[Discussion] Unintelligent members

[Darth Wong]

OK, this is not a vote. I'm just interested in hearing what people have to say. Without naming any names, let us just say that some members of the board are not as well-educated or intelligent as others. Let us further say that they don't seem to be embarrassed about that. And finally, let us say that one of the aspects of the board in which we've always prided ourselves is that we have a low proportion of unrepentantly uneducated users, unlike places like, say, CBR.

Do you agree with these premises? If so, do you think that an excess of unrepentantly under-educated users is harmful to the board? I'm talking here about the sort of person who doesn't even know what the physics concept of momentum is, and when challenged in a debate which involves momentum, does not feel that he should educate himself because he doesn't care (yet still continues to argue). And if so, do you think something should be done about it? And finally, if the questions to all of the above are "yes", what would you suggest?

Added the [Discussion] header to the title - Rob the Titling Chairman

[RedImperator]

Any group over a certain size is going to accumulate some people who aren't just uneducated, but have no desire to be educated, unless that group has a strict membership screening process. That said, the board culture around here is very hard on those people. We don't have a lot, and those we do have spend a lot of their time being abused, especially in debate. For the truly stubborn ignoramuses, we have disciplinary procedures when they inevitably resort to the dishonest debate tactics they NEED to use in order to hang in a discussion. I don't really think there's much of a problem here, and whatever problem does exist is well contained.

On a side note, I think some distinction should be made between those who are ignorant and perversely proud of it, or too lazy to fix the situation, and those who recognize their limits. I'm not as smart as a lot of the people on this board, and even if I were, there are just too many experts on too many topics for me to hold my own in every conversation. The main difference, I think, is that those of us who recognize our limitations don't try to act as if we have none.

[Stravo]

There's a definate bias in your initial view of what constitues educated or intelligent when you use as the example of knowing what momentum is. I know quite a few collegaues in my office that couldn't tell you what momentum was but they can quote all manner of case law on arcane topics and many are seen as experts in their fields and they are quite intelligent and definately highly educated. Would this person then be an unintelligent poster?

I suppose one could argue that any kind of Grad degree can be seen as imparting some level of education higher than your standard BA or BS.
However I'm sure you and I have both encountered sterling examples of people with grad degrees that are an embarassment to the educational systems of our countries so that's certainly not a blanket rule either.

As an opposition to your point on Momentum or any of the sciences would you say that a poster who knew the works of William Shakespeare backward and forwards and was an expert on Rennaisance History was uneducated or unintelligent if he was clueless as to some scientific principles or concepts that he never sees come up in his life?

I'm not embarassed about my stunning lack of scientific knowledge but as an agreement with your other point I certainly have always listened and even solicited suggestions from the more scientifically inclined of our community.

All I wish to add to this discourse is that intelligence and education should be seen on a wider scale than just science. And if I misread your point please let me know.

[Master of Ossus]

Provided that these people do not attempt to dominate discussion over clearly more intelligent members then I have no problems with their presence. SD.net should be set up so that the draw is intelligent posters (which helps to pull in other intelligent posters). That is not to say that ONLY the educated may speak--merely that conversations should maintain a format such that intelligent members can get their points across. If it gets to the point where in a page of posts only a very few of the posts are intelligent, then we have a problem, but until then I don't see an issue.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Stravo, I think the problem Mike was mainly referring to is people who know nothing about a given discipline but are only to happy to jump into a debate involving it. There isn't any problem with people lacking expertise in this or that subject, as long as they recognize it and don't try to argue on it. Most smart people do that, they defer to people who know what's going on. You won't see Rob Wilson arguing with Mike about collision physics just as Mike isn't going to argue with Rob about small-unit tactics.

Mike gave a physics example (momentum) because that's his area of expertise and he gets quite a lot of very scientifically ignorant people who want to argue with him. Just turn that around on yourself; imagine some high schooler starts arguing with you over copyright law (or whatever! ), and everything he says is totally wrong but he just keeps on arguing and refuses to recognize how dumb he is. That's rather infuriating.

All that said, I'm not sure that this needs a more aggressive solution than what's going on. People who behave as described above usually get yelled at, humiliated, and ostracized, and if they keep it up they usually end up getting disciplined and eventually banned.

[Ghost Rider]

We have plenty of actions set for those who bluster like a moron thinking they know a subject and blatantly lie in it or grasp it so little it's embarassing what they are spewing. But there are some that escape because they spew very loudly only for a period of a few days per month on very select subjects and make it hell for other posters to particpate without having said moron leap in. I say we keep a better eye on those.

Using posts to make a lot of loud noises about incredible feats, and have no evidence except hyperbole or vague description. Then, never understand how what one says and what is really happening is two different things thus spamming, leave when they've lost their bluster.

On many occasions loads have done it, but when one makes it as the whole set of their board contribution are the ones that should be noted for disciplinary action.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I'm a joat, why do you think I stick with deductive reasoning and william of Oakham/Occam?


and in the last 48 hours I have proved it, I've reprogrammed computers at work, worked on my new car (actual a 14 year old car, but new to me), detected counterfeit IDs, and did some cooking.

[Sea Skimmer]

As long as we can tell them to 'STFU noob' I don't see a problume. If they get overly noisy then we have the hall of shame for dealing with the issue.

[Rob Wilson]

So far Titling as VI, or WPFT as a waring to others about theer debating tactics and the Hall of Shame, have been a good combination for dealing with willfully ignorant debators.

And now we have the Senate on top. If enough people get sick and tired of a poster for the offenses under discussion, they can let a Senator know and the Mods notified. Wheels turn and the Senate gets a new Ban Poll to vote on.

[Connor MacLeod]

I would point out that at least some of the "unintelligent members" do serve something of a purpose of a pressure valve - ie someone who can justifiably be yelled at for idiocy. I suspect without some of those people around we'd be more likely to turn on ourselves as a means of venting and arguing (hell we do that already!) And some of them (especially past ones) have proven immensely amusing. Remember, part of our creed is "mockery of stupid people."

Moreover, it kinda strikes me our current way of dealing with such morons works well enough for people who are bad enough as it is. If they get boring or no longer amusing, we simply get rid of them. In this way they never really constitute "harm", unless one refers to pride or ego. We have enough intelligent members so that such foolishness when found can be quickly rooted out (worse comes to worse, Mike just bans them And those that he doesn't ban sometimes leave simply because they get crushed (some of whom run off to other places and bitch about us, of course.)

In addition, I'd say having to deal with morons like that is also good training for people to become better debators - I'd certainly attribute my development as a debator to dealing with those sorts of clowns (and I've dealt with many!)

So really, I don't have a problem with them being around, at least at the levels we currently have.

[Connor MacLeod]

So far Titling as VI, or WPFT as a waring to others about theer debating tactics and the Hall of Shame, have been a good combination for dealing with willfully ignorant debators.

Don't you mean WTPF - as in "worthless Trolling Palm Fucker"? Or was that suppoed to mean "We Prefer French Toast?"

[Rob Wilson]

So far Titling as VI, or WPFT as a waring to others about theer debating tactics and the Hall of Shame, have been a good combination for dealing with willfully ignorant debators.

Don't you mean WTPF - as in "worthless Trolling Palm Fucker"? Or was that suppoed to mean "We Prefer French Toast?"

For 0305 I think I did pretty well with the typing there.

WPFT - Wisemen Prefer Forgiving Typo's.

[Lord Poe]

I'm not embarassed about my stunning lack of scientific knowledge but as an agreement with your other point I certainly have always listened and even solicited suggestions from the more scientifically inclined of our community.

I'm in agreement with Governor Stravo. I'm no science wiz, but I certainly respect those who are. In the past, I've brought my layman's knowledge to the table many times, and the science guys find many of my suggestions taking them onto whole new tracks to investigate a problem. (I'm of course, talking about sci-fi, not actual science!)

Think of Dr. McCoy suggesting something to Spock!

McCOY: "Well why don't you just gum up the works?"

SPOCK: "Fascinating!"

[Coyote]

The nice thing about this board is that there is quite a population of experts on a variety of subjects here. Anyone blowing smoke can and will be found, even if it does take awhile. The matter comes down to just how insulting they are with tier wild claims-- like the guy who tried to pass himself off as a F-22 pilot.

If the offense is just ignorance, or spouting off what "momma done tol' me" then we can be forgiving. The nature of their response to criticism will factor into this. But someone seriously trying to show off, bullshit, spam, take shit, or outright lie deserves no mercy. I mean, when I first showed up here I followed the same mistaken impression of many others-- that "theory" was like a "belief". It was ignorance, rather than a purposeful disregard or desire to obfuscate. Some people are able to stay in the trenches and learn something, others can't take the heat and run.

Custom titles ("branding" them) or perhaps even customs SIGs can and should be used for the obstinate ones that insist on clinging to their bullshit despite evidence of reality. The wholly useless ones will eventually face banning.

[CmdrWilkens]

My big though on the subject was that we really don't need to do anything about the "stupid and proud of it crowd." Sooner or later they will run afoul of PR.3, DR.5 or DR.6. When that time comes they can be dealt with and in the meantime they do serve the purpose of stress relief through flaming. I don't think we really need any policy beyond the already establish "back up your claims, back down, or get lost."

[Chris OFarrell]

I would agree with much of what has been said here.

Frankly, I would be worried if we started to drift too much towards the ivory tower model, where the population of the BBS becomes so exclusive that we loose fresh new ideas and scare away members, who may well shape up eventually to become valuable and contributing members of the community.

[Frank Hipper]

Repeated and willful ignorance deserves no mercy, whatsoever.
The internet is at your fingertips, you can at least inform yourself to a degree so you don't sound retarded, and easily.

Honest stupidity is a tragic fact of life, whether or not we should tolerate it would be best left to administerial fiat, I think.
Some stupidity is too painful to be exposed to, other stupidity can be somewhat amusing.
I personally would be comfortable leaving the decision on whether or not Member X is too stupid to remain in Mike's hands, without any imput from the staff or senate.