The democratization of Intelligence

Democracy is a double edged sword.

On the one hand it gives a voice to everyone equally and on the other hand it gives a voice to everyone equally.

Equality is admirable and moral when viewed from a qualitative perspective; when looking at who a person is. No-one is intrinsically more important than anyone else, regardless of their religion, colour or nationality.

Equality is undesirable when dealing with what a person knows or can do.

Not every opinion counts. 

Uninformed opinions are worthless for they cannot grasp the complexities at stake. 

Poorly thought out ideas lack context and depth.

An untrained individual cannot make an accurate diagnosis.

An illiterate person cannot comment on contemporary literature.

They all lack the requisite knowledge.

Furthermore- even if we are immersed in a world of science doesn't make us scientists and just because we live in a world of philosophy doesn't make us philosophers.

Belief, whether it be in God or in his absence, cannot be a decided by democratic vote- because intelligence cannot and should not be democratized.

Incompetence breeds incompetence

As a student, one of my peers asked our Rabbi if it was a problem for students to look at their Rabbi with a sense of awe and omnipotence, almost as if they were infallible.

He answered that the real problem was when the Rabbi himself starts to believe it...

This is called the Dunning–Kruger effect — a cognitive bias where people ‘suffer’ from an illusion of superiority and thereby mistakenly assess their ability as much higher than it really is.

It is the inability of the incompetent to recognise their incompetence.

This makes me wonder ... perhaps the areas in my life where I am weakest are those I believe to be strengths ...

Blame the victim

Ever thought that a rape victim’s behaviour is responsible for their rape, a battered woman for her beating? Ever viewed people living in poverty as lazy, those sufferers from illness, mental or physical, as having invited their disease through poor lifestyle choices? Wondered if a bullied child asked to be bullied?
‘Victim blaming’ is an unconscious defence mechanism protecting us from feeling vulnerable. We would like to believe in a just world where actions have predictable consequences and people can control what happens to them, where good happens to the good and bad to the bad. ‘Victims’ threaten that belief.

When bad things happen to good people, the implication is that no one is safe, no matter how good we are, and that we too could be vulnerable.

In order to restore the equilibrium in our minds, we blame the victim. “If they deserved their ‘punishment’ then I am safe, because I wouldn’t have done what they did.”

A victim, by definition, is passive. Nothing the victim did can be the reason for what happened to them.

STOP BLAMING THE VICTIM

Between faith and hope

We might not all have faith, but we all have hope.

Faith is a belief in something that we cannot prove and is based on trust.

Hope is a want for something rationally illogical to happen, and is based on need.

We have faith in our doctors, but we have hope in new-age medical solutions.

We have faith in our relationships, but hope in our acquaintances.

Do we have faith in God or hope that there is one?

Do we have faith in the absence of God or hope that there isn’t?

Being right and being good

 

Being legal and being moral is not the same thing.

Is there something wrong with doing something legal if it appears immoral?

Morality should be a floor for launching off and not a ceiling to strive towards. We should not hide behind the fence of a technical legality when if it is morally flawed.

 People care what you stand for and represent, they don’t care whether it is legal.

And public figures....all the more so.