I'm fine with people who really just don't know stuff. But they should really listen when you try to explain something to them.
* cough cough * flat earthers?
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
I'm fine with people who really just don't know stuff. But they should really listen when you try to explain something to them.
* cough cough * flat earthers?
Is the world anti-intellectual or anti-“know-it-all”-poindexter?
I haven’t noticed anti-intellectualism but the reject of disrespectful and bad-faith discourse.
This is probably inevitable because science has been politicized in America.
People will remain stupid. But I'm somewhat hopeful that in the next few decades we see AI develop enough that it truly constitutes superintelligence relative to us, and that the scalability of it tips the scales of the continual standoff between intelligence and stupidity forever.
Because I have little hope for humanity overcoming its own multiplying stupidity on its own.
I think the claim that the world is anti-intellectual is somewhat biased. I don't know if that's a sampling bias, a cognitive bias, or some other kind of bias. But one way or another, I feel like you're overblowing things.
No.
It’s human nature to want to be the best, the most loved, the top dog. It helps to propagate the species.
If someone is smarter than you, it digs at the very core of that, and becomes a threat.
lol so you're saying that you think we're genetically programmed to mistrust "smart" people? I think you're really reaching here
I think 'human nature' is far too broad to define in such a way, and making objective statements about it is wrong. In my opinion, the only definite thing you can say is that humans act out of self-interest (as do all living beings), but the motivation derived from it doesn't have to be destructive.