"90% of people are paste"

[jimbobsyouruncle]

I tihnk there is an underlying issue in that popularity often equals lowest common denominator produce.

Most read newspaper. The Sun / Mirror
Most watched tv. Soaps / reality TV / BB
Bestselling book. Da Vinci Code
Biggest music. Take That/Spice Girls
Magazines - probably Heat or something equally dire...
Movies - Adam Sandler anyone ? The latest Will Smith, Brad Pitt shallow Hollywood offering. and most definately not anything with subtitles...

Theres definately something in the concept that the thing that most people enjoy is likely NOT to the best thing available qualitywise in that area.  Maybe this 90% thicko concept is coupled in with this.

The real issue is that there's a concern with the dumbing down of society in genera. People who are trying to prove themselves in artistic or other public areas must feeling like they're constantly fighting against the masses who'd sooner read about the Beckham's, or listen to manufactured pop than something which might require a bit more mental stimulation.

The real question is why ?  Why do people read the Sun and not the Guardian/Telegraph ?  Why watch Soaps and BB instead of documentries. Is it really possible to be intellectually challanging and still appeal to the masses, or is that a trick only Carol Vordeman can pull off ?

[Labian Quest]

The real question is why ?  Why do people read the Sun and not the Guardian/Telegraph ?  Why watch Soaps and BB instead of documentries. Is it really possible to be intellectually challanging and still appeal to the masses, or is that a trick only Carol Vordeman can pull off ?

That's a good question, why would someone look at the Graud and say 'booorring'? I believe something is interesting if it has some sort of bearing or relevance to my own life, and if you accept the idea that everything affects everything and you're able to  see how something could affect your life - now or at some point in the future - then in theory, everything in life is interesting....except the rasslin' pay window.

[Jack Shaftoe]

Punch Drunk Love was fucking brilliant, mind.

[Dusty Gozongas]

It's no generalisation to say that 100% of people say and do stupid things without realising.

jimbobsyouruncle hit a huge nail on it's stupid head though.

One reason I don't really involve meself in the debate over in CC is that lazy and bad comedy is only a symptom of the real sickness. It's bad enough watching the vocabulary, outlook and common sense of people moving backwards as a whole, never mind focussing on the ills of poor comedy. But there's my angst there. Boring really. Why fucking bother?

On a side note, somebody mentioned about trolly comments on youtube and the suchlike on the previous page and wasn't convinced of the point of it. I'd like to think there's enough sarcastic frustration in much of it waiting for a critical-mass. Aghhhgh. The angst! The angst! I'm soooo sorrryyy!  Sometimes it's easier to troll. IMHO. E&OE.

[Mr. Analytical]

Yeah and Smith's latest film is supposed to be quite good and not just him going "Aw Hell Naw!" as things blow up.

I'm reminded of this little gem, which I'm surprised is so unknown outside of RPG circles :

http://sean.chittenden.org/humor/www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html

One of the geek social fallacies is the idea that people who are interested in mainstream stuff like wearing fashionable clothes and being at the right club are somehow stupid.

Not true.

Every human has limited amounts of processing bandwidth to their days.  You can only devote so much thought to things.  While there are ways around this problem such as by educating yourself and therefore allowing you to access ideas stored in memory rather than having to render them from scratch, you only have so much think power in you.

Now while I might choose to spend that processing power on cognitive neuro-psychology (Mmmmmm... Metzinger) and spanish surrealists, I'm choosing not to spend that time on working out the best ensemble for when I go out tonight or working out whether being friends with such and such makes me cooler than I am or working out which club to be seen at or even thinking about the growing shitstorm that is big brother.

But some people do spend their bandwidth on such things.

That doesn't make them stupid, it just means that they have different priorities to me.  I'd be as lost choosing which club to be seen at as they would be in working out the links between Metzinger's concept of the self and Hume's.  

So "90% of people are stupid" generally means that 90% of people don't have the priorities and the interests of the 10% who consider themselves intellectuals.

Having said that, I'd argue that that 90% lead lives so empty that they're scarcely worth living.  Your average multiplex scum have lives less rewarding than those of African refugees and their lives are mostly eating gruel, pooing and wiping flies off their faces.

But those are just my values... YMMV.


Oh, and as for the teenagers on YouTube that's because of the sheer complexity of our system of social interaction.  Think about it... as a teenager you've barely gotten used to the idea of expressing yourself and having people understand you verbally and now you're expected to be able to express yourself conversationally through written means with people who don't know you at all.  It's only to be expected that they shorten words and lash out with insults... they can't quite cope with it.  Our culture has grown massively more complex and subtle over the last 30 years but we still expect people to be mature and fully functioning at the same age.  Not going to happen.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

The real question is why ?  Why do people read the Sun and not the Guardian/Telegraph ?  Why watch Soaps and BB instead of documentries.

Yeah, that's the uncomfortable question that still has to be addressed, no matter how insistent you are that the 'Most people are thick' statement is nonsense.

Why does Radio 3 get such small listening figures while bland commercial staions get massive ones? 'Because most people are thick' might be the brutal/unsayable/snobbish answer, but is it an unfair one?

[Banana Woofwoof]

*Talking balls*

[Dusty Gozongas]

Hey there Mr. Analytical. You know what? I think you're a smashing bloke.

[Mr. Analytical]

Hey there Mr. Analytical. You know what? I think you're a smashing bloke.

 *narrows eyes suspiciously*

 Why?

[Dusty Gozongas]

Why?

Your eruditeness, in the main. Is that a problem?

[Mr. Analytical]

Not if you're not being sarky :-)  In fact, it would be something to be encouraged... hurrah!

[Brutus Beefcake]

http://www.shoutfile.com/v/gSfSsCpR/Why_People_Believe_Americans_Are_Stupid

People are thick as pigshit, and I don't just say that so I can feel smart, I hate that it's so fucking hard to find people  I can even talk to without having to spell shit out for them or end up having to explain why exactly David Icke isn't worth listening to.

And I saw earlier today that Derek Acorah has another huge arena tour even though he's repeatedly been shown to be a fraud.

[Neil]

People are thick as pigshit, and I don't just say that so I can feel smart, I hate that it's so fucking hard to find people  I can even talk to without having to spell shit out for them or end up having to explain why exactly David Icke isn't worth listening to.

I have a problem with music as none of my friends are as obsessive about it, and none of them are as interested in it in general, therefore they tend to stick to areas that I either really dislike or consider deeply average.  And it's frustrating, it's even more frustrating with girlfriends as I largely try to keep my mouth shut in that case and suffer in silence.  But that's just something you have to deal with...there are very valid points that have been raised about how people actually define stupidity, and if it's as simple as 'people who I share nothing in common with' then...that's not good, really.  

And I saw earlier today that Derek Acorah has another huge arena tour even though he's repeatedly been shown to be a fraud.

That touches on a huge area though, I know people who believe in psychics and have gotten in debt through phoning them on premium rate numbers.  But I understand their need.  I don't hate the sort of people who like Derek Acorah, I skip straight to the source and hate Derek himself.  However, I think he's more of a pantomime thing, I doubt there are many fans who actually take him seriously.  Isn't that ghost show of his largely tongue in cheek?

And I'd just like to add that this is a good example of why people need to start new threads, as this was a tiny nugget of a chat int he CBB thread, and now it's been dragged out into the open, I've found lots of interesting stuff that's really got me thinking.

And another thing, related to my first paragraph up there...I overheard someone at a party recently mentioning The Bonzos and made a beeline for him, and virtually orgasmed when he made reference to the Silver Apples later on.  It's a shit state of affairs that people with the same interests seem to be thin on the gropund, but I would never think less of someone just because they like shit music.

[Brutus Beefcake]

Perhaps my defenition of stupidity is broader than most, but what about this culture of ignorance we live in?  Look at all the magazines based on what Jade Goody wearing or for the men which mindless bint is taking her top off.  People will even attack you for using big words, caring about actual issues or taking an interest in culture beyond sport and reality tv.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

It's not lack of intelligence I have a problem with (there's no crime in being dim, and I'm dimmer than most - you should see some of my bridges), but contentment with bland stuff. The unwillingness to explore things outside your comfort zone in favour of a quiet life.

To use the radio example again, I can't understand why on earth people listen to ditchwater-dull daytime music radio when Radio 3's only one stop down the dial. I can understand peple actively hating Radio 3, I can understand them thinking that another station is much better, but I can't understand why they wouldn't be curious about trying it - to me, that's an utterly baffling state of mind.

[Neil]

Perhaps my defenition of stupidity is broader than most, but what about this culture of ignorance we live in?  Look at all the magazines based on what Jade Goody wearing or for the men which mindless bint is taking her top off.  People will even attack you for using big words, caring about actual issues or taking an interest in culture beyond sport and reality tv.

This last page or two, and your post specifically, have got me wondering if the '90% of people are stupid'-style cliches are actually generally driven by a sense of social exclusion.  

Yes, I would love a world where everyone knew how fab Duke Ellington and Mingus and Yo La Tengo were, and how Seinfeld is the greatest comedy ever, and how Bike by Syd is actually a truly amazing piece of music, and not just an old racket with crap lyrics.  I mention Bike there as I cleared a room recently by sticking it on, ha, usually I choose a bit more wisely but I was dying to hear it.  Anyway, Bike is an interesting one because it's the perfect example of something that induces what I call the aural gag reflex - and this is entirely applicable to the wider discussion here, not just music...  Anyway, a lot of people just find certain things confrontational or strange, and don't like that feeling.  Or rather, they're not used to it, and I think that societal pressures mean that they react with a sense of irritation/revulsion rather than a sense of curiosity/delight.  I'm fascinated and deeply in love with noise when it meets music in a post-VU way, but I can definitely understand why some people would just think 'fuck me, what a racket.'  

Most people aren't stupid, but I think most people probably react how they think society expects them to.  So a lot of people read The Sun simply because it was always in the house when they were growing up, and they feel that they should read it.  I mean, I've said on here before that I was deeply in love with radio as a medium when I was growing up, yet I didn't hear a station like Radio 4 until I was probably around 20.  It didn't occur to me that there'd be anything there for me, really.  And given the amount of jazz and world music on Radio 3, I would have killed to have known about it before the internet.  

I don't think it occurs to most people to shake off these kind of class/societal expectations, because they lead perfectly happy and fulfilling lives at it is.  You have to also consider the mockery and indignation you can face when you try and leave your pre-determined path and hop onto another, or make your own.  These are all factors.

[Brutus Beefcake]

Most people aren't stupid, but I think most people probably react how they think society expects them to.

That just makes me hate them more, it's like Jade pretending to be utterly moronic because that's what people expect.  At least genuinely thick people can excused somewhat.

It's not lack of intelligence I have a problem with (there's no crime in being dim, and I'm dimmer than most - you should see some of my bridges), but contentment with bland stuff. The unwillingness to explore things outside your comfort zone in favour of a quiet life.

I think complacency and stupidity often go hand in hand, in fact I think complacency is worse.  I don't think I'm perfect (far from it) but at least have a desire to better myself, to learn about things and expand my horizons where as most are happy just to be "real", "salt of the earth" types who "tell it like it is" and all that shite.

[Smackhead Kangaroo]

I'd rather say most people don't have to be stupid. There are defintely quite a few people who would go up a lot in my estimations if they would just loose their social shackles and just stop being content to live a life where your brain is on autopilot. I'd definitely say that these people presently reside in the state of stupidity.

[Neil]

That just makes me hate them more, it's like Jade pretending to be utterly moronic because that's what people expect.  At least genuinely thick people can excused somewhat.

It's also applicable to the good stuff too, in other words it also causes upper-class toffs to pick up The Times and listen to Radio 4.  So it's not all bad, is it?  And it's a huge thing, and I think it's only through writing that post that I've come to understand it.  I mean, I think we're talking about stuff that's ingrained in us from our caveman days, here, so I think I can understand why people either don't consider changing, or aren't interested in doing so.  I think I'll hit the sack now, as I'm about to try and make some utterly ridiculous argument which revolves around the way men urinate!

I think complacency and stupidity often go hand in hand, in fact I think complacency is worse.  I don't think I'm perfect (far from it) but at least have a desire to better myself, to learn about things and expand my horizons where as most are happy just to be "real", "salt of the earth" types who "tell it like it is" and all that shite.

There you go: "most", what makes you say most?

[actwithoutwords]

Anyway, Bike is an interesting one because it's the perfect example of something that induces what I call the aural gag reflex - and this is entirely applicable to the wider discussion here, not just music...  Anyway, a lot of people just find certain things confrontational or strange, and don't like that feeling.  Or rather, they're not used to it, and I think that societal pressures mean that they react with a sense of irritation/revulsion rather than a sense of curiosity/delight.  I'm fascinated and deeply in love with noise when it meets music in a post-VU way, but I can definitely understand why some people would just think 'fuck me, what a racket.'  

That's brilliant, a proper crystallisation of something I've been trying to work out for a while now. I think we all have lines of how far we are willing to challenge our preconconceived notions of how things should be. We all have finite amounts of what could be called courage to explore things that we don't find comfortable. The idea of a 10 minute ambient instrumental would cause deep revulsion to a lot of people who are used to the clichés of 3 minute pop songs. Whereas I am comfortable with and enjoy the clichés of the ambient instrumental genre, but Wagner's Ring Cycle would probably scare the shit out of me and would take a lot of effort for me to understand or appreciate. We are all very lazy in many ways. I have been meaning to buy Trout Mask Replica for about 6 years now, but whenever I pick it up, I see something that attracts me a bit more and will probably be less difficult for me to enjoy. But on the other hand, I will eventually buy it. Whereas a lot of people wouldn't see the point of even wanting to buy something you think you might not like in the first place.
The question then I think is whether some people have more courage to take themselves out of their comfort zone than others. Or if we all have roughly comparable amounts of it, but apply it to different areas of our lives. Though I fear I am just paraphrasing points made already here.

People may not want to listen to Radio 3 or read the Graud because they just don't think music is important enough part of their lives to waste their energy listening to something they have an instinctive revulsion to, or because they don't see what relevance politics has to their lives. And a lot of people really really don't. The soundbite coverage one gets in the Sun is enough to have an opinion on something in a pub conversation.
The other massive variable here is upbringing. If you're in a Guardian reading household that has Radio 3 on all the time, it's not going to be as much of an effort for you, when you grow up. There is a parallel system of cultural privilege to economic privilege. Though they don't really line up.
I was brought up in a middle class household that never had any major money problems, but was fairly mainstream culture-wise. So when I grew up and met people who had absorbed a lot of ambient knowledge and experience of literature, classical music etc it was all very alien to me, and requires an effort for me that it wouldn't for others.

Well that was all very rambly and incoherent wasn't it. I suppose the conclusion is that there is a very unfortunate system of constant reproduction of intellectual and cultural inequalities. Curiosity is a luxury, and involves far more effort and energy for lots of people than those privileged in that sense give credit for.


(Oh, and arqaqa, erudition is far more graceful than eruditeness. You fucking 90 per center.)

[Brutus Beefcake]

It's also applicable to the good stuff too, in other words it also causes upper-class toffs to pick up The Times and listen to Radio 4.  So it's not all bad, is it?  And it's a huge thing, and I think it's only through writing that post that I've come to understand it.  I mean, I think we're talking about stuff that's ingrained in us from our caveman days, here, so I think I can understand why people either don't consider changing, or aren't interested in doing so.  I think I'll hit the sack now, as I'm about to try and make some utterly ridiculous argument which revolves around the way men urinate!

But we're not cavepeople anymore, we're supposed to be above this sort of herd mentality!

There you go: "most", what makes you say most?

Well obviously it's not an idea that can be easily proven with statistics other than the popularity of the LCD crap that's sold to people.

[Borboski]

Clearly, claiming 90% of people in argument isn't very subtle is it?  It's also risky as it means there's a 9 in 10 chance that you (the speaker) are one of those thickies, and so the listener should view with extreme suspicion.

But on the broader question of people's abilities...  I'm quite cycnical these days about people's abilities to think rationally.  We like to think that we are all jolly clever and sensible creatures, but I don't think as humans we're wired up to be that way.

Man seems to have a natural tendency to causation.  The 'why, daddy, why?' question.  David Hume wrote on this - when one event follows another, our natural human reaction is to assume that the first event causes the other.  This, clearly, is reasonable and necessary to survival of the species, but we do much more.   How many people argue from anecdote, "well, my nan was treated dreadfully by the NHS?", or "I know someone you used homeopathy and it worked?".



If we were accept this heirarcy of need bobbins (I'm probably due someone coming along and telling me that this has been widely discredited), what we're saying is that in order to act rationally, and healthily, and productively, consistently and conciously (and those two latter qualities are what we rarely do), then we need to have met all or most of these lower needs.  And how many of us across the globe have these satisfactions?  

I don't think 90% of people are stupid, but I think that the majority of people are hard-wired for irrationalism; knee-jerk reaction; to conceive of identity on a single description, rather than picture shared and multiple identities; or to value those people they see rather than those people they don't see.

So I'm starting to think that truly moral, productive people, are actually 'ill' or 'damaged', in the way we'd normally view them.  Somethings wired up in their brains which means that they are able to take a step back.  Take the philosophical premise of 1 child (your own) tied to a rail way line, and 1 other child.  I think we'd all agree that you're justified in saving your own.  But I think most people would agree (Mrs B certainly does) that no matter how many are tied to other track, you are always justified in saving your child.  This is just selfishness and a failure of the imagination, or empathy to consider the consequences for the, say, thousands that die.    This is all a bit of horse play, examples like that I mean.  But in a manner, this is the issue with the Ruth Kelly private school issue, and politics.  So many accept that Ruth, as a mum, "has to do what's best for her children".  But as a politician we demand that she takes an overview, and suppresses a selfishness that many of us applaud.

[Borboski]

Most people aren't stupid, but I think most people probably react how they think society expects them to.  So a lot of people read The Sun simply because it was always in the house when they were growing up, and they feel that they should read it.  I mean, I've said on here before that I was deeply in love with radio as a medium when I was growing up, yet I didn't hear a station like Radio 4 until I was probably around 20.  It didn't occur to me that there'd be anything there for me, really.  And given the amount of jazz and world music on Radio 3, I would have killed to have known about it before the internet.  

I don't think it occurs to most people to shake off these kind of class/societal expectations, because they lead perfectly happy and fulfilling lives at it is.  You have to also consider the mockery and indignation you can face when you try and leave your pre-determined path and hop onto another, or make your own.  These are all factors.

Very true, Neil.

My worry is that we actually need to inculcate this sort of thinking, in order to keep people in jobs like supermarket tills, or in factories.  You know, the old "what they don't know, won't hurt them".

And I also wonder whether as a society we are less intellectual than other societies.  It certainly feels we this could be the case.  Maybe I'm being terribly conservative, but it's as though there is this wallowing in the sordid and flippant.  And the worry relates to my first point - my grandparents were working class, but read a serious newspaper and literature, like lots of the older generation... and look how socialy inequal we were.  Although that generations' kids did see a golden age of social mobility.  The less access the poor have to ideas, the less likely it is that they'll get off the estates and into the good jobs.

[Borboski]

So insightful and earthshattering he said it twice.

[Neil]

But we're not cavepeople anymore, we're supposed to be above this sort of herd mentality!

Nyeh, you're taking such an astonishingly black and white view on this issue, without ever trying to see things from the other side.  I mean, I'm talking about impulses that must be built into us on a genetic level.  Not only that, but the kind of pack mentality which I'm referring to is also something that's enfoced during our most formative years.  I would think it doesn't occur to a lot of people to shake off such shackles partly because they just don't really see them.  

On the caveman thing, I read a theory once that babies have a vice-like grip because they had to grab onto our big hairy bodies as we were swinging through the trees in our pre-caveman days.  I don't know if it's true or not, but I think it absolutely has to be the case that we still have a lot of traits built into us from that far back.

[actwithoutwords]

I'm not an expert but as far as I know, the theory is that we haven't evolved since the Stone Age. Which makes sense because that's not very long ago on an evolutionary timescale.
It also explains a lot, such as why we instinctively fear snakes and stuff more than say, a live wire, despite the fact that we know that the latter is more likely to kill us.
Also, our predeliction for fats and sugars is because those things were fairly rare in our caveman days, so we needed a strong urge to get as much of them as possible. We are stuck with those mechanisms now unfortunately, despite the now artificial abundance of those substances.
Sorry, off topic...

[Borboski]

I'm not an expert but as far as I know, the theory is that we haven't evolved since the Stone Age. Which makes sense because that's not very long ago on an evolutionary timescale.

I was discussing this last night.  Mrs B was telling me about some oft-quoted research whereby kittens were placed in dark room for the first three months of their lives.

When they were let into the light there were blind.  There eyes were biologically sound, but the connection between the technical bit, and the cognitive bit of the mind hadn't worked.   This links into how important the first 12 months are (after that period your brain grows at a much, much slower rate), and about how the sense of 'self' is something that we construct.  It's the same reason why abused children don't demonstrate pain (and which leads to ethical questions such as if animals don't have a sense of self, is it then ok to execute them?   But then why not mentally disabled people?)

ANYWAY... this got me thinking that our sense of self, and our ability to be rational, is in all-likelihood a by-product of evolution.  By which I mean, 10,000 years ago (fuck nose if that's right) man stopped developing - our brains had done all the adapting in order to live in the primitive world.

But then all of a sudden, by chance we started to succeed against the elements, and we started to get hold of more food, and build shelters which children could use and improve, and so on.

All of a sudden, due to the new found security, meant that those first 12 months in which previously nothing happened, were now filled with proper parenting.  E.g. the psychology of parenting classes focusing upon giving children that sense of self.  Parents of healthy babies, when put in front of a mirror, go "WOW! Who's that?".  Or when they fall over, act panicked, which in turn teaches the child that they are hurt - and so they give the emotional-cognitive response, not just the physical response.  And so, now these 12 months were filled with self-development, and we started dreaming, and imagining (and of course, inventing God in the face of other causal dilemnas).

Does any of that make sense?

[Gamma Ray]

YMMV

Indeed. Out of interest where did you pick that phrase up from?

[Clinton Morgan]

use the radio example again, I can't understand why on earth people listen to ditchwater-dull daytime music radio when Radio 3's only one stop down the dial.

And of course when Classic FM came on the scene "everybody" started tuning in which lead me to think, " Hang on! Radio 3's been going on for years and most of its output during the day is of an orchestral/chamber/quartet/duet for pianoforte and cor anglais nature why didn't you listen to that?" Of course pre-Classic FM if you suggested listening to Radio 3 to its target audience you'd get the reply, " But it's a boring station that just plays classical music."

I'm loathe to say "Humph! The fucking morons!" about the general public because I've notice people who have said similar end up saying something stupid themselves. Unfortunately I have humphed from time to time and inevitably dismissed the vast population of the United Kingdom followed by asserting a load of nonsense of immense stupidity which makes me a hypocrite.

Whilst we're on the subject  I'm reminded of Stephen Fry's comments on 'Ulysses'.

[Borboski]

I thought my posts in this thread were EXCELLENT by the way, I put some proper thought into them and everything, you PEASANTS!!!!

Has anyone read anything by Daniel Dennett?  I think he has a book on some of the things I touch upon...