The Proliferation of Stupidity

A lot of people give me grief whenever I point out someone is pro-State trolling. The term pro-State trolling covers three categories. First, there's someone who's merely clueless or stupid. These people usually give up once you correct them; they'll either learn or get disgusted. Second, there's someone with a professional interest in not understanding the truth. For example, a professional economist usually goes into a state of denial when they read about the Compound Interest Paradox. Finally, there are professional propaganda artists who are intentionally disrupting discussion. These can be direct State spies or someone working for a PR firm, such as a drug company representative censoring negative information on Wikipedia. The last two types of trolls tend to be very persistent. Either they can't admit that their brainwashing is wrong, or they're actively disrupting discussion.

This was an important trick by the Supreme Leader of Humanity. In order to encourage the proliferation of stupid ideas, it is necessary to make sure that it's socially unacceptable to point out when someone else is being stupid.

For example, suppose I present a logically sound argument. A troll says "FSK is wrong", but gives a logically incoherent response. I say "Your counter-argument makes no sense. You're trolling". This is a perfectly rational response. This isn't an ad hominem attack IF THE OTHER PERSON REALLY IS TROLLING. If I present logic, and the other person presents gibberish, then what's the point of making a logical response to someone who speaks gibberish?

If it's unacceptable to point out when someone is acting stupidly, then this guarantees the proliferation of stupid ideas.

A lot of people don't like being called a troll. They say "**** you FSK! I'm not reading your blog anymore." It's usually the people who don't have much to say themselves that do this.

Some people actually respond favorably to being called a troll. Some blogs have improved the quality of their content after I pointed out errors they made. For example, the Picket Line, RadGeek, and no third solution are showing improvement in their quality.

This behavior stems from the school brainwashing process. In school, everyone is coddled to feel intelligent, even when they do stupid things. Memorizing facts is confused with actual learning.

I've carefully analyzed it, and the peer review process is the *WORST* way to encourage scientific process. It's actually the *BEST* way to stifle scientific progress.

Suppose someone has a radical new idea. For example, all your colleagues believe the earth is at the center of the universe. You have the clever idea that, if the earth moves around the sun, then it simplifies orbit calculations. When you present this idea to your colleagues, you're effectively saying "You're all trolls!" or "You're all stupid!" They will be offended and reject your grant proposal. You won't get a job or promotion, and you'll be kicked out of the academic community.

If the scientific community is filled with people of perfect integrity, then the peer review process works. If the community is filled with people of perfect integrity, then any system will work. The peer review process guarantees a deterioration in the quality of science over time. Once you get a few bad apples controlling the peer review committees, then deterioration occurs exponentially fast.

The scientific peer review process practically guarantees that the most original thinkers will be banished from working as scientists. The State has a practical monopoly funding science. There's no competition in the market, so the inefficiency is not exposed.

For example, someone who said "It might be possible to build a Zero Point Energy Generator!" would never get a research grant approved by physicists who all believe that such an invention is impossible.

The most brilliant people abandon careers in science. This leads to a deterioration in quality over time. This process is known as "evaporative cooling". As the smartest members of a community are banished, the average intelligence of the remainder decreases.

Similarly, independent thinkers usually get disgusted by careers in politics or as lawyers or journalism. This guarantees that the quality deteriorates over time.

In the present, most scientists are skilled fakers, more than skilled genuine scientists. If your livelihood depends on peer review, then sucking up to your colleagues is more important than actual talent. This is the essence of the nepotism economy.

When trolls get disgusted and say "**** you FSK!", the opposite process is occurring. The stupidest commenters get disgusted with my blog. Over time, the quality of comments is increasing.

I don't mind when trolls get disgusted with me. My blog is not for profit. The posts that offend the trolls the most wind up being relatively popular!

I'm trying to achieve an evaporative cooling effect. I'm actively encouraging the *STUPIDEST* people who leave comments on my blog to get disgusted and leave. Fewer than 5% of my blog's readers leave comments. The people who leave comments do not speak for those who choose to lurk.

Since my blog is an investment of time for no financial reward (yet), I like the fact that fools get disgusted and leave. This helps ensure that my time is not wasted.

My blog's readership statistics are increasing. I interpret this as an indication that my approach isn't too lousy. Whether my readership would increase faster or slower with another approach is impossible to determine. If you think you can present my ideas better than me, go ahead!