Short and stupid

Why are we humans so much more “understanding” of the whole range of physical attributes and abilities but seem to expect everyone to have the same mental ability?

I’m not suggesting that we are always kind to a short, clumsy person but in my observation we are much more obviously and intensely nasty about people’s shortcomings in intelligence.

Why, have you been treated badly here?

:p:D

More seriously, do you have some examples? My experiences is that people generally aren’t nasty about people’s mental capacities, but they are when people are willfully ignorant. One can’t be fixed, the other can.

ETA - While your title is clever, it’s not very descriptive. A little better idea of what you’re talking about in the title would help draw in more participants.

What an idiot I am!!!:slight_smile:

Good suggestion, however.

Anyhoo… It seems to me we treat “less intelligent” people with more contempt than we do other variations form some sort of “norm.” I’m absolutely not saying we are particularly kind to those who are heavier, shorter etc, just that we seem to blame people for their ignorance to a greater extent.

In our era, at least, we tend to think “who a person is” is their thoughts and feelings, their mind. When someone has a physical impairment, it doesn’t change who they are. Impairments to the mind strike more directly at our notion of who a person is. People with psychiatric diagnoses aren’t generally well-regarded either.

…is no way to go through life.

I think that in some ways, it has more to do with how those differences are perceived as affecting others.

Being short or clumsy doesn’t generally affect anyone else, but being slow in some fashion can. I mean, if I have to trust that a short person is going to be able to do their job (this is IT, FWIW) I can do so with absolute confidence that their height has no impact. That’s not so with slow people- you can’t be sure that they really understood, or if they’re the ones giving the orders (yes, it does sometimes happen), you’re not sure that they’re actually the best course of action, or sometimes, you know a better way, but can’t convince them that it’s actually better because they just flat-out don’t get what you’re saying.

So there’s a certain degree of extra contempt there, as it’s directly affecting others negatively.

Examples: I was fired once because I went to the hospital for my depression and anxiety. If I would have broken my leg or had cancer, it wouldn’t have been an issue at all. The whole office probably would have signed a get well soon card. For the same trip to the hospital, I am now barred from owning a firearm in the state of Illinois. Zero physical disabilities warrant that sort of extreme infringement on individual rights.

So, I’m not mentally challenged, but I do have a mental illness, and I often feel jealous of people with physical injuries and illnesses because they get so much support and understanding compared with my own illness.

Everyone agrees I’m fairly smart though, so I don’t get the extra mistreatment reserved for stupid people.

So how did your workplace know that it was a mental health visit to the hospital as opposed to some other reason? That seems awfully sketchy that they know at all, and that beyond that, they can use that to discriminate. Unless it’s one of those things where you didn’t show up, and had you come back with a big cast on your leg, it would have been obvious and forgiven, but since it was mental health related, they’re suspicious that you just didn’t show up to work or something?

I called in and told them. I suppose I could have lied. In fact, next time (hopefully there won’t be one) I almost certainly will. I guess I was naive.

Short and stupid

You rang?

People with epilepsy and similar disorders are often barred from driving a car or flying a plane. Just as their disorder puts them at risk for mismanaging the vehicle they’re operating, depression presents as a risk factor for mismanaging a firearm.

While contemplating suicide is a common activity for depressed individual, actually attempting suicide is most often an impulsive act; keeping guns out of the reach of individuals with a documented history of depression is generally regarded as a reasonable measure to take in an effort to reduce the incidence of suicide.

I think it’s because, fairly or unfairly, people with low IQ are perceived as being more of a burden, or more of a harm, to society than people who are 4 feet tall.

A 4-foot-tall man doesn’t have a negative effect on society, but many people are of the opinion that “stupid” folks are indeed harmful to the country.

I guess I’ll stop seeking treatment then. They didn’t take my rights away for being depressed, they took my rights away for asking for help with my depression. I guess if I just self-medicate with alcohol and lash out at people around me, I won’t be a danger at all? By the way, in two years, when I’m allowed to buy a gun again, I’ll still be depressed. I just won’t have recently sought help.

Thanks for illustrating the OP’s point.

You’ll be far less dangerous without a gun.

Maybe together we’re making his point, because I’m a little shocked that you can’t seem to make the connection that asking for help with depression means you are at risk for suicide, and that you think banning firearm ownership for people at risk of suicide is not a reasonably safety measure.

I don’t know about ‘less intelligent’, and am not sure how that would be defined. I don’t abide willfully ignorant folks very well, as it’s not that difficult to educate yourself.

What **DrCube **means is that these regulations often have the effect of discouraging people from seeking help.

Suppose an airline pilot has depression, and knows that seeking help for it may jeopardize his flying career because he might get banned from flying. You don’t think this has the effect of causing some airline pilots to just suffer in silence without seeking help?

FWIW, I have a mental disorder, too, not the same as DrCube’s, but this sort of “unintended consequences” aspect of these legal policies (which are well-intended, just not well-thought-out) really needs to be addressed. Too many policy makers draft up policies, without thinking about how people would actually behave under these policies.

…I think he’s been suspended by the mods.

Nope, in fact you’ll get promoted to CEO. :smiley:

I think you’re talking across each other. Asking for help doesn’t make him a risk for suicide. Having depression makes him a risk. I think that’s what he’s been trying to tell you.

Why assume anyone is “willfully” ignorant? That just assumes we all have the same intelligence when it should be clear that people’s intelligence can be as varied as their physical strength.

I think everybody gets that. DrCube’s point is that typically no-one knows you have a mental issue until you ask for help, so these risk-mitigation measures don’t effectively capture the at-risk population but instead effectively penalize people for asking for help. So instead of a depressed, potentially suicidal person who is receiving treatment and has access to firearms, now you have a depressed, potentially suicidal person who is not receiving treatment, but still has access to firearms.