someone is aware of any sense of frustration regarding their life establishes reflection, or examination, whatever the level of reflection taken   If he or she is an idiot then reflection is unlikely, as is frustration, so the idiots win at least in terms of peace of mind.   My stupidity is the new normal merely enhances their lives.

The idea that an intelligent person can reflect and then change their life in some way is a lovely idea, but in reality in cannot apply to every intelligent person.   Just like the idea of equal opportunity, a great sound-bite but meaningless.  Given the same circumstances, the same education, no ten people would all turn out successful, or doing what they always wanted to do.   If that were not the case we'd all be entrepreneurs and there would be no-one to work the factories, the taxis, the restaurants etc.

I've done my share of service industry, barman, night porter, waiter, shelf filler, taxi driver, cleaner, and there was nothing wrong with any of those jobs, accept they paid peanuts, so I tried to do better.   In reality one of my favourite jobs was van driver for a fruit and veg company, fresh air, exercise and all the fruit you would want, and bugger all in your wage packet.

Intelligence does not guarantee anything, and reflection and examination are not a guarantee of change, and none of that is the argument or point.   The point is who is better off?   The man who knows there should be more to life, or the man who doesn't?

PS You could at least add "loving the full stops or something"...just saying

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

The point is who is better off?   The man who knows there should be more to life, or the man who doesn't?

It depends how you measure "better off". Wealth, it strikes me, more often than not leads to the pursuit of more wealth, driven by the fear of losing what you have. For me, "better off" is about contentment. Realising that, little as it may be, what you have around you brings a certain amount of happiness that no amount of increased wealth, fame, power, etc. could or would increase. Envy can look down as well as up.

[Sandy Buttcheeks]

The measure of a man is not how much he has, but how little he needs.

My favourite saying.

[Mince]

Realising that, little as it may be, what you have ... brings a certain amount of happiness

 

[Redundant]

It depends how you measure "better off". Wealth, it strikes me, more often than not leads to the pursuit of more wealth, driven by the fear of losing what you have. For me, "better off" is about contentment. Realising that, little as it may be, what you have around you brings a certain amount of happiness that no amount of increased wealth, fame, power, etc. could or would increase. Envy can look down as well as up.

No debate on much of that, but it's off topic.   The better off in my post is specific.   Imagine a man or woman who, when faced with the choices life throws at them, constantly chooses the wrong path, for whatever reason, personality, childhood, religion, whatever you like.  The point or question being, is that person, based on their level of intelligence, "better off" being unable to reflect on those past choices, and possibly identifying the right choices far too late?

This isn't public self analysis by the way, so if anyone's panicking now is the time to stop, this is simply an exercise beyond the "Stupidity is the new Normal" theory, call it part deux if you want.

[Mince]

Who's the more stupid, the one who fails to reflect on his life or the one who does and does nothing about it?

[Redundant]

Who's the more stupid, the one who fails to reflect on his life or the one who does and does nothing about it?

The one who fails to reflect on his life, may do so through stupidity, it's kind of hard not to do such reflection otherwise.   So, if he's too stupid to reflect, he wins, simply because there is no thought to what might have been.  As for the one who does reflect and does nothing, it isn't a certainty game.  He may reflect and be unable to do something about it, for numerous reasons, that doesn't qualify him for a different level of stupidly.   Not everyone wins, but we go on selling the idea that everybody can, well they can't.   Those who don't win are surely better off being stupid enough not to reflect on what might have been?

[Mince]

He may reflect and be unable to do something about it

No one is unable to do something about their happiness. If you bind your happiness too deeply in your circumstances, you're bound to never be happy.

[Mince]

The one who fails to reflect on his life, may do so through stupidity, it's kind of hard not to do such reflection otherwise.

Another theory is that everyone reflects but some do something about what they reflect on, or are happy enough not to have to reflect much. Perhaps there is no such thing as "too stupid to reflect". Do you actually know even one person who has not reflected on their life?

Perhaps it's not about who reflects and who doesn't, but who reflects and feels frustrated and does nothing, and who reflects and simply wonders whether it's a monkeys or a toss he can't give.

[Roger Kettle]

Who decides who's stupid? And what's the yardstick?

[Mince]

Some people might say not being able to cut and paste indicates stupidity, but don't worry Roger, I haven't told them you can't drive either.

[Roger Kettle]

And some might say that making an extremely obvious joke indicates stupidity...
My point is, how do you gauge stupidity and in what context? Is being articulate enough to be considered intelligent? If so, that's a bit unfair. Why is PRACTICAL intelligence not so highly thought of? If Tarzan and Einstein turned up on "Mastermind", I would stick my money on Albert. If Tarzan and Einstein were dumped in the African jungle...well, I'm sure you know where I'm going with this. Is the intelligence required to thrive in the jungle less important than the intelligence required to win "Mastermind"? There's a touch of "The Admirable Crichton" about this.
For the record, I would die on Mastermind in half an hour and in the African jungle in 4 minutes.

[Mince]

Different people would define intelligence in different ways, and as you pointed out there are different intellectual skills for each context. But I would make a distinction. Einstein was more than a knowledgeable physicist; he was able to use his intuition and lateral thinking and imagination to question his knowledge and discover something new. Tarzan is also knowledgeable about the jungle, but did he 'redefine' the way others dealt with the jungle. If one could find a parallel between what would be intelligent in the jungle and in the realm of physics, one might get a better understanding of the meaning of the word intelligence.