To think some people are so thick it’s almost beyond parody

Years ago someone in the House of Commons, or maybe a Commons committee, made a massive fuss because an MP had used the word 'niggardly'.

Now, I abhor any kind of racist language or language which might offend individuals or groups, but really! Get a ruddy dictionary. This word means mean and miserly, and has no connection of any kind with the N word. The whole incident was excruciating in exposing the embarrassing ignorance of the complainer.

He totally meant the random residents - but he was specific about the fact that he thought there would still be some of the old equipment "hanging about". He told me he had just been on a tour at the local Town Hall which mentioned the cloth being important to the history of the town until the 16th Century, so he definitely would have been told that it hadn't been made since then!

latetothefishing
".... my local museum has a working giant weaving loom that they make cloth and sell in the gift shop."

Ah but there may not be any working giants around the op's way, particularly not any who can do weaving.

Haha, good question, can I? (Not a scientist, or a teacher). I think we may be approaching the limits of my explaining skills now. Suddenly realised that it's one of those "I know what I mean but struggle to explain it" things. I just googled it and got an AI response that included the following examples:

• Falsifiable: "All objects fall to the ground." (Falsified if you find an object that floats up).
• Unfalsifiable: "There is an invisible, undetectable ghost in the room." (No test can prove this wrong because the ghost is "undetectable").

Proper science should be falsifiable, which doesn't mean there IS an example which disproves the statement that is being made about a scientific principle, but that there (theoretically) COULD be, if that makes sense. There's evidence to prove something, so there could be evidence to disprove it (and if such evidence was found, scientists would change their minds). Unfalsifiable things are ones that can't be proved in the first place, nor disproved, so not really scientific. That doesn't necessarily mean it's not true. I mean, I might have a memory that's totally accurate, but nobody can hook machine up to my brain and "read" it and prove that it is. My claims about my own thoughts and feelings are unfalsifiable. It doesn't mean they're untrue, but they lie outside the realm of science, as it stands. Different kind of truth. We can all believe that our ideas on moral / spiritual truth are right ("my religion is the truth"), but we have to accept that it lies outside the realm of SCIENTIFIC truth. Science is about proving things.

I don't think that's a brilliant explanation but it seems to be the best I can do. Help me out, science people.

What I was saying about IQ tests was that they're not, in my view, entirely scientific because they rely on some assumptions, which are not proven facts, about human intelligence and what intelligence actually IS and how best to measure it and so on and so forth. Because if intelligence means "the ability to understand / interpret / cope with the world you live in", that means different things in different times and places. And some IQ questions rely on prior experience / knowledge that you may or may not have already acquired (it does try to avoid that, but I don't think it's possible to entirely succeed; there's always going to be some cultural bias sneaking in). And because people and how they think can change over time, in response to culture, environment and all the rest (in a way, that say, the laws of physics or the behaviour of numbers do not). I started off commenting on how numbers / averages (any numbers, about anything) work, and then got derailed a bit when someone, I think, commented on IQ tests specifically and I threw in some caveats about possible problems with IQ testing. I'm definitely on firmer ground when thinking about the first one (that's just about numbers).

BTW, I only saw your question by chance when having another look at this thread. If you want someone to get the automated email to tell them someone's responded to them directly, either use the quote function or put an @ in front of their username.

Hope that helps at least a little bit.

I don't think it's that stupid, my local museum has a working giant weaving loom that they make cloth and sell in the gift shop. I suppose it depends on whether he meant 'somebody' as in a local heritage org or the council could consider resurrecting it, doing demos etc. as a visitor attraction (fine) vs random residents deciding to learn a 500 year old craft including DIY-ing their own loom as an easy side hussle (slightly unlikely, although still not impossible!)

Aww ... If we're doing Stupid Me confessions, someone told me as a child that the Genesis story explained, or was meant to explain, why men have one less rib than women.

I never questioned it until Mumsnet put me straight - in my sixties 😏

Well said! I know no Reform voters personally but encounter them regularly on Facebook groups, eg GB News, Britannia Daily and others.

Now it's my turn.

My husband once told me that Prince Charles was playing water polo and his horse drowned.

I believed him.

Most of them vote Reform

@HeadDeskHeadDesk

Great post and lots to think about - and none of it very edifying.

Yes, I think you're right that we are more aware of public stupidity because of the access the internet gives to many who wouldn't have been able to broadcast their er...'thoughts' ..previously.

Now any fool can write rubbish from the comfort of their sofa. (I may be one of them!! )

With the rise of AI and the decline of public service broadcasting this kind of problem can only get worse.

Elsvieta, your explanation of mean, median, mode is very welcome to me. Thank you so much. Please, is there any chance that you could shine a light on what it means when something is 'unfalsifiable'?

I often ask myself this. I think people's concentration spans and problem solving skills are definitely worse than they used to be. I just googled 'has the average IQ changed in the UK in the last 30 years?' and this was the response:

• Throughout most of the 20th century, IQ scores in the UK rose, a trend known as the Flynn effect, driven by better education, nutrition, and environmental factors.
• The Reversal (1990s–Present): Studies indicate that this rise stopped around the mid-1990s and has since seen a decline. Research from 2009 showed that British teenagers in 2008 had lower IQ scores—dropping by more than two points—compared to teenagers 30 years prior.
• Ongoing Decline: Other studies suggest that IQ scores in some Western countries, including the UK, have been dropping by approximately 2–5 points per generation since the early 2000s.

Reasons for the Shift
Researchers suggest several factors for this reversal:

• Technology and Media: Increased screen time and the use of technology may affect cognitive capacity, with people focusing on scanning information rather than deep thinking.
• Education System Changes: Changes in how language and mathematics are taught, as well as reduced emphasis on certain analytical skills.
• Environmental Factors: Declining quality in education or environmental changes.
• "Dumbing Down" of Youth Culture: Some researchers, such as Prof. James Flynn, have suggested that environmental and cultural factors in modern society have led to less "cognitive exercise" among teenagers.

Important Context
While some studies show a decline, it is important to note that IQ tests are designed to be "renormed" (made harder) every 15–20 years to keep the average score at 100. Therefore, an average IQ of 100 today represents higher cognitive ability than an average IQ of 100 did 30 years ago.

I do think the ability to bash out a few poorly constructed sentences on the internet with the help of predicitive text has allowed millions of not terribly literate, not terribly intelligent, barely educated people to have their two penneth in impotant debates, where previously they wouldn't have had a voice except in the pub. I'm all for that, actually. It's good to know what the proles are thinking. They deserve to be heard too. Even though many of them clearly have all the critical thinking and reasoning abilities of an amoeba.

I mean, this is shocking, but I see this more as ignorance than stupidity. They frequently co-exist in the same people but they aren’t exactly the same thing.

I’m never sure whether people are actually getting stupider, or whether social media and the internet mean that we’re much more likely to hear what stupid people have to say than we were 20 years ago.

Either way it’s fairly terrifying.

I dont think it helps that nothing is every challenged online by moderators. And an article can have a typo or error but you cant get it updated.
So this week netmums had put a person was a ‘star’ when it was tsar.

Q. What relation was Prince Albert to Queen Victoria before they married?

A: Was he her father?

Private Eye swore this one was real..😅

The local pages I see are full of "in the good old days" people.In particular they mourn for the 1970s, when my large and prosperous home town was apparently much better than now (it was a post-industrial dump in my opinion)

Oh gosh - there must be some explanation for this.

Of course intelligence varies from person to person but I think the lack of informed-ness and awareness about how the world works is something fairly recent.

When I were a lass, there were just 2, and then 3, TV channels. Programming was pretty serious and often highbrow compared to now - it assumed a certain level of intelligence and education in its viewers. I had to watch the news and often Panorama because my parents watched them. Most people had only one TV. Children's programming was more serious and 'educational' then, and there were lots of really good science and arts documentaries, which I, as a working class child, lapped up and felt very grown up doing so!

The point I'm making is: you couldn't help but be reasonably well-informed in those far-off days, even if your family weren't well-educated. I went to a state school in an industrial town, but I still remember the level of conversation there - it would amaze teenagers now! I remember an older girl saying of her form teacher, in a strong northern accent '"Miss Bloggs looks like I imagine Helen of Troy to look". Well, she had to know who Helen of Troy was in order to say this.

Now youngsters (and all of us) can filter out anything that doesn't immediately interest us. We're rarely forced to sit and watch or listen to things we haven't chosen ourselves, from our own narrow interest range. The algorithm will make sure you aren't challenged and that you don't have your mind opened to things which you know nothing about, or think are boring.

There are lots of reasons why we are confronted by thickness and bone-headed ignorance much more nowadays, but I think this is one of them. Also - the non-judgemental attitude we're all supposed to have towards stupidity and ignorance certainly helps to foster it!

Some people are keen to shoehorn their political beliefs into anything. I dont think it's a right wing problem or an anti muslim problem. It's a people problem. On all sides of every argument stupidity prevails, gays for Palestein being one of my particular favorites. Or the trans women would get "periods and cramps" or the transwoman who wants a womb transplant so they can have a termination all stupid I am afraid.

I see a lot of really just plain thick people commenting on the local Facebook groups in my area. When the council tax letters went out everyone was up in arms, it’s crazy how many people think council tax is exclusively for the bins.

People seem to have no critical thinking skills whatsoever.

"Apparently, he's into philately!"
"What?! He never?!"

A friend of mine can pinpoint the exact moment that she wrecked her relationship* with her boss at a stationary chain. He was the manager and she, the deputy, with a degree in history. They were going through some stock and and she used the word elipse. He sneeringly asked what the hell that meant, and she explained. He was horrible to her from that moment forward and she left as soon as she could.

My sister had a similar experience using a particular word while working for a civil service department - I can't remember exactly which word, but it really wasn't that esoteric. He mocked her in a meeting, saying there was no such word and she showed that there was, and explained the meaning to him. Cat's bum mouth from her boss and a frosty atmosphere afterwards.

I've had lots of instances like this too. It's weird - I'm always pleased to learn stuff from people better informed or cleverer than me, and wouldn't dream of holding someone's superior knowledge, education or intelligence against them.

*That's not a great way of putting it - it wasn't her doing, but you get the drift.

I remember getting worked up into a rage after some protests...er, sorry, I can't remember what they were about (and I bet the participants can't either!!) but it was about a decade ago.

The cenotaph in Whitehall was climbed on and vandalised during the protest. This man was arrested and charged with criminal damage. His defence was that he didn't realise what the cenotaph was and didn't mean any disrespect.

He turned out to be the son of Dave Gilmour of Pink Floyd (himself a public schoolboy) who had gone to public school and was at that time studying history (yes, history) at an Oxbridge college. He was a Londoner born and bred.

Either he and his defence counsel were outright liars or he was surprisingly thick for a Londoner studying history at an elite university. I knew what the cenotaph was when I was at primary school in the NW of England.

As long as they don't expectorate. Just hate this.

Sneering at intelligence comes very easily to a lot of people.

Yes, this absolutely. Nobody likes to admit that they are thick, so it's much easier (to their way of thinking) to call somebody who isn't thick a know-it-all arrogant smart-arse.

It's the same with the people who will respond to any mention of what people did at university with "I went to the university of LIFE!" Yes, so did everybody... but some also went to an actual university. This is in no way remotely suggesting that people who didn't go to university are thick; but why seek to diminish the achievements of other people who did - and actually try to make out that they went to university because they were supposedly thick, or that going made them thick?! Nobody is stopping you from talking about your own proud life achievements too; but it's not a competition of 'who is great and who is thick?'.

There most certainly is a penalty for 'being clever'. It has been my misfortune to meet more than a few people who know perfectly well that I have been able to telepathically scan their entire vocabulary, and have chosen, with malice aforethought, to say to them a word they don't understand, in order to make them look like a cunt. Sneering at intelligence comes very easily to a lot of people.