[CLIP]
> > Also, recall: stupidity [as opposed to slow processing] is inherently
> > unverifiable by oneself with regard to oneself. I have very few uses for
> > that word; it seems to reduce the intelligence of the invoker.
>
> Stupid:
> 1. Unintelligent, slow-witted, foolish.
>
> So if stupid is the inverse of intelligent then you must have little use
> for the word intelligence as well. That you invoke it in the very same
> paragraph is merely unhappy coincidence and does nothing to reduce
> your unstupidity. For what it's worth I agree that stupidity is
> unverifiable, as is intelligence. I do find the terms useful however.
I find the definition (above) woefully inadequate, but with a useful shard.
Heuristically:
1) I would emphazise "slow-witted", as in "finds concepts useful for
daily life utterly incomprehensible." For instance, that houses built in
flood plains are at risk of being flooded out every once in a while. The
Flood of 1993 [U.S.] caused extensive damage, and even prompted an offer
by the government to provide extensive financial assistance in relocating
flood victims ["Yes. We'll buy your house, and provide a really
low-interest mortage for a new home in a better geographical zone."]
So, what am I to conclude when hordes of people rebuild their homes, and
then they get flooded out AGAIN in 1995?
It's not living there in the first place that I'm looking at.
[Circumstances are often limiting.] It's REBUILDING there, when they
can actually move out without significant monetary or time cost compared
to staying.
2) Intelligent fools are quite common, at least where I live. Also,
recall that "slow processing" is a CIS-motivated way of saying "slow-witted".
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////