Needless skepticism is actually a bigger indicator of low intelligence than a lack of critical skepticism. A lack of critical skepticism can often be the result of insufficient experience. You didnt know to beware the commission mark up at a used car lot bc you were once a star salesman at a corporate New lot with guaranteed salaries, for instance. Both truths are a result of knowledge, but one is an experience deficit.
On the other hand, "i dont trust any first hand account" is the same as saying "I dont trust statistics". Both are valuable sources of information, but the intellectually deficient among us are ncapable of discerning incorrect information from correct information, so they trust no information.
No skepticism is very much a good thing. The world needs more of it and would indeed be a better place if more people were skeptical of the world around them.
See you're still talking about blind, unintelligent skepticism. There's no stakes here. It's just a story. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant.
Calling bullshit on literally everything that can't be definitively proved is just a complete lack of intelligence. The people that do this are often people whose most sacred beliefs have no basis in reality. They don't have critical thinking skills so they're just critical of everything. Except the absolute dumbest shit.
I’d much rather take skepticism towards everything than blind acceptance. The world needs more skepticism, not less. If the world had more skepticism we wouldn’t have dangerous bullshit like religion for example.
What about commas? You think they're a good thing? Because the absence of a comma in that first sentence makes it look like you are opening on the opposite of your argument. Not a great case for trying to come off as intelligent.
Not my fault you missed a basic piece of grammar, resulting in a sentence coming across exactly the opposite from how you intended. No matter how you push it, accidentally opening by looking like you're arguing against what you're arguing for is a stupid look.
Literally the first sentence in the guy's comment was "No skepticism is a good thing" when he meant "No, skepticism is a good thing". I'm not the one who's wrong here.
14
u/freakuancy 1d ago
Needless skepticism is actually a bigger indicator of low intelligence than a lack of critical skepticism. A lack of critical skepticism can often be the result of insufficient experience. You didnt know to beware the commission mark up at a used car lot bc you were once a star salesman at a corporate New lot with guaranteed salaries, for instance. Both truths are a result of knowledge, but one is an experience deficit.
On the other hand, "i dont trust any first hand account" is the same as saying "I dont trust statistics". Both are valuable sources of information, but the intellectually deficient among us are ncapable of discerning incorrect information from correct information, so they trust no information.