![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The article suggesting that natural blondes are being outcompeted by bottle blondes and thus are going to be disappearing from the breeding population (because, you see, men really prefer bottle blondes and women have no volition in theories like this) was bad enough on the irritating pseudoscientific drivel front.
The reply comment saying that "recessive" is not a random designator, but in fact means "disappearing from the population" makes me want to bang-head-on-wall-a-lot. Alleles, people, alleles!
Whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine.
Why is it my lot in life to exasperatedly explain basic genetics to people on usenet?
The reply comment saying that "recessive" is not a random designator, but in fact means "disappearing from the population" makes me want to bang-head-on-wall-a-lot. Alleles, people, alleles!
Whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine.
Why is it my lot in life to exasperatedly explain basic genetics to people on usenet?
From: (Anonymous)
Yeah but....
I understand the frustration of trying to deal with people who are just not getting it. I also understand the tedium of dealing with people who have the knowledge, openly resent the ignorance of the people who don't, are annoyed by both the "student" and the act of "teaching", and who then complain bitterly. I have had teachers like that all my life, and my general reaction to that is "get a different job". Because assuming a student is already going to know what the teacher has the ability to teach and then resenting them and believing them "stupid" when they don't is a pretty arrogant attitude. It's also more destructive than may be superficially evident.
Some people are going to get it. Other people aren't. But what I have learned is that it is not the teacher who teaches, but the student who learns. The only things that the teacher has control over are the accuracy of the information presented and the attitude with which it is offered. Personally, I would prefer to get my information from someone who was actually pleased to share it, who didn't resent me for not having it to begin with, and who gave me the information with the assumption that I was, wonder of wonders, intellectually capable of absorbing it and not fundamentally defective.
There is a difference between "ignorance" and "stupidity", and the difference has to do with what an individual does with information once it is given. Assuming stupidity in the ignorant guarantees bitterness in the person who has accurate information.
It is insufferable for anyone to believe that I am stupid because I have things to learn to which I simply have not been exposed. I don't believe that anyone with that attitude has much to teach me beyond the nuts and bolts, and effectively undermines the validity of their information by presenting it in a way that is drenched in ego.
If stupidity really is stupidity, and inconquerable, then why bother?
Perhaps the answer is to give everyone, including oneself, a break, and just not go out of the way.
I'm sure that we'll muddle through somehow.
From:
Re: Yeah but....
Stupidity isn't "not knowing something." That's called ignorance, and it's something that can be remedied.
Stupidity is refusing to learn. Refusing to accept that another point of view might be correct, more correct than the one you believe. It's blindly accepting everything you're told as truth, instead of thinking and criticizing what you hear.
Sometimes I wonder if stupidity is me trying to cure stupidity in other people. I just keep hoping it's only ignorance, and if I point out facts, it'll be fixed.
From: (Anonymous)
Re: Yeah but....
But what I see is the two words used interchangably, and ignorance being chalked up to stupidity, when the fact is that there is a simple lack of information to which many people have been exposed.
I mean, what we are talking about here are "basic genetics". But the fact is that, due to any number of factors (including the sorry state of public education, which is populated by teachers who think that their students are too "stupid" to put any effort toward, when in fact a teacher's inability to do their job points more to their incompetence than a student's intellectual capacity) what is here considered "basic" may be brand new information for many.
Who am I, Gregor Mendel?
But no exposure does not make me stupid.
And if it happens that I _am_stupid, feel free not to teach me. Because I wouldn't want to impose my lack of intelligence on so obvious a superior.
From:
Re: Yeah but....
That said, I will note that my sub-par US public school taught "basic genetics" in sixth grade. And seventh grade basic science, which was a required class. And eighth grade basic science, see above. &c, &c, &c. It was something to which every single student should have been exposed at one point. Now, if they didn't understand, that's another matter, which I blame on the earlier-mentioned lack of teaching children to think.
My problem with stupidity is not lack of exposure. But if I explain basic genetics to someone, I expect that they will say, "Oh, I didn't know that." I don't expect them to say, "I don't care what you say! My mommy says you're wrong, so neener!"
From: (Anonymous)
Re: Yeah but....
Go to alt.callahans and read the thread in question. It's called "blondes dying out?" in case you can't locate it. I promise you that you will see nothing more than a lack of information--not hostility or willing ignorance. There is nothing in the thread to indicate that any misinformation there was purposeful or due to stupidity. And there was not a single "neener" involved.
Therefore, they are undeserving of impatience and/or contempt. And to treat any of them/us with either is arrogant and unfairly intolerant. And please note that there was no distinction made in the original post here between the "stupid" members of Usenet and all of Usenet. So I find the generalization offensive, because I am part of that general population.
Do your research. Read the thread, and tell me if anything there was deserving of a whine.
And in the meantime, read over the prior entries _here_ and show me where anyone was shown the benefit of the doubt before they were blanketly labeled "stupid".
All I'm saying is that if it is so bloody aggravating to inform the masses, then don't do it. No one is compelled to come in and "fix" things, and if they can't do it happily, then they shouldn't.
If it causes so much aggravation, then why bother?
From:
Re: Yeah but....
Kindly fuck off.
From:
Re: Yeah but....
From:
Re: Yeah but....
From:
Re: Yeah but....
From:
Re: Yeah but....
From:
Re: Yeah but....
Meanwhile, I don't believe we've met. I'm Brooks.
From: (Anonymous)
Re: Yeah but....
What I see is an obviously bright, well educated person. Said person posts a rant, in her own space, yes. But look at it. She is ranting over a situation that she chose, causing herself aggravation that is unneccessary-no one said, "Hey Darkhawk--enlighten us here! We need someone to ignore." She saw a situation and _chose_ to participate. And then resented the participation, and chose to put the resentment not on her own frustration at having participated, but instead on the people she was choosing to interact with. And while this is, indeed, "her own space", it's on the web, in public (and designated as such--this is not marked "private" or even "friends only"), where any random participant on that thread could read it. And respond. And that's precisely what happened.
Once again, a situation that could have been avoided by simply blocking who read it, by the person who "owns" the space.
It is offensive, of course, to be confronted with the attitude expressed here, although it is fairly commonplace to see someone who has the advantages of both intelligence and education to view those with not so great a measure of either with a certain aristocratic superiority. That happens every day. But the thing that bothered me more, I think, was the idea that the aggravation she experienced was self inflicted and overblown. Her information and participation was unsolicited, she offered it, it was accepted with no argument--what's the beef? The beef, it appears, is the idea that she is somehow _compelled_ to educate. She is not. So the aggravation is self-inflicted.
So my only question is, and has been, "Why bother?" And if the argument, as it appears to be, is that you care that good information is put out there, then understand that this compulsion to educate is motivated internally--there is no law anywhere that says anyone _must_ do it. And further--my own opinion is that if you cannot do it without contempt, then no thank you.
But the last few posts indicate a willingness to fight for the right to aggravate herself, with a fairly vehement "me too" posted in support. So OK--do it. But understand why. And don't hold the ignorance of others as a personal affront as you work to alleviate it. Also understand that you have chosen aggravation as your birthright. It belongs to no one but you.
If you read the thread in question, you will find that there is nothing offensive in it, and that Darkhawk's offering was met with neither hostility nor resistance. The conversation was, indeed, based on information offered by the scientific community, which, I would assume, would know better than the average layman that a certain finding was at least something to be considered. So if anyone was misinformed, it was the community of German scientists that offered the theory to begin with, on the basis of their genetic studies. So how can a group of laymen who at least have the intelligence to be interested in the subject of this study be accused of being anything but open to the learning of something new? That may be ignorance, Brooks, but it is not indicative of stupidity.
The word "stupid" is a hot button for me, this is true, Brooks, and my reaction to the random usage of it as was evident in these posts was enough to spark a reaction (and no, Darkhawk did not use that word, but she did not refute it her respondants, either). And for that I take full responsibility. And, as all of you indicate in your posts here, I am not even beginning to dream that anyone is going to behave any differently as a result of the expression of my opinion--I can heave as world weary a sigh as any of you in that regard. Nothing I say is going to make anyone do anything differently than what they are already doing, or change anything. But Brooks--if these ladies can feel compelled to correct shabby information as it appears, so some of us can feel compelled to correct shabby attitudes (attitudes that, IMO, are unworthy of educated people, BTW).
I'm not aggravated. I'm just not prepared to let the inaccurate and unfair picture painted here, in a post marked "public", sit without commentary.
From:
Re: Yeah but....
You were the one who started the whole "you're looking down on people!" business. You were the one who started throwing preconceived notions around about me, when you know nothing except a few comments which I have made right here. And, judging from the tone of your comments, you're neither uneducated nor "stupid" and so I don't know why you're acting like someone pissed in your Cheerios anyway.
From: (Anonymous)
Re: Yeah but....
But I will leave you with just one thought.
If we cannot rely on the educated and intelligent people of the world to treat those who have fewer advantages in this area with tolerance and patience, and if we cannot perform the act of educating others with joy and generosity, then we as a species are on our way to hell in a bucket, no matter how intellectually advanced we become.
Just my opinion.
Hope to see you around again.
From:
Re: Yeah but....
If you are not a hypocrite, go be a fuckwit to the person who posted to the thread making snide comments about the education of the person who posted that comment, and leave me -- who posted a simple explanation of error and then vented my frustration in a different space -- alone.
I am not obligated to respond stating my agreement or disagreement with statements made in my journal, and your apparent belief that if I do not do so I am morally responsible in some way for those posts is as offensive as the rest of your slanderous behaviour.
On the off chance that your little parting comment isn't completely true, don't bother trying to reply; after posting this I am going to disable anonymous commenting so in the future I will only be plagued by people with the guts and ability to tell me who they are.