Wise persons protect themselves from the influence of stupid people (where protect is very different to isolate).
How so? Explain.
Protection involves developing skills when in the presence of stupid people, whereas isolation involves the denial of the development of skills through the removal of stupid people.
You realise that, for all their faults, the Miss Universe contest proves that women from our planet are the pinnacle of beauty and the best the universe has thrown up so far, don’t you…?
.
It seems that one can’t make even one positive statement about humans. 
Given I am sick at the moment, I thought last nights dinner was going to be the “worst” thing the universe has thrown up so far.
This thread reminds me of that stupid saying… If a tree falls in the woods but there is nobody around to hear it does it still make a sound? As if sound is based upon human earing, of even human presence…this is narcissism approaching where if humans are not involved then it’s all negated into nonexistence, where things only matter if humans can interact with it.
A world where retarded humans inhabit it, where hamsters are pets and rats are vermin.
If humans are not present it then all gets negated into meaninglessness.
Retard ^
Yeah, but fall, sound, tree, etc. all of them are pretty much human distinctions.
Take the human out and you don’t really have anything else. A hamster might register something like, “the not self altered state” on seeing a tree fall, but not in any communicable form. Semaphored in its own reactions perhaps.
There is stuff.
And then there are thoughts about stuff. And then talk about stuff.
Many people believe that the thoughts and talk are the real stuff.
Sure, there is stuff. Trees and whatnot. But what about the stuff into which thoughts and talk are inextricably bound…? Unless you can find a PC running free in the wild ofc.
What about it?
Thoughts and talk become new real stuff. With thought and talk, you build a model. Is the model real yet…? It’s written in your brain in real atoms and electrochemical states. We then translate that model into an external form, again made out of atoms. Are you calling that somehow ‘more’ real…?
Acceptance and rejection are both valid reactions to what happens to one.
Aren’t they simply aesthetic reactions though…?
Does a wise person have an obligation to share his/her wisdom…? And, how can he/she conclude alone, “I am wise” anyway. Wisdom is a comparative, not an absolute state. For someone to be wise, there has to be some drooling doofus somewhere around to provide contrast. 
Where did I suggest that idea??
If you know something then you would be something… What is the something you are?
You can contemplate your navel and come to the conclusion that you are wise.
There is always a model in your head of another person, of the rest of humanity. So it’s easy to do a comparison when there is nobody around.
And everyone was had contact with other people from birth. Therefore everyone has that model.