Why do we hate talking to idiots? (A non-elitist thread)

[Big Tom]

I mean this in the politest way possible. It is a fact of the world that, while people excel in their perspective areas, whether that be a science, a humanity, an understanding of street drug prices, fighting technique, fishing, tax avoidance - whatever, the underlying mechanism to allow for learning is critical thinking. Having said that, some people are more critical than others, from the sharpest man to the dullest bottom.

Many people, no matter where their own PERSONAL level of intelligence stands on the 'national average', find people with inferior intelligence frustrating to talk to. Their lack of mental ability seems to arouse an innate irritation in most people. It is this irritation that fuels the correction of grammer, the sneering of specialists, the frustration of trying to explain evolution to a creationist that simply will-not-listen!

I would like to question what people think this is due to, from an evolutionary prospective (or a broader psychological/biological prospective, if someone has one).

I'll start the ball rolling with a little A-level psychology:
The frustration-aggression hypothesis argues that aggression is fueled by a frustration. This can be extended to account for the aggression in the illiterate who cannot explain themselves with words, or the aggression of someone who tries and fails a task a thousand times. I would speculate that perhaps the negativity that someone feels towards somebody they deem to be intellectually inferior is due to a similar frustration - not due to the inability to express oneself, but from the listeners inability to comprehend (lending the same effect).

Take it away!

Disclaimer: This thread in no way emplies an elitism. A turnip that can turn left is annoyed when its turnip companions refuse to follow it. But it is, to all intents and purposes, still a turnip. This question applies anywhere on the varying levels of intelligence present in the human species.

Edited: I changed 'some people are better than others' to 'some people are more critical'. The original implication was that 'better' related to the previous sentence on critical thinking, but that was unclear, and sounded horrible.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Big Tom

[Strange]

I am hugely impressed by the patience shown by some very knowledgeable people on this and other forums when talking to people who can only be described as idiots.

[CharonY]

It is weird, I cannot recall the last time I felt talking to someone with inferior intelligence. What I find infuriating is people (even highly intelligent ones) that do not make an effort to understand things or at least improve their understanding. Of course there are people with different/lower education and different viewpoints, but as long as both sides are making an effort to communicate efficiently I feel it is a lot of fun and hardly frustrating at all.

 

I would state that willful ignorance and arrogance are the two major elements that irritates me more than intelligence or education.

That and if people do not immediately recognize how great I am.

 

Of course, it is also possible that I am the inferior person and that is why I do not meet too many fitting the description.

Edited August 3, 2013 by CharonY

[Big Tom]

Really? I feel constant frustration when clearly and slowly explaining things to people who shrug it off as 'my opinion' and continue to do so after I explain the scientific method. There are also likely the same number of people who feel frustrated talking to me about things that I understand so little about.

If you can honestly say you've never had such an experience then you are a wonderful case of social convention overcoming instinct. But as scientists so often admit to requiring 'patience' when explaining things, that would suggest a pre-existing frustration.

Back the question of the thread - Why do you think this is?


Edit: I see that you actually DID say that willful ignorance annoys you, which I somehow missed. A fine example of the point.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Big Tom

[krash661]

what an interesting and great question.

[CharonY]

Back the question of the thread - Why do you think this is?

 

 

Edit: I see that you actually DID say that willful ignorance annoys you, which I somehow missed. A fine example of the point.

 

If we rephrase it to mean why are we annoyed by people that are willfully ignorant as opposed to lacking in mental ability (two different things in my mind, as mentioned above) then I would say there are several reasons.

The most prominent one is probably that by not agreeing with ones opinion, they deny the validation that one may seek. Hence the frustration.

 

Personally I am not affected by that too much except in situations. The first is if it is my role to educate someone and I am faced with willful ignorance. Here, the annoyance is based on the feeling of wasted time that I really could have invested elsewhere. The second is when willful ignorance results in disruptive procedures or protocols. But essentially both are more in the professional area.

Edited August 4, 2013 by CharonY

[John Cuthber]

As I see it, the annoying bit is not talking to those who don't know, or even those who have innate trouble understanding. I'm aware that any frustration I face in explaining things is nothing to the frustration they experience in many aspects of life.

There are, however, two groups who really get up my nose.

Those who refuse to learn and those who think they already know everything because the once saw a video about it on you-tube.

Those two groups overlap so there are people who don't really know what they are talking about, yet refuse to learn any better.

Death's too good for them.

[Big Tom]

But, still - you even acknowledge that you don't mind because 'any frustration you feel ...' Implying a frustration. It is an innate response, even if most of us overcome it with patience, a good attitude, and reason.

Whether it's this frustration ^, or, as you say, the youtube-graduates, "Why do you think this is". Everyone's just repeating that they get frustrated. What possible evolutionary or otherwise behavioural purpose could there be to this? It could very well be neutral, but I doubt it as it strongly effects social interaction.

Edit: CharonY. I suspect that has something to do with it, also. It could boil down to the same reason that we get annoyed when someone cuts in line: Hard work by us, and the same perceived rewards to those that did nothing. The evolutionary pressure of such a trait could be inferred as discouraging unequal resource/work assignment?

Edited August 4, 2013 by Big Tom

[michel123456]

IMHO anyone, even the most intelligent, can be catched as an "idiot" in some circumstance. What happen is that the most "intelligent" understand the situation quickly and simply shuts his mouth.

 

Frustration arises from non-understanding and go both ways. It may happen that both sides call the other "idiot" because they fail to communicate properly, even when both sides are intelligent and cultivated people. There are examples on this Forum.

So it is always dangerous to consider the other as an "idiot', a simple argument can act as a boomerang and you may discover that the idiot was you.

 

I have the feeling that the one who begins such kind of thread in no circumstance will consider himself as an "idiot". I suspect the person feels under the protection of a huge level of education. That is indeed a protection against imbecility but that is not a protection against idiocy.

Edited August 4, 2013 by michel123456

[Big Tom]

I was waiting for this. You clearly didn't read my initial post thoroughly. The use of 'idiot' in the title was clearly a tongue in cheek nod to misleading and simplistic tabloid titles. And I stated over and over that idiot is subjective and one man's idiot is another man's genius, and that I consider myself nowhere near the higher end, either compared to the national 'average' or in general.

Thank you.

An example of the frustration I speak of is the way I feel right now - I have been challenged based on a blatant misunderstanding of a clearly worded topic I had hoped to debate, that is in no way suggesting of a 'higher order of intelligence' on any part.

So, why do we feel this way?

[hyperion1is]

An example of the frustration I speak of is the way I feel right now - I have been challenged based on a blatant misunderstanding of a clearly worded topic I had hoped to debate, that is in no way suggesting of a 'higher order of intelligence' on any part.

 

So, why do we feel this way?

 

Maybe because you consider that people will pay more attention to his posts that your own for marooning reasons. Otherwise you just "walked" further. Just click the down arrow man and move on. How about this non-scientific explanation?

[Big Tom]

Well, I won't just ignore the post. He/she could have something interesting to contribute when they understand the threat properly. I really just wanted to know of any opinions on potential selection pressure either way regarding frustration when talking to people that don't understand --- HOWEVER, I know agree that this is only really an issue when somebody is refusing to follow reason or acknowledge key points such as was pointed out by the other posters. I suppose, when posed that way, the answer becomes a little more to do with indignation (how are they ignoring reasonable evidence).

[hyperion1is]

"Why do we hate talking to idiots?"

And you mentioned frustration, yes I think is more about frustration than hate. Also I would mention that we may feel something in relation to ourselves not others. ie: you may feel frustration when talking to an idiot; but is not the idiot who cause you frustration it's your reaction to the individual that cause you frustration.

 

In this light, you may feel frustration when talking to an idiot when realizing a tactical error on your part (as a possible explanation). The most common tactical error: to talk slow, in the idea that speaking slowly will somehow allow the other person to understand every word you say. So the frustration comes, when you realize that you are an idiot. You came with a "tactical" plan to improve communication and you realize that the communication is worse if you were to speak normally. (on a false premise).

 

I followed your idea of the fact that "intelligence" may be a relative term; and I will circle to that.

 

Another tactical error (all this deriving from the fact that you think that you are more intelligent then the other) is to think that you understood the question.

If the layman (idiot) asks: "Why is the sky blue?". When a physicist is been asked this, he/she may already have an answer in his head:

 

"Sunlight is a mix of all the colors of the rainbow. Light is a spectrum of light of different wavelengths, from the shorter "blue" to the longer "red" wavelengths.
When sunlight enters the atmosphere, the molecules in the air are the right size to "scatter" the blue wavelengths of the sunlight, which sort of "paints" the sky blue...."

 

or even more technical, the problem he acknowledge is to communicate this to the idiot. So you may include in your "tactical" minimum requirements that the "idiot" needs to understand in order to comprehend your answer. A simpler way:

 

Laymen: "Why is the sky blue?"

Physicist: "Because is not green."

Laymen: "Why is not green? because grass and a lot of others things are green"

Physicist: "If all the things were to be green, would be better?"

Laymen: "No"

Physicist: " Right, because there would be no more distinctions among things"

 

And the idiot may be satisfied with this answer. Maybe this was the answer he was looking for. And you had gone to all the trouble to...

Another tactical error is to consider yourself to have all the answers (All-knowing). On the premise: I'm smarter than him so the chances are that I know what he knows, but he doesn't know what I know.

If you were really to explain "Why the sky is blue", completely with all the principles and all, no matter where you start you will end up in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unanswered_questions_in_physics

 

How ofter does a physicist acknowledge to a laymen that they are still a lot "un-answered" questions in physics. He will not do this out of fear: The worst thing that can happen is to be considered an idiot by an idiot (because of it's possible thinking, that if you don't know the answer to 1 question you are an idiot; like him, or worst).

 

The assumption is that this questions will be answered one day. Well one day, doesn't make it today. If the situation presents: If you answer a question more questions will arise, then... If you were to assume or to acknowledge for a second that this questions will be never be answered (in the sense that it cannot be an answer to every question), then a physicist were to find that an idiot (a philosopher) may have more knowledge than he does; without a scientific theory to explain Reality the philosophic explanations remain more accurate. (this examples works in the measure that physicist consider philosophers idiots, regarding Reality, Universe, space time).

 

So, it's a circle, in which one may consider more intelligent than the other because our superlative way of thinking.

 

Also we should think about the definition. Intelligence is defined as having more knowledge? OR Intelligence: to find solutions with the least amount of information possible.

 

So, who is the idiot? The problem was to communicate something to someone with less knowledge in a field than you. Have you found a solution? With what amount of information available?

 

My 2 cents.

 

PS. This post is not about physicists.

I would like to question what people think this is due to, from an evolutionary prospective (or a broader psychological/biological prospective, if someone has one).

 

I don't want to hijack your post, but if you asked.

In the view of my theory, "Theory about the human psyche", Intelligence is defined as the above "to find solutions with the least amount of information possible".

 

In this regard the Human mind component has "intelligence", and not the "I". In laymen terms you can associate the "I" with "Self-consciousness" and "Self-consciousness" with your-self; the one who wants to consider itself intelligent, the one that makes decisions...

 

So, Intelligence is not ours, it belongs to a component in ourselves over which we have no control (in the sense to change it's MO, to make it more or less "intelligent". The most you can do is to let your mind to run free. But doesn't always happen. If the "I" wants this property (intelligence), it finds it in the Human mind component and tries to become it, which is not possible, but the result will be interference and Human mind component will run more slowly. Ironic: the more intelligent you want to be the more of an "idiot" you become.

 

How I said, this is due our superlative way of thinking. If the I reads "Importance" (from the Self), in a superlative way: I'm more important or less important than another then will became a game of who is more important, with catastrophic consequences for every party involved, if I made a point in the above.

 

This is my theory, if someone has another....

Edited August 4, 2013 by hyperion1is

[Big Tom]

A very thorough and agreeable answer. Not particularly in the context I was looking for, but you are right about the wobbly definition of intelligence and it being highly dependent on circumstance. I guess I should have posed this question in the evolutionary/behavioural biology section. But as it's purely hypothetical, I thought it would be better off in the speculation thread.

The title was meant to be a jokey over the top title for 'laughs', but seems to have pulled attention from the specific question I had in mind. Namely, not to discuss the nature of intelligence, but the reason behind the irritation that accompanies hearing people preach on things they do not know enough about to provide an adequate point of view, relative to the collective knowledge at the time.

An example that I see in my life every day is the correction of grammar and spelling. Amongst friends I am constantly corrected (much to my anger), by people who seem genuinely grated by my (effectively) "inferior grasp of the English language". While there is obviously no large benefit to conforming to the strict rules of a specific language beyond the level of effective communication, it seems to irritate people. I, myself, (someone who could never be accused of any level of mastery where language is concerned) also get irritated when I hear a Don't where a Doesn't should be. Or an irregardless etc. etc.

Perceived inferior knowledge (WHETHER-ACTUALLY-INFERIOR-OR-NOT) seems to irritate people.

P.S. I cannot drive home "Whether actually inferior or not" strongly enough. It doesn't matter. It's perceived. That is all.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Big Tom

[tar]

Big Tom,

 

I would guess that its important to survival to immediately grasp the reality of a situation, and act in the appropriate manner, to eat the thing, or fight the thing, or befriend the thing, or run or hide from the thing. It then becomes crucial to determine the amount of resources you indend to expend, or the danger you might put yourself in to rescue other members of the tribe/clan/herd who don't seem to get it, and have not acted appropriately.

 

When the person crosses the subway track, and hits the third rail, or fails to scale the other side and is creamed by the train, we morn the loss, but still consider it a highly stupid thing that the person attempted, and might say to ourselves "what did he expect?" and consider there must have been a severe lack of judgement associated with the attempt. (unless of course he was running from a threat, or toward a rescue.)

 

Perhaps the answer to your question might also answer why we hate deformity, and deceit. And why we do not like at all, to be the one that does not get the joke.

 

I know you were not addressing the portion of the population that fits the actual IQ point range of Idiot, in fact I don't think many here, but the psychologists, could spout off the actual order and range of imbecil, moron and idiot. Some here like myself don't even recall how to spell the terms.

So I would imagine you are using the term to refer to someone apparently tending in that "lack of judgement" direction.

 

And its probably, in the history of evolution, better to let the runt die, and spend your energies on the sound. Without a protective society, in the business of helping the weak, most individuals lacking in the judgment area, would be culled by events that they improperly reacted to.

 

So we probably do not trust the judgement of those who apparently are not making the same assessment of the situation that we have already made, who fail to grasp the reality of the situation, and are not making effort to proceed in the right direction.

 

We don't like talking to idiots, perhaps, for reasons along these lines.

 

Regards, TAR2

I had to chuckle at CharonY's take, because I worked on a team a few years back where I realized I could not identify the idiot in the group, because there was not a person there, who's judgement I did not trust. The only two possibilities I could think of was that either I was in a really good group, or that I was the idiot, whose judgement was questionable.

Edited August 4, 2013 by tar

[Bill Angel]

There is an intresting video that I think illustrates this issue. It is a short discussion about string theory and the Big Bang. The group include two Nobel prize winners.

Working out what happened in the moments after the Big Bang is difficult. Scientists can come up with theories, but in the end they are useful only if they can be tested. Nobel prizewinner Robert Laughlin is passionate about experiments. He challenges the students in this film, and laureate David Gross, to come up with ways to test our big ideas about the Universe. The two laureates make a bet. Watch the film to find out more and to decide who wins.

Near the end of th video Dr Laughlin makes some interesting remarks concerning those situations where "very bright people can delude themselves". I think that the deluded bright people that he is referring to are the believers in string theory.

[Phi for All]

Why do you hate talking to idiots? I assumed it was my hat.

 

 

 

The frustration-aggression hypothesis argues that aggression is fueled by a frustration. This can be extended to account for the aggression in the illiterate who cannot explain themselves with words, or the aggression of someone who tries and fails a task a thousand times. I would speculate that perhaps the negativity that someone feels towards somebody they deem to be intellectually inferior is due to a similar frustration - not due to the inability to express oneself, but from the listeners inability to comprehend (lending the same effect).

 

A smarter person should be able to address any intellectual level at or below his own. If you can't make yourself understood you must not be explaining in a way your audience understands. That's part of the capabilities a superior intellect gives, being able to address a wider range of subject matter AND understand how to apply that knowledge. You don't talk trigonometry to someone at the basic arithmetic level.

 

That said, I agree about willful ignorance being a capital crime. I don't understand people who can say something like, "I haven't studied much evolution theory, but the whole thing seems preposterous" without a big red "EDIT!" button going off on their forehead. Perhaps we could market an ankle cuff that triggers an alarm when the wearer deviates too far from reality and logic. Probably have to lobby to make them mandatory like air bags....

 

It's all about saving lives, and sanity.

[arc]

Wow, been on both ends of this my whole life. I could make my teachers pull their hair out and scream. (on the inside, I could see it in their faces) I know now I have aspergers, and it has made communication with others difficult at the very least. At a very young age I understood that everything can be improved through better understanding, so my attempts to search out more information lead to the disruption of the instructors plans and frustration of others. It is a trait (or defect) that I did not know I possessed.

 

It is to me as if the learning process is the continual exploration of places I have never been or never had opportunity to explore. The instructor had a narrow field defined for the lesson that I was oblivious to. In my frame of mind you just took me someplace to explore and then drew a box on the ground and said don't step out of it. I could easily appear to be argumentative or even disruptive. I did not prosper from this format because the distractions my imagination created from the continual prompting by the subject. It is in the evolutionary context to explore "To boldly go where no one has gone before." This is not easily controlled at a young age.

 

The roles were reversed as a young adult when required to learn from older individuals in my occupation. It was frustrating to be doing processes that were not planned out well. To suggest improvements and be treated as an inexperienced rookie was incredibly frustrating and it lead to me being treated as insubordinate. Luckily the management realized I could out perform two or more of the older "experienced" personnel just by myself. I could invent onsite solutions to problems that they only would or could solve with time and extra personnel. It was extremely satisfying to do something by myself that no one could figure out how I did it.

 

I now have had 33 years in my occupation to experience people who when we first work together have a desire, due to my reputation, to impress me with there knowledge and skill. But they are unable to realize their great idea is one of those old and still passed down processes that I rejected 30 years ago or it is so hair brained and "just made up on the spot" impossible. But mostly they are just showing me that they only posses other peoples bad and inferior ways. Occasionally there will be someone who will desperately argue their idea knowing full well it is unworkable, but can't admit it due to a fragile ego. I can only take so much of this time wasting exercise.

 

 

Oh, and now here at SFN I'm back to the former. Just making all of you pull your hair out.

Edited August 4, 2013 by arc

[Big Tom]

Tar:

A wonderful post along the lines of what I was looking for. Thank you. I had considered that it boiled down to a trade off between altruism and selfishness. So, it could be that what we perceive as poor judgement (a far better definition that 'perceived inferior intelligence') discourages us from association and angers us because poor judgement endangers the community as a whole and the individual?

I find it interesting and difficult to reduce social conventions in the modern world to their function (or lack thereof if its rise is neutral) in the wild. But yours seems a fairly sound assumption.

The rest of you made very interesting points that I enjoyed reading. We seem to come back to willful ignorance and that ties in very nicely with this 'poor judgement' idea. I hope that my post wasn't misinterpretted. It was a difficult premise to explain without insulting anyone and making it perfectly clear that actual relative judgement is somewhat arbitrary in the question.

[michel123456]

Now I will make my position harder:

 

Big Tom is a new member.

He wants to be recognized as an adult respectable knowledgeable member and not as a young ignorant enthusiast, that is the reason of existence of this thread.

 

The "who is talking" strikes again.

 

I believe that Big Tom is not interested at all by any answer from other members of this Forum.

He is making a catalog of other knowledgeable people to whom he may discuss in the near future while making his own place here.

That is clever.

 

 

 

-----------------------------

(edit)

 

as a support to my allegation, this other thread gives me the impression that Big Tom is also trying to find which member has a PhD.

 

And as further support, the fact that the most intelligent & knowledgeable members have not engaged this thread at all.

 

--------------------------------

Now you shoot.

Edited August 5, 2013 by michel123456

[tar]

Arc,

 

I am not saddled with your problem of being the most intelligent person on the planet. I had the luxury of being endowed with two highly intelligent parents and a sister of the same sort. I WAS the idiot, growing up, and lived with a very intelligent Aunt, Uncle and cousins for a few years in my late teens, and while in college had some professors that were also friends of my father (also a professor) and I would nominate two of them, at least, to have run for the "most intelligent person on the planet" post.

 

So I have a soft spot for idiots, and rather give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

I spend some time laughing at the goofy stuff I notice in the "initiatives" the cadre of my company come up with, but have realized that if I was so smart, I would BE in the cadre of my company, and I am not. So now, I have realized that when the president of my company has an initiative, its now MY initiative, and its my job, to help make it work, regardless of its percieved inappropriate nature. Best I can do is try to influence it, in the direction of appropropriateness. Which very well might be an action on my part, assumed by the president, in the first place.

 

Which leads me to believe, that in general, we are probably all being idiodic, about something, at some point, in somebody elses eyes. And perhaps even there are many times that anybody can catch themselves in the act.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Big Tom]

Michel - Obvious inferiority complex aside, I'm sure you have plenty to contribute, rather than misinterpretting the whole thread and wrongfully trying to turn it around.

I've enjoyed reading all the points made. However, as it is my thread, the burden falls on me to try and point out the intended topic. I.e. frustration with perceived poor judgement in others from an evolutionary perspective.

 

I do not mean this as an insult, but rather to help. If you honestly believe the things you say, and aren't just saying them for effect, then I would recommend talking to someone about possible problems with paranoia.




p.s. You caught me! I have been seeking out those with a PhD to start my super secret "we're the kings of the world" society, in which we'll do intermediate GCSE mathematics, and taste varying concentrations of PTC and ''phworrr" at the people beneath us. I thought i'd disguised it well with a general thread about the innate frustration reaction when others show 'poor judgement', which claimed not to be placing myself of anyone else at any specific point on the intelligence ladder between Turnip and futuristic high AI computer. But I was wrong. You saw through it! But now it is too late! My campaign of world domination that will throw all the people without tertiary education into slavery has begun! Very soon I will settle upon the thrown of my new Empire! - Sarcasm.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Big Tom

[Greg H.]

I have always made a firm distinction between people who are ignorant of a subject, and people who deliberately remain uneducated on a subject (stupid people as opposed to unintelligent people.).

 

I have no problem with ignorant or unintelligent people. They don't know any better - hating them would be like hating a child because it doesn't know why grass grows. Having raised three kids myself, I can tell you that developing patience for the ignorant is almost mandatory. Unintelligent people may simply not be able to grasp the advanced concepts in the discussion, even with repeated explanations. They're at least making the effort to understand, but they just don't get it, for whatever reason. I think we all fall into that category on certain subjects - I, for example, am hopelessly unintelligent in the area of Chemistry. After a full year of Chem in high school and two semesters of Freshman Chem, I finally said to hell with it, and went back to physics, which I at least understood.

 

As for the stupid - those who, despite their intelligence, make a conscious choice to remain uninformed (or deliberately misinformed) on a topic - I don't hate them, I pity them. Their minds are so inelastic, they aren't even capable of being educated past the point they have already attained.

 

And that's just sad.

[EdEarl]

The times I am most frustrated with someone not understanding me are usually because of my inability to explain well enough. At those times I often begin to SHOUT TO HELP THEM UNDERSTAND; thereby, showing my ignorance.

 

When I come across someone who really has trouble understanding, I am often puzzled about what it is that makes them unable to understand. Many times it is personal differences, for example my ability to read expressions and body language is more limited than my wife. However, some people are completely baffling. For example, someone sees a YouTube video of unexplained lights over L. A. and they conclude it was a UFO. I avoid such people.

[swansont]

Now I will make my position harder:

 

Big Tom is a new member.

He wants to be recognized as an adult respectable knowledgeable member and not as a young ignorant enthusiast, that is the reason of existence of this thread.

 

The "who is talking" strikes again.

 

I believe that Big Tom is not interested at all by any answer from other members of this Forum.

He is making a catalog of other knowledgeable people to whom he may discuss in the near future while making his own place here.

That is clever.

 

 

 

-----------------------------

(edit)

 

as a support to my allegation, this other thread gives me the impression that Big Tom is also trying to find which member has a PhD.

 

And as further support, the fact that the most intelligent & knowledgeable members have not engaged this thread at all.

 

--------------------------------

Now you shoot.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

On the contrary, this is an order to cease fire. Discus the issue that has been presented. You may agree or disagree with the premise, and you may present arguments and facts supporting your position.

 

What you may not do is speculate about the motives; it is no better than gossip, and not in keeping with civility, nor with staying on-topic.