Stupid People

Some of you reading this may hate me for what I'm about to say, and honestly that's okay with me. A few of you might actually read through my explanation and change your mind. Some of your won't. Either way, I'm going to say it.

I hate stupid people.


Now before you go getting all defensive, offended or start bashing me for saying something so heartless, allow me to elaborate a little. And just bear with me, chances are if you're upset right now, you're completely misunderstanding how I personally define a 'stupid person'.

To start, a stupid person is not someone with mental retardation. Mental retardation isn't in any way really the fault of the person in question. They were either born that way, or due to some outside influence became that way. Retarded people (I'm not saying that in any derogatory way) are actually rather lovable. I do whatever I can to help out or accommodate anyone with mental retardation whenever possible. To make a rather simplistic analogy, to me, people with mental retardation had their CPU's messed with. While they may have been outfitted with the newest five gigahertz, six core processor, some manufacturing defect (genetic cause) or power surge (external influence) took that amazing piece of biological engineering and dropped it quite permanently to the state of an old IBM 486. How can you possibly hate someone that has no control over their disability? Really now.

Perhaps you might grant me that, and still be upset since there are those with lesser intelligence but aren't retarded in some way. I've got no problem with these people either. These people I classify as 'dumb'. To use that same analogy as above, they didn't get the 5ghz, 6 core processor. They got a 2ghz single core. That's not their fault either! They were just built that way. I do admit though that my patience with 'dumb' people is a bit shorter than it is with retarded people. But it's still pretty significant. Most 'dumb' people even try their best to upgrade that CPU of theirs, going to college and learning trades. Major bonus points! Even people who are satisfied with their level of mental processing power are alright in my book.

So if my hatred for stupid people doesn't involve the mentally retarded, or the mentally slow...who does it apply to? That's simple. Stupid people can be of any intelligence level, even super geniuses can be stupid people. To qualify as a 'stupid person' you only need to meet three criteria :

1. Have some level of ignorance in any field or subject
2. Be aware of your ignorance in that area and
3. Want to remain ignorant for whatever reason

That's it in a nutshell. People who intentionally remain ignorant for various reasons. They know they're ignorant, and that this ignorance is probably causing some level of problems or stress for someone even possibly themselves. Yet despite this, they choose to remain ignorant. Now choosing to remain ignorant isn't as easy as it might seem. It takes real dedication to be stupid. I'll give a VASTLY EXAGGERATED example, just so you'll know where I'm coming from.

Susan is a stupid person. Why she's stupid is because of her religious beliefs. Her religion states that the Earth is flat, the center of the universe, and only a mile or so thick at its thinnest point. She's seen pictures of the Earth being round, learned about it in school, has read in the papers where volcanic shafts have been measured being hundreds of miles deep, and has met people from Asia...the other side of the world. And just to make it even more preposterous, lets say she's even been on one of those special tourist flights into the upper atmosphere and seen for herself that the world was round. Yet even in the face of all this evidence, she insists the world is still flat and thin. And regardless of what everyone else in the world says, it's still the center of the universe. She chooses to remain ignorant because becoming enlightened would violate her religion.

Now do I hate her because of her religious beliefs? Goodness no. She has the right to follow her religion until the end of time, and I fully support that. Why I hate her is because she refuses to allow any flexibility in her beliefs to compensate for this annoying irritant called Reality. When I say I've flown around the world twice (which I have) she insists it's not possible and that the plane actually just flew to the edge of the Earth and turned around without me noticing, then flew to the opposite edge, turned around again, and continued as though it had gone 'around' the world.

Now I admit, this is a very extreme and silly example. But it gets the point across. Stupid people suck. If you 'know' or believe something, and someone can irrefutably disprove your belief or knowledge, you should do the smart thing and adjust your knowledge or belief to now match what is provable to be true. NOT sit there and stubbornly hold onto your now antiquated and incorrect information just because doing so makes you comfortable.

Now what happens if you have a belief, someone disputes it and provides proof, and you hold onto your belief for as long as it takes you to find your own proof that this person is right or wrong? Well then I'd say you're a scientist! Lets look at Susan again. She hears in school that the world is round, hears it again years later on TV, and sees pictures of a round Earth while in college. Yet she still believes the world is flat, it just happens to be a disk...you know...to explain how it looks round from space and all. She's stupid. But what if she only holds onto the belief because she hasn't seen it for herself, and admits she MIGHT be wrong? That's NOT stupid. That's skeptical, but not stupid. Later on, she takes that flight, sees the round Earth and adjusts her beliefs. Then even though she held onto that belief for years in the face of overwhelming proof, she has redeemed herself and is not stupid. She's just mistrusting of proof provided by someone that doesn't believe things like she does. A very 'scientist' sort of way to think.

Now do you see why I hate stupid people? They sit there and blab on about their 'truth' on one subject or another, even though you and others can prove them wrong. And you HAVE proven them wrong. Yet they still sit there and just say that the proof is wrong, not because they can prove it wrong, but because it JUST IS. So to all you stupid people reading this, be prepared for my patented angry mob to come for you. Torches and anvils-on-a-stick wielding non-stupid people shall come....oh yes...they shall come.

Stereotypes

Stereotype : Noun :  something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; especially : a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment.

Now looking at that, stereotypes seem so horribly evil! And in many ways they are. But everyone has them, and they'll never go away. Why? Simple.

Stereotypes help us attempt to predict what will happen next. Humans fear that which they don't know or understand. You don't know that person or understand them yet (because you just met them) so you apply stereotypes to alleviate that fear. Everyone does it to some degree. The point stereotypes become evil is where a person refuses to allow anyone to prove the stereotypes don't apply. 

Do I have stereotypical beliefs about people based on gender, or race? Yes I do. Do I believe that all members of that demographic group adhere to those stereotypes? Not at all. In fact, I believe most members of that group will not adhere to any of those stereotypes. But I still have these beliefs, even if I don't believe they actually apply to someone. Why even have them then? Because it gives me a base starting point on getting to know someone. A group of simple assumptions based on experience I use to give me a base to start from. What are my stereotypes? I'm honestly not sure what all of them might be. But an example would be 'Hispanics all speak Spanish.' Lets look at that specific stereotypical belief for a moment, in a bit more detail.

A 'bad' person with that belief will immediately assume that this Hispanic person they just met speaks Spanish, and if said 'bad person' also speaks the language they may immediately begin the conversation in Spanish right away. Not giving that individual the opportunity to prove the stereotype wrong. When said Hispanic replies, in perfect English, "I'm sorry, but I don't speak Spanish." not only is the Hispanic person insulted by being labeled like that, but the 'bad person' is now surprised they weren't right! The more stubborn of these 'bad people' will assume the non-Spanish-speaking Hispanic is only lying about their language skills in an attempt to not conform to the stereotype. The less stubborn of the 'bad people' will allow this singular Hispanic to be placed in the exclusive 'exemption to the rule' category, and continue correctly, though they'll always be baffled by the fact that there's a Hispanic out there that doesn't speak Spanish.

A 'good' person with that belief will make the same assumption, but instead will start the conversation in English even if they themselves are fluent in Spanish. Why do this? Because in speaking English first, you're making no attempt to actually apply the stereotype to the Hispanic person in question. Now if that person replies in Spanish that they don't speak English...they're put in the group of Spanish-speaking Hispanics. If they're bilingual, they're also put there. But they started out in this kind of 'stereotype limbo' where their actual correct placement in one group or another was based not on the stereotype, but the actually observed behavior.

But there's the difference. 'Bad' people start a person out already belonging to the group with the stereotype and it takes proving the stereotype wrong to get out of that group. 'Good' people have that stereotype as a possible group for someone to belong to, but start that person out in a more neutral position that can easily go either way. Both types have stereotypical beliefs, but how they apply those beliefs differs greatly. One is insulting, the other is just an unvoiced prediction. Both can be proven wrong, but the latter is more 'gentle' since the person with the beliefs isn't hauling this new individual out of one group to be put in another. They're instead slid neatly into the group they actually belong to right away. For bad people, the stereotype is where someone starts out. For good people the stereotype is nothing more than one of the possible places someone can end up.

Now those 'bad' people aren't really bad. They're not evil monsters deserving of being tied down and smothered in scalding fondue. They're just socially lazy. If they're proven wrong often enough they often become one of those 'good' people. Or they just spend their entire lives confused, in which case they're punishing themselves already and can be quietly left alone. They may be annoying, but as long as their stereotype behavior doesn't cross the line into racism, they're fairly harmless. 

Lets look at another senario, shall we? Imagine two people are talking about Robert, an African American man. One of these people, we'll call him Bob, has never met the guy. The other person, we'll call this one Steve, has known Robert for many years, and is good friends with him. If Bob notices that Robert has a luxury car with an over-the-top sound system, he would be a 'bad person' if he then said that Robert was a stereotypical African American. Robert only meets one of the 'typical' stereotypes for that racial group that Bob is aware of, but is now firmly planted in Bob's mind as being stereotypical. How rude of Bob! Steve however, knowing Robert as well as he does...if he said that Robert was the stereotypical African American then is he being rude? No, he's not. His conclusion that Robert is stereotypical is based on actual experience across more than just one stereotype. Robert may indeed be very stereotypical. But one can't assume that about anyone. That label of being in-general stereotypical should only be applied if it's actually true. Now of course, if Bob had said Robert's car was stereotypical...that would be true, and not rude at all. That specific example was stereotypical. 

There is however, one other type of person when it comes to stereotypes. We've covered the 'bad' people who judge someone based on stereotypes right away. We've covered the 'good' people that use stereotypes as a sort of prediction without judging. But the third type of person, these are the ones that really get under my skin.

The 'self-fulfilling stereotypical, yet righteously against being labeled' types. These are people who despise being stereotyped. They get angry or offended when they realize someone has grouped them into that 'stereotypical' category and insist people not stereotype them that way. And yet, with all this defensiveness against being stereotyped, they intentionally adhere to those stereotypes because they're stereotypes! Granted, this is a small percentage of the population. But they're a very vocal small percentage. Lets take this as an example:

Robert from our above examples listens to gangster rap. This is by most people's observations, a stereotypical music genre for black men. Robert matches this. Yet he doesn't really like gangster rap, he's more a fan of female pop singers. But to fit in with his friends, he listens to gangster rap instead. And he does it until he actually likes it, or at the very least doesn't dislike it and listens to it out of habit. He has intentionally applied a stereotype to himself. Now lets assume he does this for a lot of 'African American male' stereotypes until he has become the 'stereotypical African American male'. Remember now, he's doing these things on purpose, not because he's actually attracted to these things initially. Since he has intentionally made himself into this stereotypical person, he should have no right to be upset when he's labeled as actually being stereotypical. A good 'intentional stereotype' will know this, and not mind when someone gives them that label. A bad 'intentional stereotype' though will get defensive or offended when they're labeled as being the very person they went out of their way to become.

Now of course, anyone has the right to be a bit offended if they're labeled by someone that has no actual personal experience to base their assumptions on. But in Robert's case here, he'll get angry when someone who actually knows him, or has enough experience with him, labels him as being stereotypical. Lets say there's 15 stereotypes for African American males. Someone has actually seen Robert express all 15 of them. Thus, he can be labeled as being stereotypical and the labeling is justified. Yet Robert, being the 'self fulfilling stereotypical, yet righteously against being labeled' type will still be offended by the label anyway.

That's about as logical as me dying my hair red, then getting angry at someone for calling me a red-head. I did it on purpose, and the label is not only true, but what I had intended to become. But I'll gnaw your face off if you actually call me that. (I'm not a red-head. I'm a brunette. I look terrible with red hair.)

It's these people that I just want to beat repeatedly with an anvil on a stick. Not only would it remove people who intentionally give other people reasons to upset them, but it'd be great exercise. So to all of you who are stereotypical, and accept it...be proud! You're stereotypical! It's not easy to be average like that, and the fact you're okay with it all is even better. To all of those who are stereotypical, but refuse to accept it with grace, beware...one of these days an angry mob armed with torches and anvils on sticks will be coming to your neighborhood. (Pitchforks are overdone, so don't expect those in any of MY angry mobs.)