Freetounged Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 I am having a hard time putting this thought in words. Here are some examples of my thought: Terrible parents are blind to their, or others bad parenting. Stupid people are blind to their own stupidity. Bad actors are blind to bad acting. Is it they're blind, do they just normalize their level of behavior, or believe it is acceptable? How can this be plainly expressed?
Pepin Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 This is often called the Dunning-Kruger effect. http://mindhacks.com/2013/12/02/the-more-inept-you-are-the-more-inaccurate-your-self-assessment/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning_Kruger The factors in such behavior can be genuine or self-defensive, and it is usually pretty obvious which it is. Someone who is self-defensive will tend to get emotional and fight back against disagreement. Someone who is genuine in their own self-perception will remain calm and seem to think they understood your rebuttal, when they clearly haven't. They will lack an ability to know when they are over their head intellectually. I have a difficult time understanding people who exhibit this behavior, especially the second class of people. They really think they are understanding your arguments and that they are doing a great job of holding their ground. You just get the impression that the other person is dumb and their "I don't understand this" sense isn't functional. Like you could say something totally nonsensical and they'd claim to know what you are talking about. 1
Freetounged Posted August 18, 2014 Author Posted August 18, 2014 Thank you for your reply. It is good to know the term for the behavior. It is painfully irritating for me to deal with the mentality. Especially when they project their ignorance on me.
Kevin Beal Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 And how much of the things that people can't see, are due to the choices that they make? To take an analogy, if you decide to drink a bunch of alcohol your response time is going to be severely diminished. If somebody who was sober could act quickly enough to avoid disaster, the fact that the drunk person could not is not sufficient reason enough to excuse them of the disaster they caused, even if they couldn't have helped it in that moment. Similarly, in the case of bad parents. A person who does absolutely nothing to take care of their mental health, nothing to grow healthy negotiating skills in that child, nothing to notice the negative effect their own parents had on them, they could still not have any control in the moment and act out their own pent up aggressions on their own children, but it doesn't make them any less responsible. Irritation is actually different than frustration. You can be frustrated by an uneven sidewalk you seem to always trip on, but you can't exactly be irritated by that. Irritation, whatever it is, involves people choices at some level. You can be irritated by someone who keeps getting you with a squirt gun from behind some random corner every morning you come in to work. I wonder if you know what the specific thoughts are that you think that come with the irritation? I can tell you that people who claim to value reason and evidence, but consistently and obstinately avoid providing any evidence of their own, while telling you that you are wrong, are people who irritate me. But a person who is truly so stupid that they can't tie their shoes cannot explain how to find my keys they were playing with, would frustrate me, because they lack the intelligence enough for me to find them to be responsible. Maybe it's willful ignorance that you are coming up against rather than genuine ignorance? I don't know. I thought it was an important distinction.
Psychophant Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 I am having a hard time putting this thought in words.Here are some examples of my thought:Terrible parents are blind to their, or others bad parenting.Stupid people are blind to their own stupidity.Bad actors are blind to bad acting.Is it they're blind, do they just normalize their level of behavior, or believe it is acceptable?How can this be plainly expressed? Guilt is something that belongs in the realm of religion, like e. g. faith. They don't believe it is acceptable, it is acceptable for them. Whether you accept something or not has an impact on reality if you act on it but does not determine if something is true. That's the difference between subjective reality and objective reality. The factors in such behavior can be genuine or self-defensive, and it is usually pretty obvious which it is. Someone who is self-defensive will tend to get emotional and fight back against disagreement. That's me bro. The emotional part doesn't prove, that the other person is right. It is a dichotomy. Just because someone is upset doesn't make your argument wrong but otherwise you cannot tell from his emotional distress that you are right.
Freetounged Posted August 18, 2014 Author Posted August 18, 2014 @Kevin Beal "I wonder if you know what the specific thoughts are that you think that come with the irritation?" Hmmm, the most recent experience would be a lengthy post. It was a degrading realization. "Maybe it's willful ignorance that you are coming up against rather than genuine ignorance?" I believe it is willful.
Recommended Posts