To think prejudice against low intelligence is a big problem.

[Bluebirdsflyover]

I just read a thread on here about the tour de France crash and that woman who caused it.

Now, the woman was culpable for sure, regardless of what you think is a proportionate punishment.
But some of the comments (in fact the vast majority of the comments) were along the lines of:

“She deserves what’s coming to her, stupid woman”

“Nobody is THAT thick”

“I’m glad she will be made an example of, bloody idiot”

And so on.

Like it never crossed anybody’s MIND that some people are actually not as quick witted as others? Some people just aren’t that bright. That they don’t deserve to be punished for that?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not making any assumptions about the woman’s cognitive ability, hell we ALL make mistakes, even those who have been to flipping Harvard, and often big ones. Mostly we are lucky and they are not broadcast to the whole world.

If was the way people on that post used perceived intelligence (or lack thereof) as a justification for vindictive retribution that really bothered me.

Cruel people and actions - punish them.
Malicious people and actions- punish them.
Spiteful, sadistic, abusive, coercive, etc etc - punish them all!
‘Stupidness’ (for lack of a better word... it’s quite telling we haven’t really got a world for low intelligence or poor judgement that isn’t derogatory)... should it be punished?
I don’t think so.

Our absolute distain for people who are deemed to act in a ‘stupid’ way is testament, I think, to deeply prejudicial attitudes about intelligence.

If you go down that pathway... No one will be responsible for their actions. It's not their fault they killed someone they were abused as a kid. It's not their fault they raped someone they have low IQ and highly impulsive. It's not their fault they got really drunk and drove and killed that family.. their parents were alcoholics too it's in their DNA...

We cease to function as a society unless majority of people have culpability. We can function as a society making a small amount of exceptions... but if slightly below average intelligence is one of those exceptions it probably covers at least 40% of the population and that's dangerous if those individuals are not culpable for any crime they commit.

You’re right it has bothered me a lot.
It’s because I work with young people who are fully functioning members of society, but just are not very intellectually gifted. I can easily imagine one of them getting caught up in the excitement of the cameras, living in the moment and doing something unintentionally “stupid” entirely without malice. I am imagining the media laying into them, with no idea of the challenges they face.
It doesn’t really matter who the lady was, swap her for one of the young people I know and they would get treated just the same.

Does that still work if you apply it to, say, very privileged white men running the country who, despite very expensive education are obviously seriously lacking in sound judgement due to low intelligence? Do we give them a ‘pity pass’ as well, for being thick?

I don't think we have any evidence that the woman in question was not intelligent.

We can however deduce that she lacked basic common sense, had poor judgement, and was thoughtless at best, and reckless at worst.

I don't see that it is unreasonable to judge her for those characteristics.

Are you saying people who are intellectually challenged or have a lower IQ shouldn’t have to adhere to the same laws and standards as everyone else.

I think I know what you mean and I agree with you OP.

I can’t comment on the bike race woman, but we do seem to confuse low cognitive processing (or however you’d describe it) with lack of due diligence.

Both could be called ‘stupid’, but only one is deserving of the stigma of that word.

Stupid is as stupid does

@suggestionsplease1 I have read that too and absolutely believe it. It is so sad.

There is huge stigma around being of low intelligence, so we just pretend that everyone without obvious impairment is equally capacitous and culpable which is so unfair, some people have huge problems navigating the world. I’m not saying we should give everyone IQ tests and treat them accordingly - I just think we should be tolerant of mistakes where these are plainly obvious and without malice (eg tour de france)

The actual dictionary definition of stupid:

having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.

That woman is one of the above at least.

@Shelddd

If you go down that pathway... No one will be responsible for their actions. It's not their fault they killed someone they were abused as a kid. It's not their fault they raped someone they have low IQ and highly impulsive. It's not their fault they got really drunk and drove and killed that family.. their parents were alcoholics too it's in their DNA...

We cease to function as a society unless majority of people have culpability. We can function as a society making a small amount of exceptions... but if slightly below average intelligence is one of those exceptions it probably covers at least 40% of the population and that's dangerous if those individuals are not culpable for any crime they commit.

Ah but this is interesting point regarding how criminal behaviour is managed. For example, some countries put a lot more emphasis on the rehabilitation of offenders than the punishment of offenders, and are indeed using more of a deterministic understanding of behaviours rather than a free will understanding.

@Bluebirdsflyover

You’re right it has bothered me a lot. It’s because I work with young people who are fully functioning members of society, but just are not very intellectually gifted. I can easily imagine one of them getting caught up in the excitement of the cameras, living in the moment and doing something unintentionally “stupid” entirely without malice. I am imagining the media laying into them, with no idea of the challenges they face. It doesn’t really matter who the lady was, swap her for one of the young people I know and they would get treated just the same.

My son is autistic. Sometimes it's poor judgement, but sometimes it's just daft stuff that he does that my other child would have done. Or my nieces or nephews would do.

But also, my son can't go round harming people and just have it written off as 'oh well, sucks for the people hurt but what can you do'

A speeding driver who thinks the road is clear enough to speed, is making a judgement call. What if they then kill someone? Do we just say 'oh poor judgement, let them be on their way'

I think you are confusing low IQ with the affliction/decision of not understanding how your actions might affect others. Dd is friends with and this year dormed with (never again) a lovely young woman who has the highest GPA in their pretty competitive university and will go on to become an engineer or a doctor on an accelerated programme.

She has NO idea of how her existence and going through the world might affect other people. None. dd likes her but would never ever live with her again as she has zero idea that her actions/voice/etc might impinge on other people close by. the word impinge is not in her vocabulary. it was eye-opening to dd and to use as she described her (and she likes her)

I suspect that is the issue here rather than low IQ.

Years ago I volunteered as a reader in a school where they had a sign up in the hall saying (more or less) "this is a communal space. please remember you may affect other people around you even if you are doing nothing at all" I wish they would flash it on billboards on the highway.

Intelligence comes in many forms and flavours OP, but the woman in question showed a complete lack of basic common sense. I don't know her IQ but I can say without doubts her actions were stupid and dangerous.
Did she mean to cause harm? Likely not. But staying well away from oncoming traffic is something we instill into children from a young age. She may not be a stupid person but she certainly behaved in a stupid manner.

I think you’re getting all kind of mixed up Op.

how we deal with people who have very low IQs is an interesting question, are they as culpable in the eyes of the law. often they are coerced into situations.
But we are talking people with extremely low intelligence. Adults with the mental capacity of children. They are treated differently that is for certain.

Most people aren’t stupid, they’re average and they can chose to be more aware cognitively or not. That can be encouraged by schools or home environments or not.

A stupid act by an average of intelligence person is a stupid act, and quite rightly they could expect to be called stupid for it, and held accountable.

It was stupid, but most unlikely that she intended to cause the pile up. I feel sorry for her, apparently facing up to a year in jail if tracked down, for doing something daft, but almost certainly not intentionally harmful.

I think this is quite patronising.

I’ve met Drs who are clearly very intelligent to get in that profession but lack basic common sense. I’m on a medication and the amount of times I’ve seen it misspelled on letters is beyond a joke.

My brother isn’t the brain’s of Britain, he scraped through his GCSE’s. His boss who owns the trade company my brother works for is a self-made millionaire who went to uni, got great degrees etc. He often asks my brother stupid questions. One of them, no joke, was “My wife makes a lovely brown beef sauce that goes on our roast dinners, is there a name for it?”.

This woman could be a brain surgeon for all we know who had a lapse of judgment or just isn’t great at day to day common sense.

And he often goes to my brother for advice on maths, and general knowledge.

Actions unfortunately have consequences regardless of intelligence. In this case people were injured, there were serious financial ramifications for individuals and the entire event due to one persons actions. This can be seen on footage. Mental capacity can be used as a defence to mitigate penalties. I think that system works. Otherwise you are just saying “well that’s a shame you’ve broken your leg and lost thousands of pounds but be kind as she didn’t mean it”. And I think in most scenarios people are kind and accept accidents happen but when their actions are dangerous- that needs a different approach.

By your logic OP, if a drug driver hits somebody and kills them there should be sympathy based on that fact that they can’t have been that ‘intelligent’ to be on drugs and driving in the first place. Does that absolve their responsibility? It’s making a guess about their intelligence based on the circumstances of the crime, that has horrific implications.

Imagine the judge in court saying “Well, he didn’t actually go out intending to kill somebody. He was just stupid enough to try cocaine and ended up with an addiction and due to the addiction couldn’t fully in control of his actions on the night of the hit and run.”

Those who actually do need to be protected based on their cognitive ability are considered to have a learning disability.

Oh, I don't know, I'm torn on this one.
It's an incredibly stupid thing to do, I'm prone to not thinking.
Just so unfortunate (for want of a better term) this example was so serious and damaging!

I find the opposite seems to occur- instead of the assumption of selfishness/ stupidity, there seems a need to try and assume that it's because of issues the individual has first.

I would say there is a big difference between intelligence and common sense. A neighbor I once live near had a PhD but still managed to build his bonfire next to his hedge one year and had to call 999 when the whole thing went up. I'm not sure how one separates a lack of one but not the other.

She was clever enough to flee and then seemingly vanish off the face of the fucking earth. I'll save my sympathies for someone who deserves them.

I don't think anyone has an issue with intellectually impaired people.

We have a problem with people who don't use the intelligence they do have to keep themselves out of trouble.

If someone doesn't have the ability to assess a situation they wouldn't be blamed for messing up. If they do have capacity and don't use it, well, that's what "stupid" really means in the right context.

I should add, even not taking intelligence into account, people can make honest mistakes. But their actions have the same impact on others regardless. How is it fair on the victims to let them off the hook because it "was an honest mistake" ?

We do take intent and capacity into account in tribunals, but of all the people who ever attended this event, all of them except one managed to not do this very stupid thing (even though many must have been of similar intelligence). So clearly this was entirely avoidable.