Talk:Stupidity

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comedy Mid‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Literature Mid‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy Mid‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 August 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

1

not "inability" to learn, ability without willingness

The intro paragraph is weak. Stupidity is generally accepted as an unwillingness to learn, or an active rejection of learning. Not an inability. Except rhetorically ee don't call rocks stupid. They're just rocks. It's sentients who have the ability but for some reason use their sentient powers to excuse not learning or find new ways to lie to themselves, that we call stupid. As per Einstein's widely accepted defn that it's doing the same thing over and over and accepting different results.

"The use of ones own intelligence to prevent learning" is a good definition. And while that may be one form of evil, it's probably worse insofar as the evil can at least be motivated to take and keep to some deal or limits. How do you do that with the stupid? They just break the deal and don't even know, or pretend the deal was different & honestly believe it was ... The Carlo Coppola definition implies there can be no win-win dealings with the stupid, they can only be destroyed or avoided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.134.26.141 (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture example for stuidity in culture

Hello,

I found something very troubbeling with the picture example on the right side ffor stupidity in culture. The picture and below text is used for display of stupidity in media. It displayes a caricatur showing a stereotypically looking balck person with a big nose, big ears, a broad head and black hair witht he written text describing the subject as a caricatur for the abolishing of the pol tax in southern us states with the note, that the displayed person is supposed to be an ignorant stupid person not knowing anything about voting. This of course is a valid example of usage of stupidity in culture, but also a display of uncommented racist propaganda by the site that can be interpreted as if the author does agree with the given examples message. My argument here is not that the given subject is not a valid example. My argument is that the example is an exceptionally bad one or has to be given context to to remain. There are many many many more good examples of usage of stupidity in media that could be used here. The article itself already mentions the Simpsons on the same subject matter. So why does the given picture example has to be a racist political caricatur? A picture of Homer Simpson or a less bad caricature would do the job far better.

Thank you for reading, sorry for my spelling. 2A02:908:1A70:9380:5003:D8A8:5A1C:EA8B (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC) Max2A02:908:1A70:9380:5003:D8A8:5A1C:EA8B (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The character depicted in the image is Alfred E. Neuman. He's not normally depicted as black, and to me, he doesn't look black in that image. What do others think? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page attracts a lot of trolling. The complainant could be sincere, but given this talk page's history and the complainant's obvious misreporting of the subject's skin color, this strikes me as trolling. Biogeographist (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that would make sense. Thanks Biogeographist. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change: the reference to "In Search of Stupidity: Over Twenty Years of High Tech Marketing Disasters (2003) by Merrill R. Chapman" [direct quote omitted] To: a removed or amended citation that does not violate Wikipedia's "Reliable Sources" policy.

1.) It does not reference an author who is "regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject...". Wikipedia's policy states that "These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

a.) The author's biography is not linked or provided, and quick research indicates the author may have written only one text peripherally discussing this subject.   
b.)The quotation provided is conjecture or opinion, not based on any referenced existing source but the author's own text. In the absence of more, it is unclear why 
   someone would cite this author as authoritative, or the best source, in relation to the subject. The book is listed only on Amazon.com and is ranked (as of 
   6/28/21) #887 in Business Marketing, and #1,144 in Computers. Additionally the author's brief biography indicates that he "periodically writes articles about 
   software and high-tech marketing for a variety of publications" and has no special qualification or credential in relation to research on the topic. That the 
   book merely contains the word "stupidity" in its title is not enough to demonstrably prove authoritativeness.

2.) Some debate exists in popular culture as to the factual accuracy concerning anecdotal references in the book, which are based partially on author's personal experiences. 3.) Unclear how this book is representative of the broader topic of "stupidity" as opposed to the sub-category of stupidity in technology/marketing/business. 2600:1702:2130:EB80:28AE:6140:A606:DDC7 (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The quote and accompanying line looks like a promotion for the book, so I've ripped them out. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is either vandalized or needs a cross-link

"Stupidity is a lack of intelligence, understanding just like Harmiesha"

From what I can find, Harmiesia is just a name and does not refer to anything noteworthy so I suspect this is vandalism. 184.23.22.206 (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thank you for that. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Stopid" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Stopid and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 23#Stopid until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

1941AlfredENeuman.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Defining Stupid

Doing something repeatedly in a confident manner that leads to a disaster. 2603:7000:B901:8500:5C52:B56:4754:1A3F (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]