If someone doesn’t know something, we say they’re ignorant, not dumb – they just didn’t happen to know a particular set of facts, which is fair enough, since no one can know everything. But is there a point when someone just knows so few facts that you begin to suspect that they’re just plain dumb? Or is a knowledge of facts (or lack thereof) ever a fair measure of someone’s intelligence? And if not, how DO you guage someone’s intelligence?
I tend to gauge a person’s intelligence by how they respond to conversation. Do they speak reasonably quickly, for instance. Do they make me feel as though I have to modify my speech to be understood?
It’s more a general impression than something specific. It also has very little to do with vocabulary. I’ve met people whom I considered quite bright, who’s speech was very uneducated sounding. On the other hand, I never doubted that they could understand what I was saying.
Jeez, I sound like such a snob!
Yes. Several banned posters come to mind.
I take willful ignorance as a sign of stupidity.
And more to the point, curiousity as a chief hallmark of intelligence.
If you have the oportunity to find something out and you don’t…you’re stupid.
Ignorance is like gonorhea. It can be cured through a firm regimen of CURE.
Stupidity is more like herpes. Even when you THINK it’s gone, it’s not.
Ignorance speaks to a lack of information.
Stupidity speaks to a lack of cognitive capacity.
Stupidity implies Ignorance, but Ignorance need not imply Stupid.
Yes, but what then, if anything, do you use then to judge a lack of cognitive capacity? How quickly they interact with others, as zoogirl suggested, or lack of curiosity, as betenoir suggested, or something else? And, more to the point of my original question, doesn’t there get to be a point where someone can be so very ignorant that it does indeed imply stupidity? It takes a
I ask because I was thinking of a guy I used to know who was very ambitious and hard-working, and seemed to be of at least average intelligence, but who was amazingly ignorant. And I’m well aware that different sets of facts seem obvious to different people based on their interests and on what they happen to have been taught. But this guy simply did not know things that any college – or even high school – graduate should have known. I’m talking basic stuff, a I wasn’t the only person who had this impression of this guy. For a long time I thought that the guy was just ignorant, but eventually I started to just think that he was kind of dumb. After all, it takes a degree of intelligence to be able to remember facts, to put them in context, and even to seek out those facts in the first place. Right? Or did I misjudge the guy?
A very loose example:
Someone can’t name the Secretary of State: I think, "Okay, this person just isn’t particularly interested in politics."
Someone can’t name the Vice President: I think, "Hmm…they might be a bit dim, but maybe they’re just REALLY apolitical, and are all-consumed by other interests."
Someone can’t name the president: I think, "This person is dumb."
**The above assumes, of course, that the person is an American citizen of a reasonable age to know these things.
I don’t consider constant ignorance as stupidity, but I do consider it to be irresponsible. I think it is everyone’s responsibility to get the news every single day. I think it’s everyone’s responsibility to have a basic understanding how certain universal things work, regardless of how unpleasant or confusing they might be.
My brother thought he could collect social security at the age of 52. :eek: Now how in the hell a college-educated person could think that is beyond comprehension. He simply had no idea how it works. He figured as long as he’s paid into it, he could collect the benefits now. THAT is irresponsible.
I agree, but would amend the last bit to "if you have the opportunity to find something out, and you don’t–and refuse for someone else to fill you in (be that media, other people, books, Web etc)–you’re stupid.
I would like to know lots of things, but time and priorities get in the way. For example, I am finally getting around to a 10 urge to learn more about the night sky (constellations in particular).
I did not over those 10 years, refuse to listen to what others had to say.
I really don’t know what to do with stupid people. Mocking them does not improve their condition, enabling them just makes more work for the rest of us, and they can’t be ignored (or can they?).
I think you are being a little too harsh here. For example I have had the oportuity to find out how a gall bladder works, but I have never done so. Does this lack of knowledge make me stupid? I hope not because everyone has some subject that they don’t know much about. Therefore using your definition we are all stupid.
I would modify your statement to if you have a need and the oportunity to find something out and don’t you are stupid.
As I have no need to know the inner working of the gall bladder I am ignorant of its functions. This lack of knowledge does not make me stupid.
Now if my MD told me there was a problem with my gall bladder, and I did not do some research to learn more then I would be stupid.
If you don’t know something and I have to explain it to you, you’re ignorant.
If I’ve explained the same thing to you 14 times and you still don’t get it, then you’re stupid (in that area only, of course.)
If I’ve explained something to you 14 times about why something won’t work, and you still ask, “Yes, but why can’t you…” then I give up.
I think the difference becomes obvious when you observe how a person deals with his or her ignorance.
Ignorant, but not in the bad way: “Hey I don’t know X. and it’s come to my attention that knowing it would be useful for me/my loved ones/ my society. Guess I’ll try to look it up or ask somebody about it.”
Stupid: “I don’t know X, and that’s fine with me. In fact, it’s better than fine. I am a better person for not knowing X, and given a chance, I’ll prevent other people from learning about X, too. People who know X are bad people. Don’t talk to me about X, and definitely don’t tell my children about it, because I don’t want them to grow up to be X-knowers who think they’re better than me.”
Stupidity is not correlated with ignorance. Attend any academic conference and you will meet a lot of extremely well informed dolts.
I disagree that the combination of “I don’t know,” and “I don’t want to know” equals stupidity. Makes a person boring IMHO, but not stupid.
Example: Few years ago, one of the guys who worked for me was (jokingly) berating another team member for allegedly not working hard enough. “Who do you think you are,” I interjected, “Simon Legree?” I got two completely blank stares. “You don’t know who Simon Legree is?” Nope. “The overseer in Uncle Tom’s Cabin?” Nope. “By Harriet Beecher Stowe?” Uh, nope. “The abolitionist?” Nope. “Do you know what an abolitionist is?” Uh, uh. “Okay, did they teach you about the American Civil War in school?” Mmmm, yeah, I think so, but I didn’t pay much attention that year. I don’t like history that much.
Now, neither of these guys was in any way stupid. In some subjects they were brilliant. Not in history or literature, though. Another time when debating politics with a different person, I mentioned the name Chamberlain in explaining why appeasement was not necessarily a good idea. He tried to hide it, but he had absolutely no idea what I was talking about. Another person who is much smarter than I am in certain technical areas, and is by no means stupid.
my preference is more simply stated; ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
that being said, and as someone else here stated, woeful ignorance helps push the condition towards stupid.
cheers,
I don’t think it’s the quantity of things a person doesn’t know that makes him/her ignorant. Rather, it’s the quality.
If you know a ton about a subject, but you have big gaps in your knowledge of other areas (you don’t know what causes diabetes, you don’t know that whales are mammals, you don’t know what a “cello” is, you can’t find Kenya on a map), then you’re ignorant and maybe not all that well-rounded. I know a lot of people like this. Brilliant people when you find their area of interest (music, sports, history, wildlife, gardening, etc.), but deficient when it comes to lots of other areas. Sometimes these people are boring and not the best conversationalists, but they aren’t stupid.
Most smart people will find an area of interest and accumulate knowledge in that subject. But stupid people are not inquisitive enough or capable enough to accumulate knowledge. They may be curious enough to ask you what you’re talking about, but they don’t have the ability to really retain what you just told them.
Ivylass you must be a person of infinite patience that I endeavor to one day achieve. I’ll generally give up after 5 attempts even though I know that the rock is hard but the water is patient.
I agree with this, but I have a few qualifications:
By the first standard, we’re all ignorant, just on different subjects.
If you’ve explained something 14 times and the person still doesn’t get it, you’re more patient than I would ever be, but you also might consider whether your explanation is really all that good. I’ve seen too many bad teachers (in and out of academe) and writers of bad instruction manuals cover their own incompetence by insisting their target audience is too stupid to learn. Yes, the world is full of stupid people; some of them are instructors.
(No, I am not suggesting Ivylass is one of these bad instructors, not for a minute. I feel her exasperation, believe me. I am saying her statements are a little too sweeping: they may be true for her, but they aren’t true for everyone.)
When I was a teenager a friend told me, “If the student hasn’t learned, the teacher hasn’t taught.” At the time I thought that was a copout for bad students, but as I’ve gotten older I’ve learned there’s a lot of truth to it. Teaching well is an art and a skill that a lot of highly intelligent people lack.
That said, if someone receives several explanations, varied in level and style, with plenty of time to digest them, with examples and demonstrations and thought experiments as applicable, and STILL can’t grasp the concept, then that person probably is hopelessly stupid. I say “probably” only because some people who appear stupid are actually lazy: they CAN think, they just don’t want to. I have no suggestions for dealing with these people, as the law does not allow them to be killed.
A persistant desire never to have even so much as a working knowledge of your health, home safety, food safety, home maintenance, car maintenance, computer maintenance, sex and related diseases, drugs and the potential for abuse and addiction, major religions (even atheists and agnostics should know something about what they don’t believe in), parenting responsibilities (if you have kids), pet ownership (if you have pets), good study habits (if you go to school), contemporary new events, major historical news events and personalities (excluding Hollywood), your basic civic duties, relevent laws, relevant tax laws, work related responsibilities, your family dynamics/history, insurance and money management. And if you’re a [del]heterosexual[/del] male a) how to safely lift and move heavy furniture through narrow doorways and b) most major sports.
For starters.
AND I think if you persist in not knowing about these things, how to find out about these things, or how to pay someone else to do them for you by the time you’re twenty-five, it’s time to grow the hell up already. If you don’t know this stuff by the time you’re thirty, you’re just dumb.
Tick… tick… tick… tick… tick…