Comments on: How to work with “stupid” people

By: geenkaas | Pearltrees

geenkaas | Pearltrees — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 04:29:57 +0000

[...] Are you bringing different lessons learned from different backgrounds? If so, which context applies, if either? Maybe one of you has mostly worked at startups and the other mostly at big companies. Which context is relevant here? Is either of you making an unwarranted assumption? There are lessons learned and then there are “lessons” that you guessed about and forgot to validate through experience or research. How to work with “stupid” people [...]

By: peoplesearch by ghardin - Pearltrees

peoplesearch by ghardin - Pearltrees — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 04:27:08 +0000

[...] How to work with “stupid” people Are you bringing different lessons learned from different backgrounds? If so, which context applies, if either? Maybe one of you has mostly worked at startups and the other mostly at big companies. Which context is relevant here? Is either of you making an unwarranted assumption? There are lessons learned and then there are “lessons” that you guessed about and forgot to validate through experience or research. [...]

By: Jojo

Jojo — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:48:00 +0000

What are you talking about when you say america? cause america is the whole continent you know. now see why “the US is being dumbed down”.

By: Jenny

Jenny — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:43:00 +0000

What if most people are stupid? will you still expect yourself to be at the same level of intelligence than most people?

By: Jenny3223

Jenny3223 — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:33:00 +0000

You should read the last part of the article it clearly explains a good solution. “Choose your battles. You don’t have to get your way in every disagreement”. Your friend is just stupid, most of the time other people realize that but say nothing. and if they think the same way your friend does, it’s because they’re stupid too.

By: Jenny

Jenny — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:16:00 +0000

It’s a good article, but I totally agree with you ’cause it’s like trying to think the same way they do and they might be wrong and that makes us stupid too.

By: Jenny3223

Jenny3223 — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:03:00 +0000

i agreed with you davidi before you posted that last comment

By: Jenny

Jenny — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:52:00 +0000

I think david is one of those stupid people difficult to work with, that will never let others point out his stupidity by giving stupid aguments trying to defend his stupid comment .

By: Videogold

Videogold — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 21:27:00 +0000

So let’s say I do all that you say, paying particular attention to the way others judge the world, and how that relates to my own perspective, thus attempting to bridge that divide of human social interaction, meanwhile, they spend no time even thinking about what I might be thinking, could not possibly care less, and go on there merry way actin how they have always acted. Now who’s stupid?

By: Rackshom

Rackshom — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 05:08:00 +0000

I am well aware of semantic noise, and it is a combination of poor cognitive ability and semantic noise. The thing is, this person is my friend. I am frustrated over this, and I don’t want to hold it against him personally, but I feel that this is making me very upset, not just because of him, but because the majority of people do this as well. I cannot persuade them and motivate them, they are singleminded and again, think nothing beyond the first step of logic. He said that it was unacceptable for me to do it, but that he did it because “my tiny brain” couldn’t comprehend the message. If he thought beyond this however, I am sure any person with the intelligence level of a ten-year old would realize that I repeat a message to get a point across as well. He makes a “serious” accusation and does not let me explain myself, but I am sure he believes in trial by jury. I will restate my point if it did not come across as clear the first time, I want a way to make sure that they think beyond the first step, as these people LITERALLY just stop thinking about an idea, and refuse to accept any comment otherwise, as soon as they reach the first “sensical” conclusion. I believe that if I can get people to think beyond the first sensical conclusion, “God must be real because the Bible say’s so, and we know the Bible’s real because God wrote it,” and think beyond to other possiblities: “A cycle of unverifiable logic is hardly a validation of religion, but, science is based on the what is logical at the moment, but things are still unknown, and every fact we know about science is bound to change at some point. Therefore, modern science is actually no more valid than religion”