phyllo wrote:I have not seen evidence that the non-jewish, christian, regular joes in germany were, by any standard of today, even low ones, could be considered educated.
Their system of schools is well documented.
If it's documented so well, it would be no trouble for you to display the documentation.
Their universities produced a number of important philosophers, scientists, playwrights, composers and engineers.
Yes and they were ostracized, demonized, and finally driven to other countries. I said that earlier. How do you think the US got Einstein?
Look at the polarization of the US now. It's really the ignorant vs the academics. I've gone to great length in trying to illustrate this. Look at Pedro
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=194702#p2720668This is real shit! People think smart people are stupid. What people most love about Trump is he is as dumb as they are.
They valued education. It all points to high level of education.
Philosophers, scientists, playwrights, composers (aka jews) and engineers (slavs) are not everyday joes. Show me evidence that these people had a decent education such that they could be somewhat qualified to make a political decision:
- 3292007.c8bafa15.640.jpg (92.52 KiB) Viewed 6296 times
And if you wish to convince me, you have a lot of work ahead of you, which doesn't include posting opinions, even 1000s of them, of people who are merely interested in history.
I'm not here to lead you into the promised land of knowledge. It doesn't matter to me what you believe about it.
Then why do you keep replying? You're obviously trying to accomplish something.
Show me something from someone with accreditation from a respected university at least.
Ironically, you just wanted me to accept you as an authority. What are your credentials?
The same as John Gordon: a keen interest in history. If that's acceptable for John to be an authority, then it's acceptable for me. Your standards are not high.
The question was about how to ensure freedom from potential tyrannical rule and my proposal was to educate the population. Your counterpoint was that the german citizens were smart, yet fooled. I have not seen sufficient evidence to validate your counterpoint. Not least of all, people could not have studied the history of the Nazi regime before it happened, but today such knowledge is common. We have 100 years of empirical evidence to draw upon today in addition to the information they had. That wasn't the case in the past, among technological challenges for the conveyance of information that existed in that time which draws into question just how educated regular people could have possibly been. And if the education level of today's christians are any guide, then not much could be said of the education of the same sorts a century ago.
Your point was that everyone was stupid until ... When? 10 years ago?
And your point is everyone was smart since when? 100,000 years ago? When did smartness really take off?
Why not? Your research is based on opinions of anyone who claims to be a history buff.
Now you know how much research I have done?
I know what you exhibited. You claim a person with keen interest in history is a good source. And then you back that up with an appeal to popularity. Hopefully you don't practice the rest of your research in similar fashion.
Well, would you categorize a mistake as a smart decision? You're saying smart people generally have a proclivity for making mistakes that stupid people generally do not make, and if such is the case, then the smart people you're referencing obviously are not smart, but have some sort of neurological handicap.
I understand your position : A smart person who makes a mistake is not a smart person.
No, not a single person. You said smart people are prone to falling for scams. People = plural = groups. So, groups of people who make the same mistake obviously are not smart. Either you labeled the group wrong or you populated it with the wrong people. It's like saying groups of strong people can't lift the weight groups of weak people can.
I said smart people tend to over-complicate problems. That isn't a mistake or a deficiency, but a preference to embrace challenges which has the side-effect of not immediately noticing simpler solutions.
I said smart people don't mesh well in society. That isn't a mistake of deficiency except to the extent that they're deficient in patience for dealing with the dumb herd.
You are making the claim that smart people (groups of) are somehow stupid and that there is virtue in not being smart, like not falling for scams. I said it has nothing to do with intelligence, but being trusting, which is an artifact of not over-using one's amygdala by being raised in the impoverishment of a capitalist society.
People with over-expressed amygdalas do not trust easily while those who are coddled don't know the fear.
The nurtured coddled intellectual trusts easy (and that trust is easy to exploit).
The impoverished average joe slaving through life trusts no one.
It isn't a matter of intelligence or ego.
But it is a matter of ego that the dummy remains dumb. The potential is there, but there's a brick wall preventing learning. Maybe lack of trust (skepticism of smart people) plays into it as well, but mostly it's ego.
Forget smart and stupid and just tell me what is lost upon going to college and learning? Why do people get dumber after they get smarter? This is what you're alluding to right? That education makes people so stupid that they fall for bullshit? Alright, propose a mechanism to explain the correlation you think you've noticed.
KT covered this with you already.
I conceded that capitalists may want government to defend them, but I don't remember conceding the virtues of ignorance. The only thing I remember is he said academics have egos, but I object to that because if smart people have ego problems, then how did they get smart in the first place?
Snobbery? Yes. Arrogance? No. The difference is here
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=193700#p2720432
