Charles Darwin (1871) sagely noted over a century ago,
"ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
having the habit of talking a lot, especially about things that are not important
Circumlocutions and a loquacious sesquipedalian.
talking too much and using grandiloquent words
pompous or extravagant in language, style, or manner, especially in a way that is intended to impress.
In psychology, logorrhea or logorrhoea (from Ancient Greek λόγος logos "word" and ῥέω rheo "to flow"), also known as press speech, is a communication disorder that causes excessive wordiness and repetitiveness, which can cause incoherency.
Sometimes, it seems as if some people's butt must be jealous of the quantity of waste that comes out of their mouth. Generally, people who know little, talk a lot, and those who know much speak little. While intelligent people are able to express a lot in a few words, limited people, in contrast, are able to talk much but say nothing
Describing people who talk a lot
Lack of understanding:
People tend to hold overly favourable views of their abilities in many intellectual domains. This overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. 1 It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. In many domains in life, success and satisfaction depend on knowledge, wisdom, or savvy in knowing which rules to follow and which strategies to pursue. Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it.
In essence, the skills that engender competence in a particular domain are often the very same skills necessary to evaluate competence in that domain—one's own or anyone else's. Because of this, incompetent individuals lack what cognitive psychologists variously term metacognition, metamemory, metacomprehension, or self-monitoring skills. These terms refer to the ability to know how well one is performing, when one is likely to be accurate in judgment, and when one is likely to be in error.
For any given skill, some people have more expertise and some have less, some a good deal less. What about those people with low levels of expertise? Do they recognize it? People with substantial deficits in their knowledge or expertise should not be able to recognize those deficits. Despite potentially making error after error, they should tend to think they are doing just fine. In short, those who are incompetent, for lack of a better term, should have little insight into their incompetence—an assertion that has come to be known as the Dunning–Kruger effect. Because poor performers were choosing the responses that they thought were the most reasonable, this would lead them to think they were doing quite well when they were doing anything but.
4 HABITS OF STUPID PEOPLE THAT SMART PEOPLE DON’T HAVE
1. Stupid people blame others for their own mistakes
2. Stupid people always have to be right
3. Stupid people react when they realize their views were defeated with anger and aggression
4. Stupid people think they are better than everyone else
Some people are easily recognized by being descendants from the two families, Dunning and Kruger, and suffer from cognitive dissonance, and ultracrepidarianism.
They are descendants all from the same traditional family, and gained by heredity the Dunning–Kruger syndrome, which is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability have illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude; without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.
It accompanies also cognitive dissonance, which is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The occurrence of cognitive dissonance is a consequence of a person performing an action that contradicts personal beliefs, ideas, and values; and also occurs when confronted with new information that contradicts said beliefs, ideas, and values.
Furthermore, they cultivate the bad habit of ultracrepidarianism, which is the habit of giving opinions and advice on matters outside of one's knowledge.
And a big branch has evolved which thinks that willful ignorance is honourable and nothing to be ashamed of. " We don't know yet how everything came to be, but it wasn't God".
A good example is Richard Dawkins. He has little knowledge of theology but thinks he has the ability to criticise theism. He writes:
"Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?”
He might have forgotten the Chinese dictum: " Know your enemy".
Their common worldview follows common lines, like the strong faith in physicalism, where they are their own highest ultimate instance, there is nobody else above. They are usually full of certainty and right on everything, and when confronted with the fact that their mind, which has been developed in their view from the mind of the lower animals, the dissonance arises. Is what they believe is of any value or at all trustworthy? Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
They usually argue that they do not need God to live upon a high moral standard, only believers need God as crutches to avoid behaving like a jerk. And are blind by the fact that morals are prescriptive - and when there is no superior entity, objective moral values cannot exist.
Usually, these people have high confidence in science, peer review, and consensus, and what scientists postulate. But truth said Krugers resist to acknowledge where the evidence leads to. They held the opinion that chemicals self-assembled spontaneously by orderly aggregation without any higher guidance to create life, and interference and that there is more than enough to show that man evolved from apes and all life from lower forms over a very long period of time — evolution.
DNA, the mechanism responsible, has every attribute of a software code or language, and both of these without exception in human history have been written by a writer - but they deny both. In their view, DNA is not a Code, and, logically do not need a coder.
They also argue that the founder of the most powerful force that forever changed the world, Christ, did not exist, nor resurrected. He is the result of the fertile imagination of unnamed sheep herders of the bronze age - so they say.
Be cautious. Don’t be too certain of any claim that begins with: Once there was absolutely nothing. And that nothing exploded......
Last edited by Admin on Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:00 am; edited 12 times in total