(urth) interview questions

[Jerry Friedman]

> From: Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>

> >Dan'l Danahy-Oakes: This is a forced and false dichotomy. It is possible  for 
>Gerry to
> >believe you are wrong without believing you are stupid.
> 
> I disagree. When you tell someone else they are wrong it means you either  
>think they are: 
>
> 
> 
> 1. ignorant- i.e. they do not have access to the  full range of information 
>necessary 
>
> 
> or
> 
> 2. stupid- i.e. they do  not have sufficient brain power to use the information 
>correctly
...

You're wrong.

Proof 1: I don't think you're ignorant or stupid.  QED.

Proof 2:  I've said I was wrong (not just on trifles such as my former views on 
the Annese), and I don't think I'm ignorant or stupid.  QED.

To err is human.  The Pope who said that was fallible himself, but he was right 
that time.  We all have insufficient brain power, and there's no need to call it 
stupidity--even Newton and Einstein made mistakes.  And we're not responsible 
for knowing everything or remembering everything that might be relevant, so 
there's no need to call a failure to do so ignorance.

I trust that when someone here comes up with a new idea, you can enjoy it and 
even admire them without feeling stupid because your brain had insufficient 
power to come up with it.

> As most people using normal social discourse understand, there  are ways of 
>disagreeing with
> other people which still show a full measure of  respect for their knowledge 
>and intelligence.

People's ideas of respectful social discourse differ.  For instance, some 
people--I'm not speaking for anyone on this list--feel it's respectful to assume 
others can participate in a forthright discussion of what ideas are right and 
wrong instead of assuming others need to be handled with kid gloves.

Jerry Friedman