Thread: 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

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

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!

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.