This is a stupid question but I'm going to ask anyway thread

[Bastemhet]

TeaDidikai

Words like intelligent and stupid are much like other words that can be misapplied. They have no inherent ability to bestow privilege against others, but they can be applied to sound that way in much the same why there are individuals who manage to make me feel dirty by calling me any number of accurate terms (wife, woman, Rroma etc).

That may have been the case before the history of its use occurred after the fact, but since that understanding of intelligence and stupidity is now how many people understand the term, I would rather not offend people and use a more benign term instead. It's easy for me to reduce my vocabulary by one word, much harder to fix what damage I may be doing to people who are made to feel stupid when they really are not.  

[Bastemhet]

TeaDidikai

Words like intelligent and stupid are much like other words that can be misapplied. They have no inherent ability to bestow privilege against others, but they can be applied to sound that way in much the same why there are individuals who manage to make me feel dirty by calling me any number of accurate terms (wife, woman, Rroma etc).

I would argue that because they have been used to bestow privilege against others, and that this has now become an accepted understanding of the mis/application of the word, that it would be better to not use this word in favor of a word that does not have this negative connotation that would be just as useful in communicating what I am thinking.  

[TeaDidikai]

Bastemhet

That may have been the case before the history of its use occurred after the fact, but since that understanding of intelligence and stupidity is now how many people understand the term, I would rather not offend people and use a more benign term instead.

How do we know that it is via the IQ assessments that people are quantifying others?

Quote:

I would argue that because they have been used to bestow privilege against others, and that this has now become an accepted understanding of the mis/application of the word, that it would be better to not use this word in favor of a word that does not have this negative connotation that would be just as useful in communicating what I am thinking.

It's not good enough for me. Like so many correctly applied terms that have been misused that have accurate justified definitions, the misapplication, and not the term itself is the one that needs to be corrected.

Just like I tell the local Dianic she can ******** off is she is going to call me a wymoon instead of a woman. If I do something stupid (which happens now and then) then call it as such.  

[Bastemhet]

TeaDidikai

Bastemhet

That may have been the case before the history of its use occurred after the fact, but since that understanding of intelligence and stupidity is now how many people understand the term, I would rather not offend people and use a more benign term instead.

How do we know that it is via the IQ assessments that people are quantifying others?

When these tests came out, people used them as a way to decide who was lesser due to the test measured who had lower IQ, which was determined by the biased questions in the test. It became a way to measure who had more or less worth. That is how I understand it as quantifying others.

Quote:

Quote:

I would argue that because they have been used to bestow privilege against others, and that this has now become an accepted understanding of the mis/application of the word, that it would be better to not use this word in favor of a word that does not have this negative connotation that would be just as useful in communicating what I am thinking.

It's not good enough for me. Like so many correctly applied terms that have been misused that have accurate justified definitions, the misapplication, and not the term itself is the one that needs to be corrected.

Just like I tell the local Dianic she can ******** off is she is going to call me a wymoon instead of a woman. If I do something stupid (which happens now and then) then call it as such.

I agree that this idea of measurable intelligence needs to be corrected, but SAT tests still persist and I don't see them fading out soon, because it's very convenient to judge someone based on some test scores. I find that social stigma associated with intelligence = worth is just as important an understanding of the power of "stupid" as whatever other application it may have. It has the power to hurt unjustly, and that's what I object to. I can agree to disagree on whether you decide to use it or not.  

[TeaDidikai]

Bastemhet

When these tests came out, people used them as a way to decide who was lesser due to the test measured who had lower IQ, which was determined by the biased questions in the test.

Some people used them for some of the population. That doesn't mean the whole of the population was subjected to or even aware of this specialized application, nor does it suggest that it is culturally meaningful and shapes the sum of the modern application.

Quote:

It became a way to measure who had more or less worth. That is how I understand it as quantifying others.

The problem is that these couple events do not define the word.

It doesn't erase past applications or accurate modern applications.
Now- if you observe systematic discrimination based on an IQ test, call foul. Otherwise, it's a word that can be misapplied, but is not universally so- nor does it come form a history of privilege based oppression.

Quote:

I agree that this idea of measurable intelligence needs to be corrected, but SAT tests still persist

Stop. Pause. Rewind. Show me where the SAT claims it measures intelligence please.

Quote:

I don't see them fading out soon, because it's very convenient to judge someone based on some test scores.

It's also not used as the end all be all of said evaluations. I mean, I know I've been out of School for a while, but as I recall, most of my classes had daily work and projects weighted.

Quote:

I find that social stigma associated with intelligence = worth is just as important an understanding of the power of "stupid" as whatever other application it may have.

I'd be more inclined to agree with you if there was actual demonstration that the words are applied as you have said, had a continual history that demonstrated oppression and privilege or the like.

Quote:

It has the power to hurt unjustly, and that's what I object to.

But having that power isn't enough to mark the use of a word as unacceptable.  

[Bastemhet]

TeaDidikai

Bastemhet

When these tests came out, people used them as a way to decide who was lesser due to the test measured who had lower IQ, which was determined by the biased questions in the test.

Some people used them for some of the population. That doesn't mean the whole of the population was subjected to or even aware of this specialized application, nor does it suggest that it is culturally meaningful and shapes the sum of the modern application.

What other modern applications of stupid do you know of that don't depend on the idea that one person must be inherently or congenitally unintelligent if they make a bad decision?

Quote:

Quote:

It became a way to measure who had more or less worth. That is how I understand it as quantifying others.

The problem is that these couple events do not define the word.

The etymology of the word from the link you gave me had nothing to do with intelligence. The first definition confirms that there is an objective measurable trait of intelligence. Are you saying you use neither of these applications when you call something stupid? Or that other people who do use these are applying it correctly? Or that the first definition that I am citing as objectionable is a misapplication?

Quote:

It doesn't erase past applications or accurate modern applications.
Now- if you observe systematic discrimination based on an IQ test, call foul. Otherwise, it's a word that can be misapplied, but is not universally so- nor does it come form a history of privilege based oppression.

The book she spoke about outlines how it has a history of privilege based oppression. Those who did not pass the test with a high enough score were assigned more menial tasks while those with a higher score were considered worthy of better jobs.

Quote:

Quote:

I agree that this idea of measurable intelligence needs to be corrected, but SAT tests still persist

Stop. Pause. Rewind. Show me where the SAT claims it measures intelligence please.

Nevermind about that, it assigns a number score to correct answers in math, writing and reading comp.

Quote:

Quote:

I don't see them fading out soon, because it's very convenient to judge someone based on some test scores.

It's also not used as the end all be all of said evaluations. I mean, I know I've been out of School for a while, but as I recall, most of my classes had daily work and projects weighted.

You're right, they've begun to assess applicants by essay and extracurricular activities as well, but the fact that it only tests three subjects makes me curious as to how relevant that is to people who are getting degrees in something that has nothing to do with those subjects, e.g. math for those majoring in Literature, or reading comprehension for those majoring in Horticulture. You also must get a good enough score to be accepted into the college in the first place; scores in subjects and projects are after the fact.

Quote:

Quote:

I find that social stigma associated with intelligence = worth is just as important an understanding of the power of "stupid" as whatever other application it may have.

I'd be more inclined to agree with you if there was actual demonstration that the words are applied as you have said, had a continual history that demonstrated oppression and privilege or the like.

Again, the book she cited is a bit of the history you're inquiring after, and the lasting idea that one is better able to do a certain task than another person based on their IQ is what separates worthy from unworthy, and the praised from the ridiculed.

Quote:

Quote:

It has the power to hurt unjustly, and that's what I object to.

But having that power isn't enough to mark the use of a word as unacceptable.

The fact that it can and is used to achieve that effect is enough to mark it as unacceptable. I'm not just talking about when it IQ tests are used to measure it, the idea itself that one person is better than another because they are more intelligent is plenty used in American society and is just one of the things used to make snap judgments about people including age, sex, race, etc.  

[TeaDidikai]

Bastemhet

What other modern applications of stupid do you know of that don't depend on the idea that one person must be inherently or congenitally unintelligent if they make a bad decision?

The denotative ones for a start. None of what you are saying is actually reflected in the meaning of the word.

Quote:

The etymology of the word from the link you gave me had nothing to do with intelligence. The first definition confirms that there is an objective measurable trait of intelligence.

I'm reading it- show me where "as in regards to measured data from Intelligence Quotient Testing."

Quote:

Are you saying you use neither of these applications when you call something stupid? Or that other people who do use these are applying it correctly? Or that the first definition that I am citing as objectionable is a misapplication?

The definition you're citing doesn't reflect what you're saying- it doesn't support your claims unless you shoe horn words like objective and measured into the definition that simply isn't there.

Quote:

The book she spoke about outlines how it has a history of privilege based oppression. Those who did not pass the test with a high enough score were assigned more menial tasks while those with a higher score were considered worthy of better jobs.

Which is a small section of the population in a small window of time- not a complete practice that is synonymous with a five hundred some odd year history of the word.

Quote:

Quote:

Nevermind about that, it assigns a number score to correct answers in math, writing and reading comp.

And is designed to predict what?

Quote:

You're right, they've begun to assess applicants by essay and extracurricular activities as well, but the fact that it only tests three subjects makes me curious as to how relevant that is to people who are getting degrees in something that has nothing to do with those subjects, e.g. math for those majoring in Literature, or reading comprehension for those majoring in Horticulture. You also must get a good enough score to be accepted into the college in the first place; scores in subjects and projects are after the fact.

I'm becoming very interested in where you garnered your understanding of what the SAT is.

Because frankly, those three areas are used in the most basic requirements for the vast majority of degrees. Reading, Writing and Math- funny, I was expected to be proficient at reading, writing and math to engage in highschool level Horticulture- because you have to be able to read and write in order to generate papers, and understand math for the basic statistics needed for said papers.

And this is High School level, not college level where I am sure it is even more important (hell, I remember it being more important for the statistics we compiled on the amount of success individual cuttings with specific amounts of grow hormone had at thriving when I was at Uni.)

Quote:

Again, the book she cited is a bit of the history you're inquiring after, and the lasting idea that one is better able to do a certain task than another person based on their IQ is what separates worthy from unworthy, and the praised from the ridiculed.

And if there was a general mandate that we were measured, I'd agree- but this isn't the case.

Logic calls this "Biased Sample".

Quote:

The fact that it can and is used to achieve that effect is enough to mark it as unacceptable.

Bullshit. Just like it's bullshit that the word women can do that. Numerous words can be applied in hurtful ways- potential isn't enough.

Quote:

I'm not just talking about when it IQ tests are used to measure it, the idea itself that one person is better than another because they are more intelligent is plenty used in American society and is just one of the things used to make snap judgments about people including age, sex, race, etc.

And yet- we don't remove all words regarding age, sex and race from our language.

 

[Bastemhet]

TeaDidikai

Bastemhet

What other modern applications of stupid do you know of that don't depend on the idea that one person must be inherently or congenitally unintelligent if they make a bad decision?

The denotative ones for a start. None of what you are saying is actually reflected in the meaning of the word.

Modern social usage history isn't usually in the dictionary.

Quote:

Quote:

The etymology of the word from the link you gave me had nothing to do with intelligence. The first definition confirms that there is an objective measurable trait of intelligence.

I'm reading it- show me where "as in regards to measured data from Intelligence Quotient Testing."

There being a test, and its social acceptance upholds the idea that intelligence can be measured, thus exists in the first place to be measured. The dictionary definition assumes that intelligence exists when it talks about intelligence. It would not mention intelligence if it were a given that intelligence doesn't exist.

Quote:

Which is a small section of the population in a small window of time- not a complete practice that is synonymous with a five hundred some odd year history of the word.

I agree. But this is recent history that adds another layer of meaning and association with the word. It would be similar if a Jewish person called my gods idols. Technically they'd be correct according to the denotation of the word. The connotation is that my gods are thus false gods, which can be offensive. Both are correct.

Quote:

Quote:

Nevermind about that, it assigns a number score to correct answers in math, writing and reading comp.

And is designed to predict what?

A person's ability to take a test really, but others may think ability in math, writing, and read comp. My saying nevermind was my ceding that point.

Quote:

Quote:

Again, the book she cited is a bit of the history you're inquiring after, and the lasting idea that one is better able to do a certain task than another person based on their IQ is what separates worthy from unworthy, and the praised from the ridiculed.

And if there was a general mandate that we were measured, I'd agree- but this isn't the case.

Logic calls this "Biased Sample".

Thing is most people don't understand that there were some things fundamentally wrong with those tests, and generally people believe IQ tests are still good ways to determine how mentally able someone is.

Quote:

Quote:

The fact that it can and is used to achieve that effect is enough to mark it as unacceptable.

Bullshit. Just like it's bullshit that the word women can do that. Numerous words can be applied in hurtful ways- potential isn't enough.

Unfortunately stupid is something that most people don't want to be, which is why it can be an insult. Whereas "women" is stating someone's biological person. I don't think those two words are comparable.

Quote:

Quote:

I'm not just talking about when it IQ tests are used to measure it, the idea itself that one person is better than another because they are more intelligent is plenty used in American society and is just one of the things used to make snap judgments about people including age, sex, race, etc.

And yet- we don't remove all words regarding age, sex and race from our language.

Right- a big problem when people use words like n~, g~, and others to describe people around them in order to other them.  

[TeaDidikai]

Bastemhet

Modern social usage history isn't usually in the dictionary.

Really?

Quote:

There being a test, and its social acceptance upholds the idea that intelligence can be measured, thus exists in the first place to be measured. The dictionary definition assumes that intelligence exists when it talks about intelligence. It would not mention intelligence if it were a given that intelligence doesn't exist.

And we haven't demonstrated that intelligence doesn't exist. What we have demonstrated is that there are situations where the word is misapplied.

Further- you would have more of an argument if when people referenced stupidity and intelligence they habitually brought attention to these tests.

Lastly, I don't see the author of the blog even commenting upon the some four hundred years of history wherein IQ tests did not exist, but social concepts of intelligence and stupidity as actual words did.

Quote:

I agree. But this is recent history that adds another layer of meaning and association with the word. It would be similar if a Jewish person called my gods idols.

There's a chance your gods are idols, I can't say for sure based on my lack of familiarity with what your practice looks like.

Quote:

The connotation is that my gods are thus false gods, which can be offensive. Both are correct.

If people are offended by truth, so be it.

Quote:

A person's ability to take a test really, but others may think ability in math, writing, and read comp. My saying nevermind was my ceding that point.

Fair enough.
Just to let you know, the official stance is that it exists to predict success in the first year of college.

Quote:

Thing is most people don't understand that there were some things fundamentally wrong with those tests, and generally people believe IQ tests are still good ways to determine how mentally able someone is.

Wouldn't know anything about that. It might have been true fifty years ago (my Nana mentioned her IQ once or twice in casual conversation) but it isn't true now. Hence why a small blip in the history of a subject doesn't determine it's nature any more than the use of medical tools by Jack the Ripper validates the melting of all scalpels into butter knives.

Bottom line, at this point- you're arguing guilt by association. That one group misused the term that is still acceptable and has proper denotative values doesn't change for the sake of the actions of a handful of individuals.

Quote:

Unfortunately stupid is something that most people don't want to be, which is why it can be an insult. Whereas "women" is stating someone's biological person. I don't think those two words are comparable.

Women includes a history of sexual oppression, mistreatment for emotional reasoning over logical reasoning, physical disadvantage etc...

But then, if I take a biased sample, I can make it look just as bad.

Quote:

Right- a big problem when people use words like n~, g~, and others to describe people around them in order to other them.

Don't be absurd. Just like a person can use an endonym to state a fact in an unpleasant way, people can use a valid descriptor to do the same.  

[Bastemhet]

OK, I think you've convinced me that in the way I understood the word, it was one context that does not define the word in its entirety so thinking of it that way would be a misapplication. Correct? I'm finished being stubborn now. I just wanted to see if the holes in my argument were so much that it falls apart rather than have any shred of truth left.

Quote:

Quote:

I agree. But this is recent history that adds another layer of meaning and association with the word. It would be similar if a Jewish person called my gods idols.

There's a chance your gods are idols, I can't say for sure based on my lack of familiarity with what your practice looks like.

From what the dictionary entry says, the meaning of idol is a representation or symbol of an object of worship without any substance. While the statue is also a symbol since the gods themselves choose the forms they reveal themselves to us in, the statue is also the god because after ritual is performed on it, the god dwells in the statue, but is not limited by doing so. I don't know if Jewish conception of God allows for that to happen, which is why I say they may understand my gods' statues as idols, but it is an incomplete understanding of Egyptian practice. I think it would be a conflict between understanding deity as either immanent or transcendent, from what I know Jewish practice believes deity as transcendent only, while in my practice deity could be both.

Quote:

Quote:

The connotation is that my gods are thus false gods, which can be offensive. Both are correct.

If people are offended by truth, so be it.

Hah, I like this about you, but I also don't like to invite discord for the sake of it. Mutual understanding for me is a better place to end.

Quote:

Hence why a small blip in the history of a subject doesn't determine it's nature any more than the use of medical tools by Jack the Ripper validates the melting of all scalpels into butter knives.

How big would a blip have to be to get you to recognize it as affecting the connotations of a word?

Quote:

Quote:

Right- a big problem when people use words like n~, g~, and others to describe people around them in order to other them.

Don't be absurd. Just like a person can use an endonym to state a fact in an unpleasant way, people can use a valid descriptor to do the same.

What is an endonym?  

[TeaDidikai]

Bastemhet

OK, I think you've convinced me that in the way I understood the word, it was one context that does not define the word in its entirety so thinking of it that way would be a misapplication. Correct? I'm finished being stubborn now. I just wanted to see if the holes in my argument were so much that it falls apart rather than have any shred of truth left.

Fair enough.

Quote:

From what the dictionary entry says, the meaning of idol is a representation or symbol of an object of worship without any substance. While the statue is also a symbol since the gods themselves choose the forms they reveal themselves to us in, the statue is also the god because after ritual is performed on it, the god dwells in the statue, but is not limited by doing so. I don't know if Jewish conception of God allows for that to happen, which is why I say they may understand my gods' statues as idols, but it is an incomplete understanding of Egyptian practice. I think it would be a conflict between understanding deity as either immanent or transcendent, from what I know Jewish practice believes deity as transcendent only, while in my practice deity could be both.

There is also the potential that a deity may choose not to inhabit the statue, correct?

Or is this a function of oath or some such that forces them into it?

Quote:

Hah, I like this about you, but I also don't like to invite discord for the sake of it. Mutual understanding for me is a better place to end.

Meh.
I tend to look at people funny when they choose being comfortable in a falsehood over adapting to the Truth.

Quote:

How big would a blip have to be to get you to recognize it as affecting the connotations of a word?

A majority of time or population is where I would start- but I haven't studied it in any detail, so I don't have a firm grasp on this.

Quote:

What is an endonym?

"Internal Name", basically the name that people give themselves, for example Rroma.  

[Gho the Girl]

TeaDidikai

I tend to look at people funny when they choose being comfortable in a falsehood over adapting to the Truth.

Well, the Truth can really suck sometimes. Contrary to popular romaticism, it doesn't always set you free, or give you wings, or whatever the ********.

Sometimes it's the path of least resistance to just live with a lie.  

[TeaDidikai]

Gho the Girl

Well, the Truth can really suck sometimes. Contrary to popular romaticism, it doesn't always set you free, or give you wings, or whatever the ********.

Sometimes it's the path of least resistance to just live with a lie.

I know it's easy, I just don't understand why easy is taken over correct most of the time.  

[Bastemhet]

TeaDidikai

Quote:

From what the dictionary entry says, the meaning of idol is a representation or symbol of an object of worship without any substance. While the statue is also a symbol since the gods themselves choose the forms they reveal themselves to us in, the statue is also the god because after ritual is performed on it, the god dwells in the statue, but is not limited by doing so. I don't know if Jewish conception of God allows for that to happen, which is why I say they may understand my gods' statues as idols, but it is an incomplete understanding of Egyptian practice. I think it would be a conflict between understanding deity as either immanent or transcendent, from what I know Jewish practice believes deity as transcendent only, while in my practice deity could be both.

There is also the potential that a deity may choose not to inhabit the statue, correct?

Or is this a function of oath or some such that forces them into it?

Well...I guess they could choose not to, but I've never heard of an instance historically in which they would/did not. The purpose of the ritual is to make the statue and the space in which it resides sacred and ritually pure. The space itself is also made perfect as a symbol of, and thus manifestation of Zep Tepi. Why a deity would decline from inhabiting such a perfect place to restore Maat and be worshipped round the clock would be beyond me, but it is possible. Just highly unlikely.

As for forcing them into it, or forcing them to do anything else...that's also possible, though whoever is doing it better be as powerful or more powerful than the deity they are trying to force into cooperation. Historically this is not the way they are approached when it comes to temples and statues.

Quote:

Quote:

Hah, I like this about you, but I also don't like to invite discord for the sake of it. Mutual understanding for me is a better place to end.

Meh.
I tend to look at people funny when they choose being comfortable in a falsehood over adapting to the Truth.

Not what I meant, but I can see how you interpreted it that way. What I mean is I choose to disagree if someone is incorrect, but I do care that the relationship be maintained as amicable regardless. I'm not saying you don't care, but when you say "So be it" it sounds like the person in the wrong is unimportant as opposed to truth. I think both are important.

Quote:

Quote:

How big would a blip have to be to get you to recognize it as affecting the connotations of a word?

A majority of time or population is where I would start- but I haven't studied it in any detail, so I don't have a firm grasp on this.

But what would be majority as opposed to minority? 49.99% of the history is minority? I don't have any training in linguistics but I have to take a course in it for my major; maybe my question will be answered there.

Quote:

Quote:

What is an endonym?

"Internal Name", basically the name that people give themselves, for example Rroma.

Gotcha.  

[Gho the Girl]

TeaDidikai

Gho the Girl

Well, the Truth can really suck sometimes. Contrary to popular romaticism, it doesn't always set you free, or give you wings, or whatever the ********.

Sometimes it's the path of least resistance to just live with a lie.

I know it's easy, I just don't understand why easy is taken over correct most of the time.

Laziness. Why be actually correct when claiming I'm correct regardless makes me feel just as good?