Contending Stupidity Harms, Absurdism Delights...

 I would contend, stupidity harms, but absurdism delights...and indeed, I DO contend that!

Stupidity Harms, Absurdism Delights: A Reflection on Human Experience

In the tapestry of human behavior, two forces often stand out for their profound impact: stupidity and absurdism. Though they may seem like distant cousins in the realm of irrationality, their consequences could not be more different. Stupidity, often rooted in ignorance or the rejection of reason, leaves a trail of harm in its wake. Absurdism, on the other hand, revels in defying logic, bringing joy and wonder to the world.

Stupidity: A Dangerous Indifference

Stupidity is not merely the lack of intelligence. It is a state of willful disengagement—a refusal to question, learn, or think critically. It clings to simplicity in a complex world and often becomes the catalyst for harm. Consider the spread of misinformation, fueled by individuals too complacent to verify facts. Or think of the societal divisions exacerbated by an unwillingness to empathize or understand another’s perspective.

History offers ample evidence of stupidity’s destructive power. Wars have been waged on faulty premises, environmental crises ignored due to short-sighted greed, and innovations stifled by those who feared change. Stupidity, in essence, thrives on neglect—neglect of responsibility, curiosity, and collective well-being.

Absurdism: A Celebration of the Unexpected

Absurdism stands in stark contrast to the harm of stupidity. While stupidity stems from a refusal to engage, absurdism is deeply engaged with the peculiarities of existence. It invites us to laugh at the chaos and embrace the nonsensical aspects of life. Rooted in philosophy and art, absurdism challenges the rigidity of logical structures and finds beauty in paradox.

Think of the works of Albert Camus, who suggested that life’s inherent lack of meaning does not lead to despair but to freedom. Or recall the surreal humor of Monty Python, whose sketches remind us that the world’s oddities can be a source of joy rather than frustration. Absurdism encourages us to see the unexpected not as a threat but as an opportunity for delight.

The Key Difference: Intent and Impact

What separates stupidity from absurdism is both intent and outcome. Stupidity harms because it ignores the consequences of inaction or poor decisions. Absurdism delights because it acknowledges those same consequences and responds with creativity and humor. Stupidity closes doors; absurdism opens windows to new perspectives.

Why This Matters

In an increasingly polarized world, understanding this dichotomy is more important than ever. Stupidity often thrives in echo chambers, where ignorance is reinforced and critical thought discouraged. Absurdism, however, can act as a bridge, using humor and unexpected insights to challenge assumptions and bring people together.

To combat stupidity, we must foster a culture of curiosity and learning. To embrace absurdism, we must allow ourselves the freedom to play with ideas and revel in the unexpected. Together, these approaches can transform how we navigate the complexities of modern life.

Conclusion: A Call to Delight in the Absurd

If stupidity is the shadow that darkens progress, absurdism is the light that illuminates new paths. By rejecting ignorance and celebrating the whimsical, we can create a world where harm is minimized, and delight abounds. In this, the choice is ours: to let stupidity harm or let absurdism inspire.

So, let us laugh at life’s absurdities, challenge its injustices, and find joy in the unexpected. After all, as the saying goes, “Stupidity harms, absurdism delights.”

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Walkabout Thoughts #47

My thoughts, Stream of consciousness, rough and ready, while walking off long Covid and listening to podcasts…June 2, 2023, Sunday

Weather for the day…NICE! 56 degrees starting out, high 60s by end of walk

Podcast for the day: “Matice Founder Jessica Whited on Harnessing Regenerative Species for Medical Breakthroughs - Ep. 198"

In the podcast they're talking about biological regeneration. If you lose an arm, can you regrow it? Because some creatures can. Apparently a fetus can regenerate without scar tissue up to a certain point and then it stops. Why? I would assume it has something to do with a trade off for something else as to why that stopped working. Salamanders can regenerate, and studies are being done on that particular species by the person in this podcast.

We may have lost the capability for regeneration due to tumor suppression, but that’s just conjecture. But can we stimulate that somehow?

When I graduated from Western Washington University with a degree in psychology, a concentration in phenomenology, one of the main things I recognized about America at the time was in our priorities being out of whack. Considering that today they’re far more out of whack than ever, how do we define that? If I ask anyone, considering humanity and in reality, how do America’s priorities add up?

As I’ve been healing from long Covid over these past three years (I believe I healed from it and it ended at least once or twice already, this last time being the worst iteration of it), and having it this time now over a year, it seems to be healing in a two steps forward one step back pattern. Or in various modulations of a sine wave in coming and going. Couple of months ago it felt like I was over it. And then at raised its ugly head a little bit yet again. One of the things I noticed in my research was how sugar would irritate the vagus nerve, which is part of the issue of problems I’m having, mostly now exhibiting in issues of blood pressure. Which oddly enough, I can typically counter using an antihistamine like Benadryl. I also read something that mentioned how you can get a craving for sugar. Which has happened. Lovely. So you can get a sugar craving, but sugar exacerbates the condition. This truly is in so many ways a nasty insidious disease. Considering other things it does like merging cells and spawning "pillars" within or on veins and vesicles (It's in my book, "Suffering Long Covid".

After a year of having to be very careful about what I eat on a strict diet, my weight had gone down like 15 pounds to where I was feeling pretty good. But now it’s back up to where it had been, for years because how how hard this past winter was to get through. At 6'1" and 225 pounds, I’d much more prefer to be about or just under 200 pounds. I had been down as low as 213 pounds some months back. And then these sugar cravings started, which I didn’t recognize because of a feeling that I could enlarge my diet. Thinking I was getting over long covid, it was a treat to eat more varied foods. After so long being miserable and being able again to get back to a more normal diet was a joy. But I may have gotten carried away. So I’ve cut back. And I’ve been trying to supplement sweets with fruits. I know you have to be careful when you include fruits in the diet, as they are generally full of fructose, which is still a sugar. But if you continue to replace not as good things with better things, it's gonna be a process but in the end, very useful and healthier.

I’ve been finding AI very useful this past year. Chat OpenAI and Bing (where you need to use MS Edge browser). It cannot write as well as I can, but it can produce really good content that I can then massage into readable format. As at one time I was a senior technical writer, one of the things I did professionally was research, writing and massaging content to fit various requested subject matter and formats. For years, I found Wikipedia immensely useful. Not as a subject matter expert source, but as a reference...with sources. So, when I use Wikipedia, it reminds me of things I ad forgotten and it offers things I didn’t know about, hopefully referencing the source(s) which I then use to vet my information before utilizing it to send out to the public. AI is similar. Until they get this “hallucinations“ issue under control and eliminated, where it will say things that have no bearing on reality simply because it doesn’t know what else to say. It will have to remain a reference for now. But the thing I find I’ve been using it for a lot lately, is for things I might query a search engine on. There’s times where I ask "what does this phrase sentence or word mean?" And it will give me the information I’m looking for. Whereas the search engine may offer me a definition, initially, and then many links to things that most are totally irrelevant to what I'm seeking. AI though tends to give me exactly what I want to know. It’s like querying an encyclopedia, only it seems to be more understandable and it’s results are more relevant. And more frequently.

I was just talking to my son about this. He said that Chat OpenAI can now analyze photos you send it. And I said, "Great. It won’t be long before it’ll analyze videos." I’m really looking forward to sending it a video of length, or a text file or link, to have it analyzed it in various ways. I would love to be able to send it one of my films or one of my novels or non-fiction books and have it analyze them in different ways. I would lost to see the result of that. I look forward to one day pointing it to all of my films, or all of my writings and have them analyzed. At this time, I can only send it several pages. Which in a book like my “Death of heaven” book has so many different parts of the book that analyzing one part tells you nothing about another or the book overall. To analyze it overall would be very interesting.

One of the things I would like to see regarding my writings is what we’ve seen done before where someone will read all of an author's writings, and produce a paper or a book sharing “the central theme, or core of an author's writings… “ because, I would find it interesting to see what my writings boiled down to. Or, as someone pointed out years ago, I have written more than once in my fiction about young children in horrific situations. The story I wrote for my first fiction writing class at University was, “Andrew“ about a five year old who experienced a horrific event. Years later, that short story that had grown into a novella, grew into my book “Death in heaven“. That novella at the end of my very first published work, “Anthology of Evil“ (first in the series) is a story about a young boy whose parents were geniuses and had raised him as an intellectual experiment. In a more recent story of mine, a sci-fi tale on another planet, “Jaonny’s Apple Tree”, seems to imply some perhaps emotional evolution on my part, in that again it’s about a young (this time a slightly older) child, with highly talented and intelligent parents whose child (and by the way, neither story being my childhood experience... although my mother was admittedly very clever), became empowered and makes some questionable choices. At the end of the story, you really have to rethink and question if this child, "Jaonny", is evil, or perhaps, justice incarnate?

Podcast is over, I switched to "AI trends: a Latent Space crossover"

Speaking of which, for those who have a fear of AI, do instead have a fear of Donald Trump and his anti-democracy, autocratic toxically capitalistic endeavors. That’s really something to fear. Because it’s happening, it's BEEN happening now for years, decades before he so ludicrously became POTUS45. Realized fears about AI are indeed on the horizon but we still have a chance to be proactive. Something we didn’t take advantage of with the bulbous ignorant one (Trump).

The podcast is talking about Prediction Guard, a company who offers more than something like Chat OpenAI.

As I mentioned above, about sugar… wchich has to do with blood, sugar levels, and insulin. Years ago I started looking at things from an insulin point of view. If I drink, and some alcoholics may not feel hunger, some of us will get hungry... we well may all have gotten "the munchies" at 2 AM after drinking at a bar all night. Or crave sweets. Whenever I have even a glass of wine, or something, it kicks my sweet tooth within an hour or two. It seems to now with long covid, affect my vagus nerve. I found months ago that I could once again eat sweets or have at least one glass of alcohol and so I knew my lung Covid was healing. Recently I’ve had the experience that only two glasses of wine will make things uncomfortable for me at bedtime. I thought I would try to introduce alcohol on a regular basis and see how that affects things. Will  it lengthen this duration of long Covid? Will it help me acclimate and heal faster? The thing about long Covid is… what is normally common sense, may no longer have a bearing. Obviously there’s common sense involved in long Covid, but we’re only now learning a bit of how it works in this new paradigm of viral activity against humanity and biological organisms. Not knowing in the beginning that it was affecting the vagus nerve, really made the thing seem a bit crazy, back when long Covid first hit (me certainly in February) of 2020.

At 67 now, I’m still learning to be proactive about things in life, though I've always been proactive on many things. ADHD I found forced that on me. America is over 200 years old and we still haven’t learned to be proactive. We tend to be too reactive. Waiting till bad happens, then reacting. When we need to prognosticate and set up an environment to alleviate or avoid. Problem in that are conservatives who always go overboard when fear or concerns are involved (Probably why we're not proactive as it "triggers" conservatives into their weird forms of insanity). Our laws, our prison system, etc., could be so much better if we were fundamentally proactive. The more conservative one is, apparently the more being pro activity is anathema to your paradigm of ideology. Thus Republicans have been the longest hold out on climate change issues. And now I’m supporting what conservatives will label "authoritarian", at least in part, because their own toxic capitalism ("corporate thought") makes it ever more invisible to them. It's a mad world, surely, for some.

By the way, I learned years ago before Covid hit, that if I was going to have any alcohol, it should be as early in the day as possible. No not for breakfast (though as Sheryl Crow sang, "I like a good beer buzz early in the mornin'..."). But if I was going to have a drink? Lunch is better than dinner. There was a time in life, when I could drink, go out for a night, come home drunk, crash and wake up the next day little hung over, but pretty much feeling great, as long as I didn’t overdo and especially if I drank enough water the night before, before and during drinking. Long Covid magnifies things. So if there’s anything about your system, you know or don’t know about, it could end up exhibiting itself worse under lung Covid. Which is why when I first caught it the last time, maybe the third time since February 2020 (back in May 2022), anything I ate seemed to give me an allergic reaction of sorts. Initially, my pulse would go nuts. A week later my blood pressure issues started. I've never had heart issues. Quite the contrary and my DNA indicates I am above average on absorbing oxygen and muscles able to continue more quickly than normal but I'm more of a sprinter than a marathon runner (I'm more anaerobic than aerobic, basically more oriented toward weight lifting than running). This is detailed in my book, “Suffering Long Covid“. The first week on this last infection, within that first two weeks I had paramedics at my house twice, at 2AM. The first visit led to an emergency room stay of four hours. I dropped my diet down to nothing that first day, but hard boiled eggs that first day and then six hours later had another egg when I didn’t experience a reaction. If I had too much salt or sugar...life was hell.

What is “stable diffusion“? Is it this?

I am so sick of jingles for drugs in ads on TV.

See the podcast episode from the books to production. On this Practical AI podcast: "AI trends: a Latent Space crossover" and "From notebooks to Netflix scale with Metaflow".

My phone just got an "AirTag" notification. WTF? It says, "AirTag found moving in with you." Good to know, and something to track down if it happens to you.

I used to think…well? I believed. And people have told me this, that at least in certain specific areas, I'm kind of "genius". I've been in many situations where people were taken aback from me and exhibited amazement at something I did or said. My advising professor at university did say I was in the top 10% of the top 10% of psych students in universities across America, for what it's worth. I questioned him about that, disbelieving him (he is very smart, Prof. Rod Rees, is). He thought about it and then said he stands by his contention. He was also referring to my girlfriend whom I lived with through our college years and she was very smart. But we were smart in different ways so that we made an incredible team. I've written about that (substantiating it) elsewhere. Rod did not say we were "geniuses", just that we stood out. The term as typically used on social situations of "Genius" is a pop term just meaning remarkably smarter than others.

 I grew up thinking I was stupid (step-dad used to tell me that but I later realized he just didn't know what I was talking about most of the time. I had a friend in high school tell me that, saying he and our friends liked me, but didn't know what I was talking about half the time, so I started to "dumb down" my talking and got along way better with everyone, which helped me socially, but not academically). I used to think, "that can’t just be me", but that maybe everyone has something discovered. or not yet, that they are indeed genius about. But I no longer ow believe that. The whole Donald Trump phenomenon has aided that disbelief of mine in humanity. What I will say is that many, maybe even most people, are or can be genius in some way or another. But many will also die without ever finding it. A true genius to me is a jack of all trades and genius about anything, able to synthesize data and information form one thing to any other. Otherwise, one is merely genius in a single field or area. Many more of those than a "true genius", which may indeed be a myth.

Moving on... since this whole transition became more prominent, and since my own and youngest child came out as trans male, I’ve been trying to wrap my head around this. First off, do not embarrass oneself with others, do not act in the extreme, just be humane. If I understand this correctly, one would say a trans male was born female. And I just thought of this myself… that doesn’t really seem accurate, does it. Well, those who are toxically binary, that is lacking ethics and compassion and morality, sometimes through religion and being anti-trans and/or anti-LGBTQ+, I think a more accurate way of putting it would be that if they’re trans by definition, then a "trans male" was one simply not born female, so born "non-female" not, "born female and transitioned to male". Well, many wish to use external biological references to define another person, who themself disagrees with that. But one really need look into things such as the DNA, which you cannot easily see and we may not be able yet to define it. So rather than history showing us how ignorant and stupid we are… far better to err on the side of caution and human decency. Trans males using a female bathroom are not perverts seeking titillation. You're thinking of anti-Trans types. Any incidents of CIS gendered males who are actual perverts utilizing this excuse in practice is minuscule to the point of not being bothered with it. It’s just another form of bigotry to throw a tiff over such things and to be so emotionally week and frightened, triggered, in order to deny evolving along with the rest of humanity on such a thing. Yes it’s uncomfortable, but it surely is for trans people. Some of them are being murdered just for being who they are, or who they’re trying to be. because when they try to be themselves, they feel more sane and the quality of their life. which America guarantees in the US Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence directly, should be supported and not scurried away from like frightened little, religious fools. Myself I prefer not to suffer fools, but we now have an entire political party (conservatives of course) where a quarter of America are proud to be in their Party of Fools, their political "ship of fools" where they can satiate and saute in their own stupid soup of bigotry and ignorance.

I’m finishing up my last half mile of my 5 miles today and I feel great. It was pretty easy today. As I detailed in my previous walk, two days ago, in that blog, at around mile four it was very difficult, but I pushed through it. I believe I’ve plateaued now and 5 miles, if I keep it up, will help with my long Covid a great deal as it had before winter hit. I kept telling myself that if I could just stay in shape over the winter, then winter will go much easier on me. The trouble is something always happens in late fall/early winter. It knocks me down and makes it very difficult to exercise during the winter time, meaning I really need to either be a "snowbird" or live someplace with an annual fairly even climate.

I find myself looking forward to going home and kicking back, hydrating and putting those ice packs made for the knees, on my knees. to reduce swelling from this walk. I am noticing, that now I almost don’t need it. But I think it help with something. I don’t need it for the pain now (progress). I might need it for helping  the muscles to heal/grow properly after these walks. Something to think about that we often don't and also is relevant in our balance of mental and emotional (IQ/EQ) processes.

What I really need to do is get the last five blogs or so updated and online. I have one about my screenplay and true crime biopic “The Teenager Bodyguard“ [I got it updated and it's online as of the 4th of July 2023]. It’s set for July 4th, 6 AM and "a happy Fourth of July. Independence Day publish!" I apologize for these delays, but to just read through these blogs from top to bottom takes me a long time. I wish I could just hire someone to do that. It’s just basic editing to clean up the "speech to text" transcription. Maybe add some links to make it easier for people to "see" what I’m talking about at times or for reference purposes.

I still haven’t published my blogs at this walk, over the weekend past. last week, with the Russian coup. How do you say Putin is still a war criminal and still invaded Ukraine illegally. And both Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump deserve the full "Ceausescu" with all due prejudice for their ongoing crimes against humanity and democracy.

To make that comment clear, Wikipedia on Ceausescu:

Execution

The Ceaușescus were executed at 4:00 p.m. local time^[30] at a military base outside Bucharest on 25 December 1989.^[10] The execution was carried out by a firing squad consisting of paratroop regiment soldiers: Captain Ionel Boeru, Sergeant-Major Georghin Octavian and Dorin-Marian Cirlan, while reportedly hundreds of others also volunteered.^[31] Before the execution, Nicolae Ceaușescu declared, "We could have been shot without having this masquerade!"^[18] The Ceaușescus' hands were tied by four soldiers before the execution.^[32] Simon Sebag Montefiore wrote that, before the sentences were carried out, Elena Ceaușescu screamed, "You sons of bitches!" as she was led outside and lined up against the wall, while Nicolae Ceaușescu sang "The Internationale".^[33]

The firing squad began shooting as soon as the two were in position against a wall. The execution happened too quickly for the television crew assigned to the trial and death sentence to videotape it in full; only the last round of shots was filmed. In 2014, retired Captain Boeru told a reporter for The Guardian newspaper that he believes that the shots he fired from his rifle were solely responsible for the deaths of both of the Ceaușescus, because, of the three soldiers in the firing squad, he was the only one who remembered to switch his Kalashnikov rifle to fire fully automatic, and at least one member of the group hesitated to shoot for several seconds.^[34] In 1990, a member of the National Salvation Front reported that 120 bullets were found in the couple's bodies.^[31]

In 1989, Prime Minister Petre Roman told French television that the execution was carried out quickly due to rumors that loyalists would attempt to rescue the couple.^[30]

End Wikipedia article.

On the concept of translating Wikipedia, into every language… Apparently that’s not workable. Because some countries don’t want a Wikipedia, because that’s not how their language works for them. While some other country's cultures are very verbal and/or illiterate, it wouldn’t do them any good. I don’t know if I agree with that. That was a comment from the podcast. You can do a verbal search online and you can receive a Wikipedia page, potentially in your language, and even have it read aloud to you so you don’t have to read it. We have translators on our phones now, as if we were "Star Trek" back in the 60s. Well they weren’t in the 60s on the show, but you see what I mean. Also, there is the concept… that was rude… I just hit my home block intersection and somebody in a truck facing me, stopped at the stop sign and just stared at me. and they had their blinker on. so I didn’t know what to do. I tried to hurry across the road as well as I could at this point, after 5 miles, and as I get up alongside their truck, they takeoff heading straight down the street, not turning. WTF? Anyway… Another way to look at having something like Wikipedia in your language, while a country may not want it, what does that mean? Who doesn't want it? The country? The citizens? The government? The educated? One of the classes, upper, lower, middle? If you have something like Wikipedia, in your language, wouldn't over time, it enhance your culture and raise your standard of living, your quality of life? These are things you can't know... without trying.

Cheers! Sláinte!

Socially Posting Reality

First up, Vote!

This is the process I try to follow for posting\sharing information on social media. It is important that we post the best and most accurate information possible. We need to pollinate social media with reality and accuracy. We have got to get a handle on it, somehow. It's not just all up to the government or the platforms and companies who own, support and run social media.

"Post Reality."

Whose Reality? As objective a reality as is possible to divine from current and available information. I don't see a lot of that today.

Not to mention by one expert's account to the Congressional Intelligence Committee: "1 in 25" partisan memes\postings are actual American human beings, the rest are bots. Mostly if not all, Russian bots. Which means, we not as partisan as it appears. Well, that's SOME good news anyway.

That being said, EVERYONE screws up sometimes.

Whenever I do I try to be gracious about it if someone points it out, typically posting in public, sometimes to embarrass.

IF it is something extremely obvious, and I am correct, and the person is being outright stupid, I deal with them appropriately. That can be anything from pointing out their mistake with supporting evidence to cutting them down to an appropriate size in their mind (that takes a degree of skill or talent and I see many screw that up and embarrass both parties). Mostly it's best to be compassionate and polite.

But some just need a kick because others need to see that on their side and feel some catharsis on my side. I say that because there are too many bullies out and about, trolling for fun not to educate, not to be accurate. Like children.

Just be aware that nowadays they may simply be a waste of your time in trying to educate them. If they are obviously not interested in actual education, in better and more accurate information, they are just being stupid, and by definition (my definition).

As hard as I try, and I'm a university trained researcher but, I make mistakes too, I may act too fast. I'm human. I may be tired, nor feeling well, distracted, maybe I really shouldn't be posting, etc.

These here are my gold standard points however for how I do try to act in trying to be helpful to others and to be as accurate (and mature) as I can be. Consider that when you read some things online that people post.

IF trained researchers can make these same mistakes, what kind of information do you think is being passed about by those who have no idea what they are sharing or how to go about it? What percentage of information do you think is accurate? Because today one really needs to ask instead, what percentage of information do you think is inaccurate?

When you have other nations like Russia trying to subvert our path, to add chaos to our nation, with national leaders like the POTUS Trump constantly being incorrect and constantly outright lying, constantly escalating the numbers of already inaccurate or irrelevant information. along with people with vested interests in dis- and misinformation, just how much bad information do you think is out there?

Information you may pick up and inadvertently become a part of sharing incorrect information.

Traditionally all through history, we have had incorrect information simply because of an overabundance of poor information, and a lack of available accurate information. Either by accident and simple human fallibility.

Today we have it because people want it there for questionable purposes, vested interests, greed, espionage and political purposes. There is also the allegation that many people actually do like and prefer wrong information ("Study Finds People Like the Wrong Stuff on Social Media Better").

Weird, right?

We simply have to be more careful and do our best to flood social media with the most correct information available that we can access. So....

• Think before posting.
• If possible, click on the post, following it. Does it exist? Check the date it was originally published.
• Do a quick search on the title or topic to see how recent (or valid) it is and what and if the source is reasonable. Especially if there is no publish date or if it is not obvious from content exactly when it was posted.
• The more important or controversial the information the more vetting (validating) is necessary.
• Post less assuredly from others you do not know or do not know well.
• Triangulate (see footnote1 below) research on a post prior to posting (find one or more other relevant, trusted and disparate sources to vet information). Typically cyber-vetting is used today as it can be highly effective and quick...and accurate when done properly. Highly inaccurate when done improperly, which we see a vast amount of from right-wing extremists. 
• As a general rule, if something agrees with your POV too much, it's probably a lie or Russian type disinformation attack on social media. So give it trust only once you've vetted the information.
• When friend or foe challenges your post, do not do an ignorant, or conservative "knee-jerk" type reaction. It's immature and counterproductive. Instead, although you can initially reply with something clever or snarky if entertaining to others in some way and especially to your challenger. But do then go and vet that information to be sure you are correct about it. Especially if challenged by someone you trust or is known to post valid information. There is nothing more foolish than to be caught in a mishap and then double down on what is then your stupidity. Do not be a Donald Trump. Best rule is after guessing it is correct and posting, always go vet that info at some point in the next hour to 24 hours and come back to correct it if you find issues with it, or to clarify it if you realize it may come across with options for being incorrect in part or whole.
• IF you post something incorrect, especially if it's gone viral before (or after your posting), leave it up online. Then, add to the initial post to indicate what is incorrect so as to allow others to read the updated post and attached thread below so they can understand WHY it's incorrect, along with links to associated vetted information. In that way, you help to decrease the incorrect information online. To simply remove it, typically so you are not embarrassed, leaves others who might have seen it, open to making the exact same mistake. 
• Never call something "fake news". It is immature and has too much Donald Trump, Republican, and conservative negative baggage. 
• Show don't tell. Telling is fine if accompanied with value-added information. But it's also all about the orientation and who your post is actually addressing. frequently we get emotional and address our side, not the other side and may even say things to force the other side to "dig in" and worse, "double down."
• When you vet information, research down through several levels or layers and over several sources of information. Use sources who should know, not just any source with that topic. Sites like InfoWars, typically do not know a damn thing. IF you find something on a site like that, you then have to vet THAT information several more times and it can go exponential, so best to leave them to the nut cases and ill-informed (you cannot help them, they are not interested in reality and really not interested in being correct, especially not by a member of their as they see it, ignoble opposition...ironically enough, they are typically the ignoble ones). Most incorrect postings on social media are not verified at all or sometimes worse, vetted only one level down, or out. I say worse because then they tend to incorrectly think that they DID do due diligence. Typically it takes two, three or more to finally know if something is true or not and that all the related and relative supportive information has been acquired.
• More questionable sources require ever more vetting.
• At times you may find something requires excessive vetting of never seeming to be enough sources, or you cannot seem to vet it. That's not hard to deal with. You simply admit it's merely your (maybe informed, maybe not so informed) opinion. Or that you tried and cannot fully vet it and/or that you got the information from some public figure who should know or whatever. The point is to state it in such a way so if you are later proved to be incorrect, it reflects not on you or your vetting process but on others. 
• That last part of the last point does NOT refer to "plausible deniability", a method used by national leaders and greatly abused by the Republican party. Don't stoop to their level. Though I do admit to using that at times for reasons that are hopefully overt, obvious and the biggest reason, humorous. 
• Truth. That is what is important. IF you should find you are wrong, and in vetting your information you learn something new and contrary to your beliefs, you have two choices. Absorb those beleifs, incorporate them into your overall beliefs. Update, reprocess and look at your understanding of things with this new updated information. Do no ignore it. Worst case,place it to the side and DO NOT FORGET about it. The other thing you can do if it really disturbs you is to start again and revet with this new information. You can try to prove your original beliefs right, or the new ones right. Just be careful of ending up with your beliefs being verified, when they shouldn't be. Because in the end if is not about you, not about your beliefs, but about what is really going on. Share the new information and help humanity. 
• Humor is almost always useful and one of the best ways to persuade or handle difficult information. Just be aware and careful, it can backfire. Joking about a mass shooting, typically will. 

In the end, we all want (or should want) ACCURATE information. Not Donald Trump type incorrect news and information, inaccurate and constantly changing information and faux facts and disinformation and misinformation all which benefits incorrectly one viewpoint over another.

There is a distraction involved in all this. One that has led to many new conspiracy theorists. Many new conservative Republicans who spook at a shadow in ever corner.

"How do you know what is true and accurate?" The ask.

That is for another article, this is for the foundational concept of sharing Truth. Next is the consideration for what is true or can be true or who to trust to disseminate what is true. But basically, a country has got to trust it's intelligence and law enforcement agencies over it's elected officials. See, for the most part, most of those people are like you or I. That is like most of us. We have a given job, we do our best to follow the mission set before us. To be honest, truthful. To do the best we cvan for our country.

Republicans and Donald Trump would have us distrust those people, until we distrust ourselves, until we have to trust only HIM. He wants us to believe we cannot trust our government, our judciary, our law enforcement, our intel agencies.

WHEN that is PROVEN untrue, then you act, you ignore, you refuse to believe. But at that point, you have far worse problems. Personally, AND socially.

But we are not there. Not by a long shot. Those whom extremists call the "deep state" or in some cases the "swamp", are just patriotic citizens, who remain in government from elected administration to elected administration. What conservatives have done in calling these people out is to sow fear into the basic fabric of America. Refuse them their fear mongering.

IF all information online were accurate and properly vetted, America would suddenly take a leap forward in education, politics and social interactions. Much of our bickering today is due to people either arguing the same point of view from different perspectives because one or both sides is lacking relevant information. Or one side is vastly incorrect and the other side has little or no grounds from which to debate the issues. It's like debating with a crazy person. Not to say the other is insane, but the dynamics are very similar.

In the end, we can help to alleviate this current situation by posting only the best information we can access. Also by focusing on the facts and not emotional reactions. Falling back to that old adage of "Hate the sin. Love the sinner." We have got to find a way to communicate, to see our opposition as noble opposition, and to help them find a way to become once again, noble. Just don't put yourself in that position where they have the same problem. Because then, we are all truly lost. Even though we have been seeing that effort pushed at this time by Donald Trump as POTUS. 

We find ourselves now at the point since Donald Trump became president, to truly need to make America great again.

We have got to get back to the basics, to pollinate reality into social media, politics, and culture. To get back to the facts, and back to...reality. 

Footnote 1:
Triangulation is three points, one being your POV. So one or two (usually at least two) other sources. A university professor of mine once explained this to our class saying to always get three other and disparate sources. Even better if you can find at least one on the opposition side who agrees with your POV. The other form is to go out to disprove your POV and if it proves true, you win. Either should be neutral in orientation so you don't involve personal information bias.

Either way: "'...triangulation ’ originates in the field of navigation where a location is determined by using the angles from two known points. Triangulation in research is the use of more than one approach to researching a question. The objective is to increase confidence in the findings through the confirmation of a proposition using two or more independent measures.2 The combination of findings from two or more rigorous approaches provides a more comprehensive picture of the results than either approach could do alone.3"

Too Many Faux Intellectualists

This is the faux intellectualism we are faced with today in America.

People who in trying to APPEAR intelligent, who wish to believe in their superiority, in their conflated intelligence, who may indeed seem and in general may even be smart people, still do not have the depth of mind, experience (or energy apparently) to see (or look) into a situation and NOT say:

"Well let's hear the other side of this, we don't know the other side."

Sounds typically reasonable, right? Well, not always to be sure.

Sometimes that statement merely points out how ignorant if not outright stupid we can be. I've certainly known people like that. In point of fact, we now even have a president who is the ultimate purveyor of such nonsense (one might even suspect "Nonsense" could be his middle name).

Everyone wants to think they are brilliant and yet at times, when no one is watching, you can see them if not metaphorically then physically walk themselves into a door frame. Apparently they are fully unable to hit the space between the doorway's borders. More often metaphorically, if you watch and listen carefully. Though many times anymore, not even carefully.

Some make these repeated faux pas simply because, though they may have booksmarts, they certainly seem to lack any sense of streetsmarts. There is simply no depth to them, no natural or learned sense of reality. At times even in the most simple of things and situations. And their followers, follow along, as if mesmerized by a pied piper of political absurdities.

In 1982 Billy Wilder on the Dick Cavett show spoke of two interesting things. More only two, but two that I'm mentioning here. One was how a friend of his went to see the play, The Diary of Anne Frank with a younger American friend.

Afterward the man said to this younger friend, "Can you imagine such things can happen?" To which his friend replied exactly and as I mentioned above, "Well let's hear the other side of this, we don't know the other side." Seriously? How uneducated or unintelligent does one have to be to make such a statement?

We have been hearing this same exact mindset from our American (supremacist?) right so much anymore and so sadly about white supremacists, right wing bigots and racists, and about authoritarianism and authoritarians, about Donald Trump, his family his klan.

The other thing was Wilder being asked how Jews in Berlin could possibly have stayed when they actually saw for themselves what the Nazis were doing to their friends and neighbors in dragging them away. Was it because they believed it couldn't happen there in the country of such great thought and giants of human culture?

And yet, it did. Could it now happen elsewhere too? Could it?

It is a sobering thing to consider. For we are there, now.


#POTUS #realDonaldTrump #GOP #Republican #Conservative #NeoNazis

Why are we sometimes so stupid when we're just not?

Age and intelligence don't always bring better judgment; this does.

By Adam Grant Ph.D.

First off, this isn't perfect, it's not meant to be. It's meant to provoke thought, to give one a way to perceive a frustrating and confusing issue. To open us up on a topic beyond not ever really even thinking about it all that much. And so we go off....

This is the perceived standard definition of how we understand all the information we take in on a daily basis. This is essentially how people think things work. We take in Information, we understand it as we can in who we are through our Wisdom, and then we end up with Greater Knowledge.

  I + W = GK

But that doesn't quite cover how things actually are. There is a big difference between taking in information (the "I" in the formula) depending on if it is easy to understand, or not that much information. What we see happen all too frequently of late is this form:

  I > W = GK

Information that is more than we can handle, or too complicated, with filtered through, or understood by us using our personal forms of our wisdom, does not give us Greater Knowledge. Rather it gives us confusion, which we ameliorate by rationalizing that we understood enough to make an informed decision, to have an opinion that we can not only share with others, but in many cases, demand is what is really going on. At times, even against all good sense and information to the contrary. 

We watch the news or read something online and believe that we walk away with more than we had to begin with. Now being more informed and not less informed than before we took in the new information.

However, that is not always true. And why is that?

Understand, there are always outiars. But in general as a general rule, this seems to have a good deal of veracity. And the general perception after all, is similar but misconstrued. And that too bears weight on this.

Information that is in quality or quantity (typically both) less than or equal to one’s inherent (learned) wisdom, does usually lead to (or equals) gaining greater knowledge from the input of new information. Whenever we read or view new information, we tend to believe we will walk away more informed.

And yet in considering say, the 2016 US Presidential election, that does not seem to be the case. I've heard many reasons to explain why smart people would make a stupid choice in voting for Donald J. Trump. And they all fall short of explaining just what is happening. And it's happening in a lot of areas, all across the world. 

So what were they thinking? What is happening? What is the common denominator? 

Instant Media, for one thing. We are taking in vast amounts of information now a days and much of it is more complex than many of us realize. Not to mention much of this information is incorrect, unvetted or purposely put out to confuse and misinform. Aside from all that, exactly what is happening?

The issue is the original formula. It's not what is typically at play here. Information is not equal to or less than what we can understand. It is frequently more than we can understand, or just as important, information we have access to enough other relative or related information so that we can give it true context and understanding. 

This form makes it much more usable: 

  I < W = GCK + PF = GK/W

INFORMATION that is in quality (or quantity) less than or equal to one’s inherent WISDOM (or in challenging one’s non verifiable perceptions (i.e., religion)) leads to (or equals) GREATER (or enhanced) COHERENT KNOWLEDGE which is countered or enhanced by one’s PROPER FOUNDATION which equals one’s Wisdom in it also then being undercut or enhanced by the quality of one’s inherent (previously acquired) Wisdom.

And relax, a “proper” foundation does not relate to an Ivy League school or a progressive over conservative or religious education. Typically that IS true, but it just seems like what is going on. A proper foundation (or education) t is actually any one that trains and allows one to think clearly and accurately. 

Obviously an improper foundation is one that trains or allows one’s thinking to be unclear and inaccurate. And yes, that too is up for debate, and mostly incorrectly. But that's another blog entirely. 

What seems to be happening all too frequently and world wide, is this form:

  I > W = LCK + pF = S\W

Too much or too complex (i.e., greater) INFORMATION than one’s inherent WISDOM leads to LESSER COHESIVE KNOWLEDGE which, when added to one’s POOR FOUNDATION then leads to STUPIDITY depending on how one's inherent Wisdom then interprets all that.

You'd be surprised at just how much information we receive on a daily if not hourly, or minute by minute basis, is too much information or too complex information for us to make any sense of at all.

And yet, we think we do understand it and some people delusionally believe they fully understand it. I've talked to more conservatives on that matter, who believed they fully understand things over that of progressives who seem to have a better handle on just how much we do not really understand. 

Getting back to it, information that is less than or equal to one’s inherent Wisdom leads to (or equals) less (or defective) Coherent Knowledge which equals one’s Wisdom being undercut or enhanced by the quality of one’s inherent (or previously learned) wisdom. Not to mention, learning is misunderstood by many. Simple knowing information is not "knowing" knowledge" One has to also correctly and sufficiently understand it. 

If you take in more information than you can handle either due to quantity or complexity (quality), at some point it's simply too hard to understand. Mix that with a typical American (new millennium) or western consideration of what one should be able to do and understand, and this can lead to a perfect storm of misunderstanding.

Consider you are talking to a physicist and he is talking at the top of his understanding. Do you really think you know what he is talking about sufficiently to go out and explain it? Now consider a child explains to you how a tow works that they just made from scratch. Couldn't you normally go out and explain that sufficiently to others? Well that is the situation in a nutshell. 

Merriam-Webster defines stupidity as: 1 "The quality or state of lacking intelligence or quickness of mind." 2 "A stupid act or idea."

In 1976 a Professor at the University of California came up with a set of five rules about stupid people. Carlo M Cipolla.

Law 3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.

Cipolla called this one the Golden Law of stupidity. A stupid person, according to the economist, is one who causes problems for others without any clear benefit to himself.

The uncle unable to stop himself from posting fake news articles to Facebook? Stupid. The customer service representative who keeps you on the phone for an hour, hangs up on you twice, and somehow still manages to screw up your account? Stupid.

This law also introduces three other phenotypes that Cipolla says co-exist alongside stupidity. First there is the intelligent person, whose actions benefit both himself and others. Then there is the bandit, who benefits himself at others’ expense. And lastly there is the helpless person, whose actions enrich others at his own expense. Cipolla imagined the four types along a graph, like this:

Basically I have always argued that stupidity is a chosen or selected ignorance. We are all ignorant and I've said for very long that is a noble state of being. We all have ignorance. It's selecting to remain ignorant, especially against all good sense, when you have chosen to remain ignorant and therefore are stupid. We've all seen situations where someone knew better and did something anyway and suffered for it and they were told they were stupid. 

If one believes something one should always be ready to upgrade the quality of a belief. Whenever we are faced with a reason to change and refuse, we have then chosen stupidity over intelligence. Ignorance is then completely off the table, it's gone. Thus, stupidity is a chosen or selected ignorance.

IF however you are stupid by nature, if it is your make up, your DNA at issue, then you have a mental challenge and it is out of your control to make informed decisions. Labeling a person such as that as stupid then is just mean and inaccurate. 

In my view to be stupid requires a conscious decision.

So, what does all that mean? 

In the end it's actually kind of simple...choose not to be stupid. 

I am bravely and finally coming out against stupidity.

John Cleese, C.B.E., on Real Time With Bill Maher last night, agreed with Bill when he said that John was against stupidity.

Here is a prime example of stupidity when a senator wrongly uses a snowball to disprove climate change and another senator rightly uses science to disprove the disprover. The degree of idiocy in our government and in some religious groups is patently unbelievable. Anyone who thinks God does not equal science, needs mental healthcare. Examples are the couple who let not one but two of their children die because...God.

Yet another mistaken belief that prayer is more powerful than medicine. Look dim bulb, if God gave you a brain isn't it a sin not to use it, not to help yourself since... heaven helps those who help themselves. Right?

In case you are yourself too stupid to know the definition of 'stupidity', Merriam and her friend Webster have most recently defined it as:

Slow of mind or obtuse; given to unintelligent decisions or acts, that is, acting in an unintelligent or careless manner; perhaps lacking intelligence or reason, that is to say, brutish; or, dulled in feeling or sensation, and that is to say, torpid, as in still stupid from a sedative, much like our Republican friends in Congress; or, possibly marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting, that is, senseless as in a stupid decision, ibid.; or, lacking interest or point, as in voting in yet again for a Republican congress, even though they are the ones to have dumbed our nation down and have broken things in a repeated manner and that voting in of them is again a stupid event and well, stupid and again, and therefore too, ibid.

Laying that aside for the time being, I would now like to take the brave stance here today to myself come out against stupidity as I too am against it and I was labeled as stupid as a child, so I believe that gives me a great degree of veracity on the subject.

I've also been married now (up to this point), 3.5 times and so I believe that also gives me a great deal of veracity on the subject of stupidity and as well in the process of being stupid, perchance with a "par excellence" attached to that one.

Granted I've not been married as many times as some others we all know of (Groucho Marx was also married three times, .5 times less than myself, but then he was a genius and not stupid at all, and made a living making fun of the stupid).

I've deemed to see fit to find situations that were exceedingly ridiculous (either for myself or the women involved, but in that, you'd have to query them as I cannot speak for their own stupidity, only my own, and I think it unfair to ask me to indicate stupidity that is attached to my involvement other than in my direct and considered actions, I'll thank you very much).

And so my smart friends (and stupid acquaintances, and you, yes indeed you, know who you are, or then again allow me to properly correct myself yet again, as I am just too sure that you really are too stupid to know who you are, though most of you in that category apparently are conservatives and that can give us some direction, at least according to John Stewart Mill who as we all know (except again for you stupid folk) said..."I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any honorable Gentleman will question it."

That is to say, as I was just saying, that I am finally and forcefully coming out with John Cleese, C.B.E., against stupidity. He's in good company.

Thank you kindly for your time.