Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 01:15:16 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Clever stuff for stupid people

Started by Blue Jam, July 18, 2019, 06:06:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Quote from: shh on July 21, 2019, 03:33:18 PM
String theory, or is that stupid stuff for clever people

No, your thinking of Silly String Theory

Twed

An amateurish interest in quantum physics and then the subsequent lecturing of everybody on quantum physics is definitely a characteristic I've seen in multiple lardy blowhards.

easytarget

Quote from: Twed on July 21, 2019, 09:10:40 PMI've seen in multiple lardy blowhards.
Probably a characteristic of most of the eggheads on eggheads

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: José on July 21, 2019, 06:46:27 PM
it's clearly marketed at the same people jeremy kyle was, i.e sneering middle class cunts seeking comparitive affirmation of their superiority complices... but this time they're also horny AF and wanking themselves feverish. i don't regard the target audience it as "dumb" persay, i consider them subhuman worms and prime candidates for forced sterilization.

There is an apex between those seeking superiority through the abasement of others and those who aspire to the superiority of being on such programs.  They are both primative self-involved sensations.  Primative feelings are good, essential even as long as they are recognised as such, there is a point when viewing becomes objectification, when participation become exploitation. 

I am much more in favour of criticising systems than the individuals that are victim to them, hence why I'm saying this is an issue of bad logic.  It plays into the hands of these producers to silence critics on the basis of some imagined inferiority complex.  Like I said "I'm lovin it".  It is a tagline purposely created to counter the bad press that McDonalds was getting back in the early-mid 2000s. It is there to stop criticism by diverting attention away from the companies questionable behaviour and onto emotional individualism, an attack on McDonalds is attack on individual taste.

Trash TV is worse on a technical level (I mean the idea that there are no bad messages to young women and men in the Kardashians or Love Island is ridiculous).  There are psychological theories regarding the influence of violence in video games/video nasties that are theoretically sound (Cumberbatch's Bobo Doll experiment etc) however then tend to not work for video games/video nastie for one particular reason.  They are easily discernible from reality. There are some risks to repetition of behaviour in the young hence in part why we have certificate ratings.

No such thing exists for reality TV, which aims to portray "real life" making it hard to discern whether behaviours are appropriate or acceptable.  It is insidious, it slips into our conscious and subconscious minds all the more easily with enough exposure.  So what you are left with is the impression that people can be treated in rude and humiliating ways, that the world is survival of fittest and unquestioning belief is paramount to success.  It isn't clever to watch these programs not because they are trash and snobs should look down on people that watch them, it is because they are anti-intellectual by design. 

Often apologists will argue what about sport and other entertainment? This was my other point conveniently reducing everything down so that they are the same for the purpose of an argument is "stupid", football has many atrocious aspects to it but they are not "the same" as the atrocious aspects of say The Apprentice or Benefits Street (there was a wealth of study on this in the 70s and 80s Bob the communication theorists - McCluhan & Postman amongst others) .  It isn't an argument to say I don't like X, and you like Y therefore, X and Y are equal.  This is simply seeking parity in your emotions, specifically the anxiety/guilt about watching something with the assumed anxiety/guilt about watching something else.  This is completely different and does nothing to address how entertainment can be used to progress nefarious political agenda or how rich people can asset strip football clubs.  To look at things this way results can only result in a draw and agreement to disagree, your shame versus my shame..."I'm lovin It".     

Without the ability to have arguments on qualitative aspects of things you are handing over untold power to people with some of the most powerful levers to shape public consciousness and in modern times they only seem to get pulled up when someone gets hurt or kills themselves.


Zetetic

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on July 21, 2019, 10:41:39 PM
There are psychological theories regarding the influence of violence in video games/video nasties that are theoretically sound (Cumberbatch's Bobo Doll experiment etc) however then tend to not work for video games/video nastie for one particular reason.  They are easily discernible from reality.
To pick up on a very specific point here on violence in video games - the vast majority of violent video games present violence in a very specific context with fairly specific justifications. Violent video games aiming at versimilitude, in particular.

Whether or not these are easily discernible from 'reality', they're certainly depicting something different to your mundane life.

(The strongest counterexample of any great popularity is probably your GTAs and the like, but even these aren't really even up to Postal-level.)

Perhaps the sensible questions aren't really about whether video games engender violence in general - since they don't tend to portray undirected or randomly directed violence in day-to-day life - but about what they encourage regarding militarism and the perception of the acceptability of violence in certain situations or as justified for certain types of disagreements.

(I think actually this echoes your views on reality TV, really.)

Bennett Brauer

Quote from: Blue Jam on July 21, 2019, 01:56:37 PM
Ha! Fair point, but I was thinking of Stephen Fry's quote about how he's "a stupid person's idea of a clever person" when I started this thread.

Quote from: Andy147 on July 21, 2019, 05:59:51 PM
Has Stephen Fry said that about himself? When said about him, it's usually attributed to Julie Burchill (though it apparently dates back to at least the 30s when Elizabeth Bowen said it about Aldous Huxley).

It was William Donaldson in his Dictionary of National Celebrity (2005).

easytarget





Johnny Yesno

Quote from: Zetetic on July 21, 2019, 11:51:04 PM
Perhaps the sensible questions aren't really about whether video games engender violence in general - since they don't tend to portray undirected or randomly directed violence in day-to-day life - but about what they encourage regarding militarism and the perception of the acceptability of violence in certain situations or as justified for certain types of disagreements.

If nothing else, the more militaristic video games encourage weapons designers to gamify actual killing.

tourism

it's fashionable now to embrace low culture and to ask people, very aggressively, what their problem is if they turn their noses up; but stupid people are really the best of us all hands down.



chveik

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on July 21, 2019, 03:01:15 PM
You can consider this also a reply to Sponk.  I've had this argument with you before BJ it is demonstratively bollocks what you have just said.

The act of not watching something, as you seemingly need/are to imply, doesn't make you make you "clever".  If you are going to define clever as general intelligence i.e. broad understanding of the world, time and the materials that make it up then watching shit repetitive reality TV is clearly going to occupy time when you could be learning other things than salacious visualised tabloids.

I've no idea what kind interpretation you have of intelligence.  If it is largely genetic deterministic model that assumes intellectual components are fixed and separate from their environment then you could argue that interactions with some materials and lack of interactions with other materials have no impact on being "clever".

That would be against all evidence that our brains have evolved to learn from our environment.  That means environments do have measurable impacts on how we think, behave and what some people might define as intelligence.

Your argument (and sponk) is that taste is relativistic and therefore not subject assertions of stupidity.  This paradox of relativism (are tastes are relative) and realism (ah but the taste that of criticising someones taste is stupider) is basically the argument of Jordan Peterson.  Stop it.

Of course everyone wants to argue the things they like/enjoy are <insert superlative here>, furthermore they don't want to feel ashamed for them.  It is an argument between the objective rational brain (PFC) and your party time hedonistic lizard brain (nucleus accumbens to precise).

You don't argue that Love Island is shit because people are stupid that watch it, it is shit because of its qualities that make it up.  "Stupid people" (if you like) tend to be less critical/analytical of their environments or the things they consume, that is the relationship that is generally argued for when people say Love Island is shit for cunts.

You might well enjoy Love Island and recognise it is shit for cunts, good, this is called insight and it protects you (and the people that have it) from their environments (it is a learnt ability).  This does not make Love Island the program qualitatively different, that is simply a mode of your experience of it.

Or you can ignore everything I'm saying and never ever have an opinion on anything ever again because everything is relative and every opinion regardless of the qualities or lack of, in them are equally valid.



PS.  I'm no Nietzschean and this doesn't mean I think you are only "clever" if you do suddoku and read Tolstoy every weekday, but this defending of shit things because "i'm loving it" has to stop.  That is not the same as saying people cannot love shit things (my point re: insight).

Parklife!

Blue Jam

Quote from: chveik on July 22, 2019, 09:34:11 AM
Parklife!

Yeah- chill out, Trenter!

For the record I have never defended Love Island and it isn't a show that appeals to me at all. I always thought The Jeremy Kyle Show was horrible and I'm glad it is gone.


TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Zetetic on July 21, 2019, 11:51:04 PM
Perhaps the sensible questions aren't really about whether video games engender violence in general - since they don't tend to portray undirected or randomly directed violence in day-to-day life - but about what they encourage regarding militarism and the perception of the acceptability of violence in certain situations or as justified for certain types of disagreements.

(I think actually this echoes your views on reality TV, really.)

Nothing I disagree with here Z and great point about militarism.

Also it is built around a model of goal orientated moving images that are hyper-stimulating to our brains and therefore risk building addiction (and presumably to theory this is especially pertinent to younger brains that are still developing and structuring brain architecture - I have to say though I imagine good quality research is difficult to carry out in this area).  There are also lots of benefits from playing computer games, arguably more than passive TV viewing.

The point is that to say whether something is good or bad requires a discussion about its qualities, those that are intrinsic and those that are reasonably considered to be externally influenced.  Not about whether someone feels ashamed of engaging with it.

This is obvious, it is knowledge that we hopefully gain from successfully emerging through adolescence.  I'll just state again making people feel they cannot criticise the qualities and impacts of "things" even if presented via entertainment is a bad thing and welcomed by companies largely trying to sell you things (obviously the right wing media surge is also a concern).  We are now said to be in what is called the long adolescence, which is handy because adolescents are the group most heavily marketed to, there might be some problems with this........if you think about it (or not in some cases PARKLIFE!).

Icehaven

Quote from: tourism on July 22, 2019, 06:57:54 AM
it's fashionable now to embrace low culture and to ask people, very aggressively, what their problem is if they turn their noses up;

I find the exact opposite, people will mention that they watch something like Love Island or whatever and immediately apologise and/or justify it in virtually the same breath, having obviously pre-empted judgement. Persons thick as pigswill and persons genius watch reality TV, and persons with an iota of common sense know what you watch on TV says precisely zero about your intelligence (whatever that means anyway).

Clownbaby

#138
Don't know if someone else said it but Deadpool, and if someone else did say it then I agree

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Blue Jam on July 22, 2019, 09:42:50 AM
Yeah- chill out, Trenter!

For the record I have never defended Love Island and it isn't a show that appeals to me at all. I always thought The Jeremy Kyle Show was horrible and I'm glad it is gone.

You seem more concerned about defending your tastes than considering why the argument that you are not willing to judge people who watch these programs holds any water.  You seem to be coming to it from purely a position of snobs you know that say things like "sportsball".  There is a wider point that I'm trying to explain.

I came at this via Sponks reply insinuating that all tastes are equivalent regarding stupidity, apart from his/her taste for calling people stupid that think a certain way.

It is a reverse-Peterson - relativism doesn't exist apart from my relativist views or in Sponks (and seemingly yours) realism doesn't exist apart from my realist views.  There is a paradox in there and one that you seemed to begin pondering. 

I'm trying to argue that taste/subjective experience has nothing to do with whether something is good/bad/useful/efficient/harmful. That assessment is beyond purely the experience of the individual and the world is not dependant on an individuals experience (which I know when say like that is obvious but that is the shocking fact that via marketing etc... people are drawn into not believing it*).

PS i'm perfectly chilled btw just progressing the conversation that is all.

*This requires much more explanation than I am giving here we are talking conscious and subconscious beliefs .

Blue Jam

Quote from: icehaven on July 22, 2019, 10:18:54 AMPersons thick as pigswill and persons genius watch reality TV, and persons with an iota of common sense know what you watch on TV says precisely zero about your intelligence (whatever that means anyway).

Yep.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: icehaven on July 22, 2019, 10:18:54 AM
Ppersons with an iota of common sense know what you watch on TV says precisely zero about your intelligence (whatever that means anyway).

Not sure if you are kidding or not but there again seems to be a lot of anxiety about peoples intelligence being under threat.  It sounds a bit like how people don't like vegetarians because they feel threatened at being perceived as bad for eating meat.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Blue Jam on July 22, 2019, 10:46:17 AM
Yep.

great circle jerk but really?!

It is true because "common sense".

Has this thread some how slipped into the Legend Gary thread??

Blue Jam

Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on July 21, 2019, 08:36:23 PM
EH? If you're not in the slightest bit interested in football, why would you want to sit in an atmosphere where everyone is avidly watching the football?

That's fine and perfectly understandable- I'm not a big football fan myself and often seek out pubs with no TV screens. It's the sneering use of the term sportsball I object to.

I once got into an argument with a friend over this- she was wondering aloud why people take The sportsball so seriously when they could be paying attention to important stuff like Brexit. I'd argue that 1. People who like sport actually do realise it's not important in the grand scheme of things (and get annoyed at themselves for taking it seriously), they're not all meatheads, they just enjoy a bit of escapism, and 2. I personally find BBC Question Time to be so mindless these days that it's unwatchable, and most coverage of Brexit makes me want to eat my own eyes and ears.

Mr Jam will watch any and all sport and he's a lot smarter than I am. I have friends who will post on Facebook about how not interested in the World Cup/Superb Owl/sportsball they are but will then babble on about Game Of Thrones and Star Wars and superhero films. It's the sneering superiority complex plus a lack of self-awareness that annoys me.

The Lurker


Blue Jam

What the hell are you on about, Trenter?

Hmmm, maybe I really am just a stupid person...

sponk

Quote from: Blue Jam on July 21, 2019, 01:56:37 PM
Ha! Fair point, but I was thinking of Stephen Fry's quote about how he's "a stupid person's idea of a clever person" when I started this thread. That's why I deliberately avoided nominating Stephen Fry- he seems a lot more self-aware than the likes of Gervais, Dawkins and Sam Harris.

As for "because of their taste in anything", as an example of that I'd count the sort of person who thinks not watching Love Island or not knowing much about the Kardashians makes them clever. Not watching/knowing something is not an achievement, and it's not a sign of intelligence or superiority. I'd say that actually falls into the category of clever stuff for stupid people.

I have never seen Game Of Thrones, but we have now reached the point where people saying "I have never seen Game Of Thrones" is even more annoying than people who have seen Game Of Thrones and can't stop banging on about it, so I have stopped saying it... gawd, this is a minefield...

Yeah I was just teasing, myself mostly. I don't think anyone on this thread is stupid, and I knew you weren't being completely serious when starting it either.

That said though, years ago I was listening to Armando on the radio and he made a comment about how "people are idiots" because the Vicar of Dibley was so popular. My mum, who is a big fan of VoD, and not the smartest person in the world (she did produce me after all) got very upset about it, so I guess this kind of thing, even tongue in cheek is a pet peeve of mine.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Blue Jam on July 22, 2019, 10:59:11 AM
What the hell are you on about, Trenter?

Hmmm, maybe I really am just a stupid person...

I give up. 

Yes people who watch Love Island on average are really intelligent and those that don't agree are the real stupid heads.

Forget about all the other stuff that might have been an exploration of that and pass me the lobotomising device.


TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Chollis on July 22, 2019, 11:11:40 AM
Chill bro!

No it's the only way I can assimilate, hopefully they will let me keep the piece of brain they cut out.