On Calling People Stupid: Bitch-slap

[vap0rtranz]

Calling people stupid is synoymous to calling them retarded.  Opinions, arguments -- words -- are stupid.  People are not stupid.

I just searched my friend's list and am prepared to call people out for using this label.  Before blasting half my friends away, I want to note a trend.  A person usually calls kinds of people stupid, and this lends

Comments

[tacky_tramp]

I'm not sure I understand your argument here. What's wrong with the usage you've cited for me?

[vap0rtranz]

It was quoted from a letter but still, what did you mean by "stupid people"?

[tacky_tramp]

People with below-average IQs. I believe I specifically used the word "stupid" there to emphasize the assumption that poor people who fail to succeed financially are unintelligent and therefore less worthy.

[vap0rtranz]

So they're are such people, or you're playing the Devil's advocate ...

[tacky_tramp]

Hey, you read the post. Did I really fail to make it clear how I feel about such an assumption?

[vap0rtranz]

I'll change yours to a pretty color then: green. :)

At first I was shocked that I found anything on your journal. Of my friends list, I hypothesized (literally) that the teachers and teachers-to-be would not use the word because of our exposure to special education. jeffrock sorta invalidated it and I was too quick to lump your quote in alongside the rest. Maybe I was hoping to undermine my own hypothesis ... but your, force_of_will's and theskirtgirlie's journals don't smother LJ with stupidity.

Yay! for teachers!

[tacky_tramp]

I'm looking through the search results, actually, and I use it quite a few times. Sometimes to imply that someone has reduced reasoning abilities, but sometimes also to negatively label someone frustrating and reduce their apparent worth (the stupid customers who want "that piece of fried chicken ... no, that one ... no, the one over there ... no, under the wing ... beside the drumstrick ....") (him being in a hurry or stupid or whatever). I assume it's the latter sort of usage you object to?

[vap0rtranz]

Yes. So now I change your quote back to more vicious color?! Say, red?

[tacky_tramp]

Well, I still defend my usage in the quotation you've cited. If you want to add another, less kind usage and put that one in read, go for it. :)

[vap0rtranz]

I was just kidding. You're are on the good side of da Force. :)

[tacky_tramp]

I'm sorry -- are you asking me whether or not I believe there are people with below-average IQs?

[vap0rtranz]

Yes, it was a two-for-one question. *smirk* Of course, I pressume you'll say yes but what really matters is whether an IQ of less than the average = stupid. This plays with some of my reasons for saying "stupid" is synonymous with "retarded" ...

[tacky_tramp]

Yes, I'd define "stupid" as "significantly below-average IQ/reasoning capacity," as differentiated from "ignorant," "lacking in knowledge or education." Yes, I believe people have various levels of IQ/reasoning abilities. You disagree?

[vap0rtranz]

We'll I wouldn't put it so objectively, but yes, we can define and measure with some reliability the intellectual ability of people. HOWEVER, we are defining those measures and this brings us to theories of intelligence. You say reasoning ability. I respond with Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences of which reasoning (or logical thinking) is only one of many measurable capacities. Such theories replace the (arcane) tests dervied from Binet (and abused by his successors).

Saying some people are ignorant implies such a broad lack of some ability that, well, how can one know exactly what these people are lacking?! I know a few musicians instrumentalists who cannot read music. Although they are ignorant of one capacity (note reading), they have another (playing by ear). Hence, no population that is broadly implied by the word "people" can be stupid because we don't know what the hell such a large group is lacking. I think this is a good conclusion because it forces the realities of grouping and the multiplicity of

[tacky_tramp]

I like Gardner, but I happen to think logical reasoning is the intelligence most crucial to getting along in the world (followed closely by interpersonal intelligence). I don't care how well you play the guitar; if you can't figure out how to put food on the table -- perhaps by evaluating recording contracts and gig offers and allocating your money wisely -- you're not going to be long for this world. That is, I believe, why logical reasoning is privileged over other intelligences and why "Jane is reasoningly stupid" is so often shortened to "Jane is stupid," period.

Actually, I'd also bet that a good proportion of the time that people say "Jane is stupid," they mean "Jane is interpersonally stupid." I know that's what I mean when I call my blockheaded lovers stupid. Why can't they get along with me?!!?!

[vap0rtranz]

That's fine, but it's a mute opinion that festers problems of prejudice. You value logical/reasonable intelligence moreso than musical and conjure up a myriad of reasons -- like reading a recipe for cooking, as you allude to "food" -- but I see no difference when a person values music over logic. They'd have equally valid reasons for their preference and might eat their way through life quite illogically. (I can't find an example because I think everyone is somewhat logical -- a point where we seem to agree -- but the insidiousness of me judging everyone to be logical and living in a world ruled by logic would be disastrously heretical to socio-cultural activists who say that everything is relative and there are no absolutes. *evil grin*) Regardless, the admition in kinds of intelligences still complicates our ability to make universal proclamations on par with "everyone is not smart". i.e. We run into problems explaining the cut-off; the limit to our opinions. In history, other properties have determined a person's worth,