Principles for navigating stupidity

[trenton]

Leo recently posted on his blog two videos about the nature of stupidity. Most people cannot be reasoned with because it is more efficient for them to just take in information and not question it.

I oftentimes have difficulty communicating with people no matter how transparent I try to be. Sometimes the truth is threatening to them, and I therefore may need to be content with giving simplified lies that are true enough to be useful. I have a few principles in mind that might be refined for such communication.

I believe it starts with a combination of simplicity, confidence, humor, agreeableness, emotionality, and possibly vague appeals to morality. This kind of reminds of what I have studied in psychopaths. They often appear charming and likeable even if what they say doesn't hold under logical scrutiny. So long as you say it with confidence and charisma, that is enough for most people to believe in your character even if you are a serial killer. The psychopath thinks people deserve it for being stupid.

Currently, I am thinking about things like calculated stupidity. The point is that in human affairs, people find it funny when you act as stupid as you can get away with. This sometimes rises to the level of sexual assault performed for peers. My calculated stupidity would have to account for the possibility of causing harm for the amusement of others as I would prefer to avoid unnecessary boundary crossing.

Navigating stupid people might change depending on the domain. Politics is interesting because I normally look into with depth for the sake of understanding. I often learn a lot, but it depends on the situation in that many people prefer an ally. Therefore, I think the optimal public position might be to say that I am an independent and I don't get into political debates. I would have to debate whether or not to tell someone that I have done enough research to know that none of the simple narratives offered are enough to contain the full truth and in fact they often obscure it on either side especially when emotions are high. I'm not entirely sure how to handle stupid people in political debates. It often seems futile. The main goal seems to be virtue signaling and tribalism.

I'm not entirely sure how to apply to my family. The way the operate depends on denial of reality. They also use coercive control through shouting and threatening. The one who performs enough outrage to provoke others to try to soothe them seems to be the strategy in that environment. I think I would rather just live on a college campus and finish my degree before going away forever. At least my brother is decent and more open minded.

The last context has to do with institutions. I find that I have repeatedly ended up with friction against rigid institutions because I question authority and notice the flaws in their reasoning. Their reasoning objectively does not stand against various counter examples. However, the medical staff among other authority figures move to discredit my position as subjectivity along with insistence that they must follow through with spreading information the courts told them to spread even if that information doesn't hold under scrutiny.

Institutional inertia stunts my creativity on various fronts and it makes it hard to find meaningful work. Essentially I'm supposed to not think and don't show any signs of innovation and then believe that hard work will lead to self advancement despite any evidence to the contrary.

Therefore, I am trying to understand institutional survival more clearly. I'm trying to find in what ways can my creativity be channeled without threatening authority figures who depend on their lies not being questioned. It would be nice to have in depth conversations with people, but it is hard to find people interested in learning.

What other suggestions might there be for navigating stupid people? Is it smart to act authentically smart in the presence of people who cannot receive or understand your perspective? Or are there other principles we might consider for this dilemma?

[Terell Kirby]

Development of independent thought and critical thinking is inversely related to fitting in into group conformity within human social relationships.

There are trade offs, pros/cons between the two. Being an independent thinker is no easy feat, and comes with its own inherent risks, especially in the social domain.

Independent thought should not be seen or adopted as an absolute good. One should weigh their value system and what is important to them before going down the path. 

[yetineti]

Stop trying to navigate ‘stupidity.’ It assumes a lot. Assume nothing. Talk to people about what they want to talk about or shared interests.

Work your way back. Chances are what you want to talk about does not resonate with 99%. But taking a step back will help reintegrate.

The real problem is you dunno how to talk to people. Not stupid people. 

Figure out why. What was the tradeoff? Did you choose it or was it unconscious? What can you do now? Why do you even want to talk to people?