Mans Intelligence

Do we give enough credit for human kinds intelligence?
I believe we do not! it seems to me that governments, well meaning people, and some not so well meaning are trying to protect us from ourselves as if we were little toddlers who couldn't think for ourselves or understand whats going on around us. Quite honestly I resent this attitude!
I believe that if we assumed the intelligence of man instead of assuming his stupidity we would have a better class of human being simply because in assuming mans intelligence we would hold him to a higher standard and hold him accountable for his actions instead of coddling him and dumbing him down!

How do you see it?

Mark Avery

Ok I left my Abrams tank at home ;)

This topic is very personal to me because I have 2 little daughters. One is now 3 weeks and the other 2 years and 3 months.
I am one of those parents who tries not to be overprotective because learning is most effective by making mistakes, so I let her make 'safe' mistakes.
For example, as soon as she started trying to climb into the car seat herself I let her do it. If she fell, so be it. That is the kind of thing I let her figure out for herself.

Then there are things that are more dangerous like climbing the stairs. She does that since she was 11 months old and we let her because she has to learn. But with these things we are always right behind her, ready to catch her if she fell.
So she is allowed to make mistakes, but we protect her against the consequences because they are potentially too dangerous, and we teach her to do things as safe as possible.

And finally there are things from which she is shielded completely until we deem her ready to try, like sharp objects because if she makes a mistake with those, we would be too late to protect her.
Some time ago we let her learn with plastic scissors, and as soon as she was able to use them we gave her small iron ones, but she is only allowed to use them if we are present.

So you see within the learning process of her life, the approach varies depending on her age and experience.

I want my daughters to be able to be independent so in the course of the next 18 years I WILL teach various things like how to use a power drill, to change a flat tyre, to defend themselves and if they are willing, to hone razors and shave with them.

But in each of those things I will shield her from them until she is ready, then I will let them practise if I am present to help or safeguard them as much as possible, and then I will let them do things on their own.

The main idea is to keep them from serious harm so any of those steps is a balance of risk and consequences.

Suppose your kid wants to learn to shoot.
First of all, you will not allow a toddler to touch a gun. period. so you shield her until you judge her ready for it.
The second step is that you will learn her to properly handle a gun safely, maintain it and use it correctly, and you will initially only allow her to shoot if you are present. You will also explain the dangers of a gun
And finally, when you judge her to be up to it, you let her go to the range by herself, trusting her to be responsible.

To tie this in with the laser story: The publisher skipped steps one and to.
He cannot shield everybody, but in that case he should not have published in the first place. I know I wouldn't have. I know a few ways to compromise a computer but I will never publish details publicly because that would be irresponsible.
He also skipped the tutoring phase where you would learn people to use whatever it is safely.
Instead he skipped straight to the 'here's a gun, there's the ammo, have fun.' stage and I am sure that a lot of people don't even know that a DVD laser can permanently blind you or cause severe burns.

I realized I haven't responded to your original question.

Part of the problem (and I mean no offense but the US is especially problematic in this regard) is that people assume that all bad things happening to them HAVE to be somebody's fault.

If something bad happens to me I generally think either
1) this sucks, but shit happens.
2) I should have known better.

In Belgium the law uses a principle called 'the responsible housefather' which applies to everybody. Basically, that principle says 'would a responsible person have done this after thinking about it'.
And this principle IS used to decide on lawsuits and damage claims. The key words are 'responsible' and 'thinking'

But in a system where people can use lawsuits as a 'rich quick' scheme, they have to be coddled because that is the only way for manufacturers to get from being sued.
People have to held by their hands because if they aren't, they will start suing as soon as something happens.

Oh ho ho... you are this closr to getting me to rant, Mr. Avery... but I'll bite my tongue.

I'm with you on this one. I think that sometimes the government tends to baby us a bit too much (Motorcyclists read: brain bucket laws) and that it drops the standard to which people are held.

This is very close to another rant that my poor GF has heard me go on at times ;) .

I agree with Bruno. For some reason anytime I see something or have witnessed a problem, many/most American's do try and blame it upon someone other than themselves. If you had been a part of the event and it was your fault, please take the heat. Acceptance and responsibility is something that people in today's day and age are not really doing.

I know for my generation, it also seems like there is also a scapegoat around to always blame. We need to stop this.

Bruno,Very well said (both posts)Best Regards Gary

CALL ME!!!!

It can't possibly be your fault that you tried to trim your hedge with a lawn mower, and picked the darn thing up by the blade casing while it was running to try and make your hedge beautiful. It is not your fault that you lost the majority of your fingers from this action. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NEGLIGENT!! They should have installed safety devices which shut down the engine when you let go of the handle. Its their fault, and we are going to make them pay!!!

Its not your fault that you got cancer from smoking!!! It was those damn cigarette manufacturers that maliciously lured you in with their seductive advertisements, and pleasurable smoking experiences that are at fault. THEY ARE THE NEGLIGENT ONES!!! Because of their carelessness, you are going to die a premature, horrendous, nightmarish death. We are going to make them pay!!!!

Its not your fault that you got fat by eating fried, greasy fast food. It is the restaurant's fault for not protecting you, and willfully using grease to fry their foods!!! Imagine that, willfully using grease to fry their food! They are the ones to blame for your unhealthy state, not you!! They will pay!!!



Call me, at the firm of Dewy, Cheatem, & How and I will get you the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ that you deserve!!!! (666) 666-6666

this is not a guarantee of success, lawyer retains 80% of any and all verdicts/settlements, client is responsible for all fees, costs, and expenses, representations made for advertisement purposes only, your mileage may vary, the above are actual lawsuits filed in the US. the above do not accurately represent all lawsuits filed, but just the ones that make headlines.

:roflmao:roflmao:roflmao

so true, it's scary!...

-whatever

-Lou

NOTE: Just for the record, I don't ususally post in threads with the word 'Intelligence' in the title.

AS I can quote from Seinfeld.....

"Who told you to put the Balm on? I didn't tell you to any Balm on!!"

I'm not sure, but I believe that Mark was prompted into starting this thread due to the fact that he is in the process of obtaining the required permits for a new business, and is dealing with the government bureaucrats in the permitting agencies, who, based upon my own extensive experience, all seem to assume that everyone else is just as lazy, stupid and un-motivated as they are.


...just a guess....



-whatever

-Lou

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

I r

But in a system where people can use lawsuits as a 'rich quick' scheme, they have to be coddled because that is the only way for manufacturers to get from being sued.
People have to held by their hands because if they aren't, they will start suing as soon as something happens.

---

I think you put the cart before the horse here Bruno! I believe that because people are coddled ( oh poor baby you didn't do anything. it's everybody elses fault) that we have rampant suing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

I think you put the cart before the horse here Bruno! I believe that because people are coddled ( oh poor baby you didn't do anything. it's everybody elses fault) that we have rampant suing!

---

Actually, I think it is in large part due to the fact that in the US (and in the UK now as well?) it is legal for lawyers to charge a % of the claims money.
So a good lawyer can rake in millions. They just sue every time, and if they win some cases, they get big bucks.

I once asked a lawyer over here about that, and he told me that that would be illegal in Belgium.
You have to pay your lawyer for his time (or not if pro bono) regardless of the result, and he cannot ask for a share.

This keeps the lawyers honest, and discourages frivolous lawsuits because it WILL cost you money to sue so you will only do so if you are sure you have a case.
If you get sued and you win then you can ask for compensation of legal fees, but I don't know how that is decided.

As for the person filing the suit: judges usually award only the real monetary damages, and only a limited amount of compensation for moral damage.
So even if you win, you will not be rich. If you sue because a cleaner burnt your pants, you get the price of the pants. Not millions in moral damage.

So Bruno,

How is access to the legal system provided for those of limited funds? Is the legal system only reserved for the wealthy, since they are the only ones with the money to pay the lawyer, as well as their living expenses? Is Pro Bono work required of every lawyer? If so, then is pro bono work required for all professions?

I know this is a tangent to the thread, and I appologize, but I have to ask.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

Do we give enough credit for human kinds intelligence?
I believe we do not! it seems to me that governments, well meaning people, and some not so well meaning are trying to protect us from ourselves as if we were little toddlers who couldn't think for ourselves or understand whats going on around us. Quite honestly I resent this attitude!

---

For the most part, I don't think they are trying to protect us from ourselves at all... they're trying to protect themselves from the consequences of our actions. Take, for example, the MC helmet laws... in the 45+ years I've been riding the helmet law reasoning always seems to ultimately come down to protecting me so I won't become a burden to them ("them" being the insurance companies and, ultimately, society). The reasoning always nets out that if I crash and my injuries leave me in a vegetative state... I become a ward of the state and society has to pay my expenses (and the corollary, my family will become a ward of the state too, due to my loss of income). In reality, it's my insurance company that will incur a large payout... up to my policy limit, then I become a burden to society. The fact is, no one (other than perhaps my friends and family) cares one iota about me per se... they're only concerned about protecting their wallets (meaning the insurance company and the social services). And so it goes with most other examples... the icy sidewalk, the knee pads for inline skaters, etc.

Now, the fact is I have always chosen to wear a helmet when I ride... to protect me, to reduce my insurance rates, and to try not to become a burden to my family or society if I crash... and I have never needed a law to tell me that's the smart thing to do. However, when I'm getting ready to ride, I like to straddle my bike (which is still on the side stand) and start it to let it warm up a bit while I zip the cuffs of my jacket, put on my gloves, etc. The last thing I want to put on before I take off is my helmet, particularly in warm weather. Likewise, when I park and am getting ready to shut it down, I often times will take of my gloves and helmet before I actually put down the side stand and shut down the engine. Well, while touring in another State one day I actually received a ticket for "riding w/o a helmet". I had pulled into a diner for a rest stop for a bite to eat and was getting ready to leave. I had just started the bike and was putting on my gloves when a State Trooper nailed me... when I protested that the bike wasn't moving, so how could I be "riding w/o a helmet" he told me I should never even sit down on the bike w/o having already put on the helmet. What a hard a$$.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

Actually, I think it is in large part due to the fact that in the US (and in the UK now as well?) it is legal for lawyers to charge a % of the claims money.
So a good lawyer can rake in millions. They just sue every time, and if they win some cases, they get big bucks.

I once asked a lawyer over here about that, and he told me that that would be illegal in Belgium.
You have to pay your lawyer for his time (or not if pro bono) regardless of the result, and he cannot ask for a share.

This keeps the lawyers honest, and discourages frivolous lawsuits because it WILL cost you money to sue so you will only do so if you are sure you have a case.
If you get sued and you win then you can ask for compensation of legal fees, but I don't know how that is decided.

As for the person filing the suit: judges usually award only the real monetary damages, and only a limited amount of compensation for moral damage.
So even if you win, you will not be rich. If you sue because a cleaner burnt your pants, you get the price of the pants. Not millions in moral damage.

---

Belgium's system seems much more fair to me than what goes on in the USA. If the USA could reform monetary awards to something reasonable (eg, actual out-of-pocket expenses + perhaps a reasonable amount for pain and suffering, instead of millions) things would be a lot better. Also, if the person who sues and looses had to pay court costs + defendant attorney's fees, there would be a lot fewer "frivolous" lawsuits.

AZ

In colorado we have this. It is called a statutory offer of settlement. This works by the Defendant giving a "statutory offer" of some amount. if the plaintiff does not take it, and goes to tial, then they has better get a verdict greater than the amount offered. If the verdict is less than what is offered, then the plaintiff has to pay for all of the attorney's fees from the date of the offer forward. It is a great tool in negotiating a settlement.

I see how it could help in many circumstances, but it's not clear how it helps eliminate defendant costs for blatantly frivolous lawsuits. In those cases it would seem it simply forces the defendant to offer up something rather than go to trial and (hopefully) win? I'm thinking of the case where the "big bully" company repeatedly sues the "little guy" company with a plethora of frivolous suits, the hidden agenda being to bankrupt him with legal defense fees. Can't big bully still bankrupts him simply by accepting statutory offers instead? Where's the motivation for big bully to stop harassing the little guy altogether? What I was proposing was if it went to trial and big bully loses, he has to pay all of little guy's legal costs.

A "Loser Pays" legal system could also work against you.

If "Big Bully" wins, you could really be screwed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

A "Loser Pays" legal system could also work against you.

If "Big Bully" wins, you could really be screwed.

---

True... it's a risk either way, I guess. Does big bully win many of the frivolous suits? I (perhaps naively) thought he usually dropped/settled the case if it appeared little guy would actually go to trial. And then sue little guy again on some other frivolously thing... all with the intent of forcing little guy to expend his (relatively) limited resources on defense and settlement costs instead of product development, marketing, etc.

How about we all dress in hemp clothing, grow really long hair, stop shaving and grow really large beards, ban private ownership of all property, only use biodiesel for fuel, and sing Kum Ba Yah while holding hands around a campfire.

I mean really, the private ownership of property is what causes the problems in the first place. If no one owned anything, then there would be no "keeping up with the Joneses." There would be no lawsuits because there would be nothing to sue over. We could just turn everthing over to the benevolant government.

no really, what options are there for allowing access to the legal system for the poor. The USA does it through the contingent fee system. If you force the parties to pay, then only the rich can afford legal action.

If you require the lawyers to allocate so many hours for pro bono work, then why not also force electricians to wire so many houses for the poor, and mechanics to fix at least 5 cars per year for individuals which cannot afford it. Why should lawyers be forced to work for free, for the poor, when other professions are not?

If you are worried about the big bad corporation from dominating the smaller corporation with legal fees, then the "each party pays their own" system is the worse. There has to be a balance between it all.

:HJ Sorry, I did not mean to hijack this thread.

Ultimately we're talking about Group Dynamics here or Crowd Psychology. Basically, groups tend to respond differently than individuals and this difference should be taken into consideration. From my observations, it seems like the 'lowest common denominator' or dumbing down ideas are the ones which catch with the vast majority of people. I often make the mistake of believing that I am an average kind of person and that people are mostly just as I am, thoughtful, relatively intelligent and considerate, or at least reasonably sympathetic. I'm frequently proven wrong.

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pilothaz

I agree with Bruno. For some reason anytime I see something or have witnessed a problem, many/most American's do try and blame it upon someone other than themselves. If you had been a part of the event and it was your fault, please take the heat. Acceptance and responsibility is something that people in today's day and age are not really doing.

I know for my generation, it also seems like there is also a scapegoat around to always blame. We need to stop this.

---

Not my experience --- but what do I know , it's not like I'm an American or anything.

Justin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

Ultimately we're talking about Group Dynamics here or Crowd Psychology. Basically, groups tend to respond differently than individuals and this difference should be taken into consideration. From my observations, it seems like the 'lowest common denominator' or dumbing down ideas are the ones which catch with the vast majority of people. I often make the mistake of believing that I am an average kind of person and that people are mostly just as I am, thoughtful, relatively intelligent and considerate, or at least reasonably sympathetic. I'm frequently proven wrong.

X

---

I think you're right X, but I think the average person is good --- whoever that average person is. It is difficult to find individuals that can seperate themselves from the Group Dynamic.

Mark, I agree with you .

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it" -- good old Thommy Jefferson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaegerhund

Not my experience --- but what do I know , it's not like I'm an American or anything.

---

I'm definitely gonna side with Sean on that and suggest that we expand it to read 'North Americans' at the very least, including, of course, Canadians. It has been clear to me for many years now that it is a sign of weakness to make a mistake in our society and the less savoury sort of personality will exploit that.

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

I'm definitely gonna side with Sean on that and suggest that we expand it to read 'North Americans' at the very least, including, of course, Canadians. It has been clear to me for many years now that it is a sign of weakness to make a mistake in our society and the less savoury sort of personality will exploit that.

X

---

Yeah --I agree it's a symptom of a highly competative society, but it probably affects Western society as a whole in some way -- more so in specific demagraphics ----I just didn't like the idea of limiting it to most U.S. citizens.

Justin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaegerhund

Yeah --I agree it's a symptom of a highly competative society, but it probably affects Western society as a whole in some way -- more so in specific demagraphics ----I just didn't like the idea of limiting it to most U.S. citizens.

---

I think it's probably a human quality which is only grotesque in its misapplication and self-preservational at times. I've noticed that it's quite common for groups to find a scapegoat even when there's no need for one. Those in fear of being considered the 'weakness' will actively cast others in the role to distract attention from themselves.

X

P.S. competitive & demographics

GRAMMAR POLICE!!! :eek:

:cen :cen :cen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

X

P.S. competitive & demographics

GRAMMAR POLICE!!! :eek:

---

Spell checker must have missed it ;) ----- terrible speller I am.


Justin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaegerhund

I think you're right X, but I think the average person is good --- whoever that average person is. It is difficult to find individuals that can seperate themselves from the Group Dynamic.

Mark, I agree with you .

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it" -- good old Thommy Jefferson.

---

I think you got it Justin! My mother used to tell me "treat all as if they were gentlemen and gentlewomen until they prove otherwise".
Their is a malevolent spirit behind what I am complaining about. it seems that we as a society pander to the lowest common denominator and then wonder why we have so many societal problems! if we as a society would expect our members to be mature and be accountable for our actions we would be on a far better path than we are now. We are all men here. We all know right from wrong. Should we not treat each other as if we were mature and knew the difference between right and wrong until we prove otherwise?
In short I believe that all men and laws should allow for mans ability to think for himself and act according to what he knows is right in his heart! We as a society can punish one when he shows he is not capable of this instead of shackling him with laws before it even occurs to him to do anything wrong!

Bruno, I have three children as you know. Of course you protect your children this is what parents do! Did you really think I was talking about children?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

I think you got it Justin! My mother used to tell me "treat all as if they were gentlemen and gentlewomen until they prove otherwise".
Their is a malevolent spirit behind what I am complaining about. it seems that we as a society pander to the lowest common denominator and then wonder why we have so many societal problems! if we as a society would expect our members to be mature and be accountable for our actions we would be on a far better path than we are now. We are all men here. We all know right from wrong. Should we not treat each other as if we were mature and knew the difference between right and wrong until we prove otherwise?
In short I believe that all men and laws should allow for mans ability to think for himself and act according to what he knows is right in his heart! We as a society can punish one when he shows he is not capable of this instead of shackling with laws before it even occurs to him to do anything wrong!

Bruno, I have three children as you know. Of course you protect your children this is what parents do! Did you really think I was talking about children?

---

:tu There's no substitute for true freedom ---I'd rather live in hell and be free than in a utopia and be regulated -----(just leave this long-haired country boy alone ;) )

Justin

Edit: Alright X, is it "a utopia" or "an utopia" ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaegerhund

:tu There's no substitute for true freedom ---I'd rather live in hell and be free than in an utopia and be regulated -----(just leave this long-haired country boy alone ;) )

Justin

---

You and me both!!:tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaegerhund

:tu There's no substitute for true freedom ---I'd rather live in hell and be free than in a utopia and be regulated -----(just leave this long-haired country boy alone ;) )

---

I'd rather live somewhere in between, where there are regulations to make sure that everybody has a minimum standard of living, but everybody has the right to improve that standard.
But then you'd expect me to say something like that ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaegerhund

Edit: Alright X, is it "a utopia" or "an utopia" ?

---

It's 'a' because the u in utopia is pronounced 'you'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

I'd rather live somewhere in between, where there are regulations to make sure that everybody has a minimum standard of living, but everybody has the right to improve that standard.
But then you'd expect me to say something like that ;)

---

That's not unreasonable, and most people (all) live somewhere in the middle. Just as long as you keep the "everybody has the right to improve that standard" part -- don't penalize people for wanting to seperate from the crowd. I just don't like the one size fits all , what's best for the collective mentality. I want to be a human (for better or worse) --- not a bee living only for the greater good of the hive --- maybe I'm not as evolved or something --- so be it--- I'll live and die as an American caveman happily ;) .

Justin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaegerhund

That's not unreasonable, and most people (all) live somewhere in the middle. Just as long as you keep the "everybody has the right to improve that standard" part -- don't penalize people for wanting to seperate from the crowd. I just don't like the one size fits all , what's best for the collective mentality. I want to be a human (for better or worse) --- not a bee living only for the greater good of the hive --- maybe I'm not as evolved or something --- so be it--- I'll live and die an American caveman happily ;) .

Justin

---

That sixth toe gives you away every time Justin!;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

That sixth toe gives you away every time Justin!;)

---

Yeah -- and the bad spelling :D (x is my personal caveman alarm).

But, seriously, I know that most societies live somewhere in the middle ---but even the idea of living in some comfortable/regulated middle just makes my gonads shrink --I quess I like extremes and all the dangers and sheer fun that comes from it ---can't see how a human being could think otherwise -- that's just me.

Justin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaegerhund

Edit: Alright X, is it "a utopia" or "an utopia" ?

---

Either. It depends on where you live. If you pronounce it as yoo-TOE-pee-uh with a pronounced 'y' sound at the beginning like most of us North Americans, the indefinite article 'a' seems best. If, like many Brits, that vowel is softened to express oo-TOE-pee-ah 'an' seems better. The one that feels most unnatural to me is putting 'an' before and 'h' word like 'historical'. I just can't drop that 'h' sound sufficiently in my own mind to make it click.

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

Either. It depends on where you live. If you pronounce it as yoo-TOE-pee-uh with a pronounced 'y' sound at the beginning like most of us North Americans, the indefinite article 'a' seems best. If, like many Brits, that vowel is softened to express oo-TOE-pee-ah 'an' seems better. The one that feels most unnatural to me is putting 'an' before and 'h' word like 'historical'. I just can't drop that 'h' sound sufficiently in my own mind to make it click.

X

---

Thank you and Bruno also.

Justin

I was having a hard time expressing exactly what I wanted to say in this thread, so I PMed Lou and Justin. Lou gave me permission to post his response but I haven't talked to Justin yet so he'll have to tell you what he said if he wishes to!
Anyways I hope this makes sense to you guys!?
Originally Posted by JMS
Man, this thread eats me up! I am not sure a single person got what I was trying to say except maybe you!
There is something intangible that I can't seem to get across to my fellow man!
Each man is self absorbed until he matures, then he becomes thoughtful and self policing! I believe all governments. with the exception of the most minimalistic government, by their very nature stand in the way of this process. It doesn't serve the purpose of government to have self regulated individuals because then they would have little if any power. Man has a dual nature. government and other self serving individuals wish to bring out the lesser more selfish nature. I was trying to point out that we all have a greater or higher nature from which we all should strive to operate from!!

I hope I didn't bend your ear to badly?

Mark
Mark-
You can bend my ear anytime! You ought to post exactly what you wrote above - it certainly clarifies your point!

I agree with your basic premise, i.e. we should all strive to operate from a higher nature, but sad but true, most governmental regulations, in much the same way as television programming, are geared toward a sixth grade education.

It kinda leaves us seventh-graders out of the loop!

-whatever

-Lou

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaegerhund

x is my personal caveman alarm

---

I love those Geico commercials.

:HJ

(I'm betting that wasn't the post that folks were expecting me to make.)

the way you explain it here makes more sense because I didn't get what you were trying to say.
I think I understand better now, but this is where we should learn from history.

If you don't mind I will write up my thoughts tomorrow. It's already 11 PM and writing up a thought-out answer would carry me past midnight and I have little enough sleep these days :)