# Rational group
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-group/525234
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [January 16, 2010, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-group/525234 "2010-01-16T20:39:20Z")
**Posts on this page:** 18
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@pfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pfish)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2010, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-group/525234/1 "2010-01-16T20:39:20Z")
I believe that there are three kind of people (Cecil might have fought long and hard, but I never remember him telling that ‘belief’ was a bad thing)
First group are ‘believers’, who follow religious, faith based assumptions, and superstitions because the previous generation did. They do not give a damn about science, since it means nothing to them - they follow pre-determined rules and value cultural issues.
Second group are the ‘science’ group who know exactly what happens, but miss out on the large picture. They can make fun of others, but it is sad that unless they understand what they are doing, they will only be doing just that, and not progress to the next level.
The third group comprehends both, but finds it hard that they give up! Most of these people get segregated and lurk under the previous categories. For those who are left, I just propose, please sign the attendance register.
Let us find out how rational the world really is! (how ironical!)
I vote for Rational group: 001
Would you do the same thing?
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2010, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-group/525234/2 "2010-01-16T20:48:44Z")
“There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who say, 'There are two kinds of people in the world: those who say there are two kinds of people in the world, and _the other kind,’_ and those who _don’t say._ Well, and then there’s me.”
– [“Bob”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._%22Bob%22_Dobbs) during his mail fraud trial, 1978
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2010, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-group/525234/3 "2010-01-16T20:53:26Z")
Actually, of course, [there are three kinds: Moes, Larrys, and Curlys.](http://sonic.net/~goblin/9moe.html)
> [@](#):
>
> There is but a small percentage of Moes in any given population: perhaps 5%. There are even fewer Curlys. The vast bulk of humanity are Larrys.
>
> (Though represented by male characters, the three types also apply to women.)
>
> Moe is the active personality, and if not always dominant, always striving to be. Moe is the one who spurs the others into action. He devises plans to better their lot, but when his plans fail the other two suffer the consequences. But is Moe any less the fool for that they follow his plans?
>
> He is a natural manipulator, only partially because the others are waiting to be manipulated. He would want to manipulate them anyway, even if they weren’t so willing.
>
> But Larry is a born follower, a blank slate that only reacts (and slowly at that) to exterior stimuli. He never initiates action. He is Moe’s absolute tool, the truest ‘stooge.’ When Moe’s abuse finally does make him angry, he lashes out not at Moe, but at Curly. No matter how he suffers under Moe’s yoke, he never really rebels. He argues, but gives up easily.
>
> Were it not for the presence of his friends, Larry probably would live in peace – a dull, flat, mechanical peace. Though clumsy, he is still the most employable of the three – for the other two are incapable of following orders, although for different reasons. Most people are Larrys.
>
> Larrys divide people into those who don’t divide others into two types, and those who do. But they do so only because they grew up hearing it.
>
> Curly is the only likeable one, a truly rare human model. He is the holy man, the Divine Fool. He is as creative and active as Moe, but it is a spontaneous and joyous kind of creativity, no good for the kind of plotting and scheming required by a Moe-dominated society. He is a free spirit, but correspondingly unable to function well in a world of Moes and Larrys. He, like Larry, is perpetually abused, but he intuitively understands what is happening to him and reacts far more angrily – if equally ineffectually. He is everyone’s favorite Stooge because he is the funniest; through his inate nobility and natural humility he constantly bests Moe, but it is in an unconscious way, and it is only apparent to the outside observer. Curly himself is hardly aware of his talents; his weakness is that he does not know his own strength, and cannot trust his own luck.
>
> In real life, Curlys are usually branded by the Moes and Larrys around them as retarded, schizophrenic, mal-adjusted or just plain stupid, whereas in reality, it is only Curly who understands the truth. Remaining cheerful through adversity, he wins battles not by fighting, but by ‘accidentally’ unleashing ‘accidents’ in which his enemies injure themselves.
>
> Alien to feelings of avarice or ambition, he is the opposite of Moe, yet the two are drawn together by some inexplicable balancing force of nature. The Larrys, though, are ever the in-betweeners, sluglike nonentities caught in the crossfire of cosmic dualities – yet remaining there by some herding instinct that makes being a casualty of the Moe-Curly battle preferable to life alone with other Larrys.
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2010, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-group/525234/4 "2010-01-16T20:54:34Z")
> [@pfish](#):
>
> Second group are the ‘science’ group who know exactly what happens, but miss out on the large picture. They can make fun of others, but it is sad that unless they understand what they are doing, they will only be doing just that, and not progress to the next level.
>
> The third group comprehends both, but finds it hard that they give up!
The science group comprehends the believers just fine. The believers are simply wrong; ignorant at best; lunatics and willfully self deluded often enough; and often outright predatory. That’s easy to understand. As for the “large picture”; science handles the “large picture” just fine.
If science has a problem with religion, it’s that it handles religion with kid gloves too often for fear of offending beleivers, or because the scientists in question are themselves infested by religion and therefore intellectually handicapped.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2010, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-group/525234/5 "2010-01-16T21:24:10Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#):
>
> As for the “large picture”; science handles the “large picture” just fine.
Depends on how you define it. The “large picture” could be taken to encompass issues which are by definition outside the purview of science, such as values, ethics, metaphysics (in its narrow philosophical sense), and politics. **Scientists** often can handle these questions (although scientific training gives them no special qualifications to do so), but science as such makes no value judgments of any kind.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2010, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-group/525234/6 "2010-01-16T21:37:51Z")
> [@pfish](#):
>
> I believe that there are three kind of people (Cecil might have fought long and hard, but I never remember him telling that ‘belief’ was a bad thing)
>
> First group are ‘believers’, who follow religious, faith based assumptions, and superstitions because the previous generation did. They do not give a damn about science, since it means nothing to them - they follow pre-determined rules and value cultural issues.
>
> Second group are the ‘science’ group who know exactly what happens, but miss out on the large picture. They can make fun of others, but it is sad that unless they understand what they are doing, they will only be doing just that, and not progress to the next level.
>
> The third group comprehends both, but finds it hard that they give up! Most of these people get segregated and lurk under the previous categories. For those who are left, I just propose, please sign the attendance register.
>
> Let us find out how rational the world really is! (how ironical!)
>
> I vote for Rational group: 001
>
> Would you do the same thing?
I don’t understand your vote. Are you saying you are the first person (001) to vote for the 2nd Group (Rational Group) in your OP? The “science” group?
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2010, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-group/525234/7 "2010-01-16T21:55:16Z")
I also have to ask what “large picture” the scientists are missing out on. Additionally, what is “the next level” that they’re failing to progress to?
Let me know if it involves prepositions, as in ending sentences with.
---
### Author:  [@Mojo\_Pin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo_Pin)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2010, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-group/525234/8 "2010-01-17T08:25:34Z")
[QUOTE=Magnetic Fields]
There are two kinds of people, a) my love and I, b) other
two kinds of people, 1) the gray and 2) me and my lover
All people fall into two camps that ever twain shall be
those lost in darkness without lamps, and then,
my love and me…
[/QUOTE]
Seriously though, I agree with practically nothing in the OP, so there must be at least two kinds of people for sure. How ironical!
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2010, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-group/525234/9 "2010-01-17T16:52:33Z")
> [@Mojo\_Pin](#):
>
> Seriously though, I agree with practically nothing in the OP, so there must be at least two kinds of people for sure. How ironical!
Isn’t the correct word “ironicalistic”?
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2010, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-group/525234/10 "2010-01-17T21:15:57Z")
If we were playing _Advanced Civilization_, that’d be “ironicalasm and heresy.”
---
### Author:  [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2010, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-group/525234/11 "2010-01-17T22:01:32Z")
“There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand trinary, those who don’t, and those who don’t even know what trinary is.”
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2010, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-group/525234/12 "2010-01-17T23:13:26Z")
It looks to me like the OP is saying that he’s a member of the third group, and wants to know who else is, but he picked a funny label for it, if that’s the intention. It would make more sense to call that the “balanced” group or something, balancing reason and faith, not the “rational” group.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2010, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-group/525234/13 "2010-01-17T23:22:24Z")
Well, since faith is weightless, as are all things imaginary, I’m curious how this balancing takes place.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2010, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-group/525234/14 "2010-01-17T23:31:19Z")
I’d say there are two kinds of people in the world: those that support their beliefs by faith and those that support their beliefs by evidence. The arguments between these two groups are usually when they fail to understand that the other group has an entirely different foundation for its beliefs.
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2010, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-group/525234/15 "2010-01-18T00:13:47Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> I’d say there are two kinds of people in the world: those that support their beliefs by faith and those that support their beliefs by evidence. The arguments between these two groups are usually when they fail to understand that the other group has an entirely different foundation for its beliefs.
I think the evidence based group knows exactly what the faith based group bases its beliefs on; it simply doesn’t have any respect for it. Nor should they.
Much of the faith based group on the other hand doesn’t understand the evidence based one at all; they keep trying to treat the evidence based people as if they, too base their beliefs on empty assertions. Unsurprising since the faith based group is insane ( and yes, basing your actions and your view of the world on fantasies is insane ). They keep trying to do things like make Darwin look bad or like he converted on his deathbed; under the impression that he was just a prophet like they have and all they have to do is discredit him to discredit the theory. And no matter how often it fails they keep trying, because learning from your mistakes requires you acknowledge external reality; which is the opposite of faith.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2010, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-group/525234/16 "2010-01-18T01:52:37Z")
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> It looks to me like the OP is saying that he’s a member of the third group, and wants to know who else is, but he picked a funny label for it, if that’s the intention. It would make more sense to call that the “balanced” group or something, balancing reason and faith, not the “rational” group.
Agreed. What the OP calls the “science” group could with equal justice be called the “rational” group.
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2010, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-group/525234/17 "2010-01-18T05:34:03Z")
Wait, no, I’ve got it! He’s obviously referring to the set **Q** under the operation +.
In which case, I’ve got to say that there are much more interesting groups out there, like most of the matrix groups or even some of the finite rotation groups. But to each their own.
---
### Author:  [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)
#### Post date: [January 18, 2010, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-group/525234/18 "2010-01-18T21:54:50Z")
So… group 1 are the YECs, group 2 are the people who don’t bother to claim divine creation, and group 3 are the people who aren’t _completely_ delusional, but still cling to what fantasies they can manage to protect from the jackbooted march of reason?
Except that group 3 here is less characterized by what they believe, but by the fact they “get segregated” and are _pretending_ to either hate sicence, or not to entertain fantasy. Huh. Not sure I get it - I think _most_ people accept large chunks of what science says, even going so far as to believe in cars and computers and gravity, but still like to trip the light fantastic on other subjects. I mean, it’s not like religious people with the brains to wipe their butts are _uncommon_.