seattle.politics

hal lillywhite wrote:

> Paul Mitchum wrote:
>
>
> > > > Tell us, hal, how you determine who possesses superior wisdom. Just
> > > > a short paragraph will do. Please instruct us on how to sort the
> > > > wheat from the chaff. TIA.
>
> ...
>
> > > 3. Don't make the opposite error. Some celebrities can take the time
> > > to really learn about a subject. If they have done that, they may be
> > > worth paying attention to.
>
> ...
>
> > So how do you know you're not violating item 3 when you say that 'Many
> > of these folk in Hollywood and seem to think that the ability to make
> > lots of money pretending to be something they aren't gives them some
> > superior wisdom'?
>
> You use your brain. Carefully.

So then the system breaks down here, doesn't it?

> > This is generally good advice, even though it doesn't actually answer
> > the question about how to evaluate someone else's superior *wisdom,*
> > particularly if you're going to cite a 'smell test.' There are many
> > extraordinarly wise people who are routinely ignored or villified
> > because what they say is extraordinarily wise, but unconventional.
> > Wisdom is, almost by definition, shocking.
>
> What part of "I wish I could give a definitive answer but I can't" do you
> not understand?
>
> I thought you were asking an honest question

I was.

> and treated it as such (It was a good question, in fact, whether your
> intent was honest or not). However I'm beginning to suspect that you just
> want to argue. If that is the case this discussion is over, I don't want
> to particupate in such. However if you really have an honest question and
> want an honest discussion I'll gladly participate.

Why do you think I'm being dishonest in my answer? Because I didn't give
you grave obeisance, and then went on to point out that you weren't
following your own rules?

Everyone wants to think they're the smartest guy in the room.

--
/cartoons/2007/