Knowledge

[werecat]

What's the difference between a man who knows what he is talking about and one that thinks he knows what he is talking about.? How do we convince a person who is stuck on the supremacy of his own ideas, even when we see how destructive they are?

Does intelligence and education trump wisdom and experience?

Are those with a higher degree of intelligence somewhat obligation to society, to try and correct the errors of those less cerebral?

Do they have the right to flaunt the degrees they have mastered, and talk down to others, or should they, If they do enter into a conversation, respect those who they deem less informed?

(These questions have anything to do with anyone from this forum. The last time I posted this I had several people fighting as to who I was talking about. Believe me, if I have issues with others, I will not target anyone on the open board, but you darn sure can expect a PM.)

[Marwood]

What's the difference between a man who knows what he is talking about and one that thinks he knows what he is talking about.?

That question sort of answers itself, no?

How do we convince a person who is stuck on the supremacy of his own ideas, even when we see how destructive they are?

Better ideas, more effectively argued. We may fail.

Does intelligence and education trump wisdom and experience?

There's no points system. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Are those with a higher degree of intelligence somewhat obligation to society, to try and correct the errors of those less cerebral?

If those errors are harming society, I'd say there's a moral obligation, but it's not enshrined in any law I know of. Of course, that works both ways - smart people can make errors too.

Do they have the right to flaunt the degrees they have mastered, and talk down to others, or should they, If they do enter into a conversation, respect those who they deem less informed?

Everyone has the right to be an asshole, but they don't have to exercise it. I set a lot of stock by politeness, other people's mileage may vary.

Are you sure you don't have a case in point here?

[minorwork]

What's the difference between a man who knows what he is talking about and one that thinks he knows what he is talking about.?

Is that supposed to be a hard question? Obviously the person that thinks they know it all are a pain in the ass to those of us that do.

How do we convince a person who is stuck on the supremacy of his own ideas, even when we see how destructive they are?

Convince him of what?

Does intelligence and education trump wisdom and experience?

Hell no. If the intelligent and educated man is newly aware of his condition as the kingmaker of authority then he is easily trumped by wisdom and experience.

Are those with a higher degree of intelligence somewhat obligation to society, to try and correct the errors of those less cerebral?

Sure thing but to find those less cerebral takes some doing. But But let me clarify. The culling of the herd would go something like this:

Curtis & Leroy saw an ad in the Starkville Daily News Newspaper in Starkville, MS. and bought a mule for $100. The farmer agreed to deliver the mule the next day. The next morning the farmer drove up and said, "Sorry, fellows, I have some bad news, the mule died last night."Curtis & Leroy replied, "Well, then just give us our money back."The farmer said, "Can't do that. I went and spent it already." They said, "OK then, just bring us the dead mule." The farmer asked, "What in the world ya'll gonna do with a dead mule?" Curtis said, "We gonna raffle him off." The farmer said, "You can't raffle off a dead mule!" Leroy said, "We shore can! Heck, we don't hafta tell nobody he's dead!" A couple of weeks later, the farmer ran into Curtis & Leroy at the Piggly Wiggly grocery store and asked."What'd you fellers ever do with that dead mule?" They said,"We raffled him off like we said we wuz gonna do.." Leroy said,"Shucks, we sold 500 tickets fer two dollars apiece and made a profit of $998." The farmer said,"My Lord, didn't anyone complain?" Curtis said, "Well, the feller who won got upset. So we gave him his two dollars back." Curtis and Leroy now work for the government. They're overseeing the Bailout Program.

So I figure it will be out of the goodness of my heart and teaching them not so cerebral at the same time to run a scam here and there to see who is who and benefit me and them at the same time. Win Win.

Do they have the right to flaunt the degrees they have mastered, and talk down to others, or should they, If they do enter into a conversation, respect those who they deem less informed?

Hardest thing is to determine working definitions and agree on 'em. Assuming understanding of another's position is not without risk when crafting a cutting response. More than once it takes two or three pages for combatants, er, participants in a discussion, to realize that they are both arguing the same position. Also more than once the discussion breaks down over imagined personal insults when it is only ideas that are under fire. Both sides can be so enamored of the hormonal rush that comes when explaining or in defense of their own belief dependent reality. It is hard to be skeptical of one's own positions and still get the dopamine rush of its righteousness, but it is, I believe, necessary to a civil debate. Eventually that exercise in skepticism can compel the hormonal satisfaction also.

(These questions have anything to do with anyone from this forum. The last time I posted this I had several people fighting as to who I was talking about. Believe me, if I have issues with others, I will not target anyone on the open board, but you darn sure can expect a PM.)

Oh, please beat me.

[werecat]

]

Is that supposed to be a hard question? Obviously the person that thinks they know it all are a pain in the ass to those of us that do.

is that supposed to be an answer?

Convince him of what?

Of what's wrong with his way of thinking.

Hell no. If the intelligent and educated man is newly aware of his condition as the kingmaker of authority then he is easily trumped by wisdom and experience.
Sure thing but to find those less cerebral takes some doing. But But let me clarify. The culling of the herd would go something like this:

History has shown that to be false. No matter how intelligent you are. If you are not experienced in something you will have to get that way before you can be of any value to anything, other than your own ego. Wisdom will tell you this.

Curtis & Leroy saw an ad in the Starkville Daily News Newspaper in Starkville, MS. and bought a mule for $100. The farmer agreed to deliver the mule the next day. The next morning the farmer drove up and said, "Sorry, fellows, I have some bad news, the mule died last night."Curtis & Leroy replied, "Well, then just give us our money back."The farmer said, "Can't do that. I went and spent it already." They said, "OK then, just bring us the dead mule." The farmer asked, "What in the world ya'll gonna do with a dead mule?" Curtis said, "We gonna raffle him off." The farmer said, "You can't raffle off a dead mule!" Leroy said, "We shore can! Heck, we don't hafta tell nobody he's dead!" A couple of weeks later, the farmer ran into Curtis & Leroy at the Piggly Wiggly grocery store and asked."What'd you fellers ever do with that dead mule?" They said,"We raffled him off like we said we wuz gonna do.." Leroy said,"Shucks, we sold 500 tickets fer two dollars apiece and made a profit of $998." The farmer said,"My Lord, didn't anyone complain?" Curtis said, "Well, the feller who won got upset. So we gave him his two dollars back." Curtis and Leroy now work for the government. They're overseeing the Bailout Program.

So I figure it will be out of the goodness of my heart and teaching them not so cerebral at the same time to run a scam here and there to see who is who and benefit me and them at the same time. Win Win.

I don't respond to hypothetical situations, created for the benefit of the poster.

Hardest thing is to determine working definitions and agree on 'em. Assuming understanding of another's position is not without risk when crafting a cutting response. More than once it takes two or three pages for combatants, er, participants in a discussion, to realize that they are both arguing the same position. Also more than once the discussion breaks down over imagined personal insults when it is only ideas that are under fire. Both sides can be so enamored of the hormonal rush that comes when explaining or in defense of their own belief dependent reality. It is hard to be skeptical of one's own positions and still get the dopamine rush of its righteousness, but it is, I believe, necessary to a civil debate. Eventually that exercise in skepticism can compel the hormonal satisfaction also.

Oh, please beat me.

[grandpa]

is that supposed to be an answer?
Of what's wrong with his way of thinking.

First: Make sure you're not the wrong one. Also, some issues truly are more comples than absolutes like "right" and "wrong." I have changed my own views, or at least adopted more nuanced positions, after considerations. I look at certain issues now and question what I thought of them then.

Other than that, you should use known facts and compelling arguments (not all arguments are completely fact-based ones).

Grandpa h.

[minorwork]

is that supposed to be an answer?

You asked for a difference. I answered with a difference.

Of what's wrong with his way of thinking.

You have to do a bit of work in order to override your opponents belief dependent reality and replace it with, perhaps if not your belief, then a synthesis of the two. Sometimes a good bit of work and a giving up of some of your beliefs as well to convince and enlist your opponent in the righteousness of your position and his misplaced loyalty to his own.

History has shown that to be false.

What is false? This?

"...intelligence and education trump wisdom and experience?"

I agreed, I thought.

No matter how intelligent you are. If you are not experienced in something you will have to get that way before you can be of any value to anything, other than your own ego. Wisdom will tell you this.

Ah yes, but you added education in the mix too. AND the personality of the individuals possessing each will really add some chaotic elements into the discussion, but I'm goint to try and avoid the chaotic parts.

Education parlays into a lot of experience in a short amount of time. As long as the new graduate doesn't get a big head about his education, he can gain wisdom with on the job practical training in applying his education.

A newly graduated engineer knowledgeable in hydraulics can often be more successful troubleshooting hydraulic problems in a system than those without education that have wisdom and experience.

But then again the man educated in hydraulics who has nothing but design engineering for experience can still screw up a design for not having run his creation in the field where the reality of his efforts will bloom or die. THEN the man educated in hydraulics AND in their troubleshooting and repair can show the merely educated man the error of his thinking with examples of the success and failure of engineers' work.

I don't respond to hypothetical situations, created for the benefit of the poster.

That is a counterfactual statement as you did respond to tell me you don't respond. AND your statement is a rather dogmatic limiting of your team members' ability to convey ideas isn't it? Are your analogies to be given the same consideration? How are we to convince otherwise the man with destructive ideas of his error in imagining them constructive without the use of analogies? You're limiting yourself as well as me here. Why?