More accurate conclusion: Most people LearnedAx knows are fools (not us, obviously).
Or we're working off a set of false premises. One could just as easily conclude "LearnedAx doesn't know what a fool is" or "LearnedAx is one arrogant S.O.B." from those two statements.
Ah, this is so. I made the mistake of bringing in outside information, including my own knowledge of the foolish natures of many individuals. I'll not exclude myself however, having exhibited that characteristic more times than I would like; or perhaps that is my own interpretation of myself.
It's a valid conclusion assuming the correctness of its premises. I didn't say most people I know, so applying that restriction is denying the correctness of the premises and inserting a new basis condition of your own. I disagree with your condition, because as you imply I self-select my social circles away from what I deem fools, though of course you are free to challenge my capacity to judge foolishness.
We'll take it as read that I'm an arrogant S.O.B....
... But in fact the sentiment I was trying to express was not "most people are fools by comparison to me", it was "Don't equate the value of a position with the intelligence of those who hold it".
We'll take it as read that I'm an arrogant S.O.B....
You? Never! ;)
... But in fact the sentiment I was trying to express was not "most people are fools by comparison to me", it was "Don't equate the value of a position with the intelligence of those who hold it".
Or, if I'm understanding you correctly, the more precise sentiment would be: "Don't equate the value of a position with the intelligence of those who don't hold it."
Everyone tries to redefine what I say... I meant it the way I wrote it, because even in the naÑve conception the value of a position would decrease as the intelligence of the persons who don't hold it increases, making the false relationship you refer to inverse, rather than direct. I'd call that counter-intuitive, which means there's little need to warn anyone away from it.
Now if you actually meant "don't base your judgment of a position's value on the intelligence of those who don't hold it", then I would agree that that is a more specific statement... but by its specificity not the more general one that I'm making.
I didn't say most people I know, so applying that restriction is denying the correctness of the premises and inserting a new basis condition of your own.
It's open to interpretation. I would argue that in order to agree or disagree with you (emphasis mine), that someone would have to know you. Otherwise they are in accord with your position. It's a subtle but key distinction.
... But in fact the sentiment I was trying to express was not "most people are fools by comparison to me", it was "Don't equate the value of a position with the intelligence of those who hold it".
Ah. The "people rise to their own level of incompetence" phenomena. Needs to be discussed at great length further, but I'd suggest moving the venue to... hmmm... a hot tub?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
learnedax
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 02:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 11:30 am (UTC)Or we're working off a set of false premises. One could just as easily conclude "LearnedAx doesn't know what a fool is" or "LearnedAx is one arrogant S.O.B." from those two statements.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 12:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 02:33 pm (UTC)We'll take it as read that I'm an arrogant S.O.B....
... But in fact the sentiment I was trying to express was not "most people are fools by comparison to me", it was "Don't equate the value of a position with the intelligence of those who hold it".
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 06:26 pm (UTC)You? Never! ;)
... But in fact the sentiment I was trying to express was not "most people are fools by comparison to me", it was "Don't equate the value of a position with the intelligence of those who hold it".
Or, if I'm understanding you correctly, the more precise sentiment would be: "Don't equate the value of a position with the intelligence of those who don't hold it."
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 06:41 pm (UTC)Now if you actually meant "don't base your judgment of a position's value on the intelligence of those who don't hold it", then I would agree that that is a more specific statement... but by its specificity not the more general one that I'm making.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 06:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-02 02:55 pm (UTC)It's open to interpretation. I would argue that in order to agree or disagree with you (emphasis mine), that someone would have to know you. Otherwise they are in accord with your position. It's a subtle but key distinction.
... But in fact the sentiment I was trying to express was not "most people are fools by comparison to me", it was "Don't equate the value of a position with the intelligence of those who hold it".
Ah. The "people rise to their own level of incompetence" phenomena. Needs to be discussed at great length further, but I'd suggest moving the venue to... hmmm... a hot tub?
*Shrug*
Date: 2005-06-30 03:47 am (UTC)Get comfy, you're in for a long ride.
Yeah
Date: 2005-06-30 01:44 pm (UTC)Re: Yeah
Date: 2005-06-30 02:34 pm (UTC)Re: Yeah
Date: 2005-07-01 03:38 am (UTC)