Negligence is the source of stupidity

Alright, I would like to start with your first point: Stupidity is the source of negligence. Concerning your first point, a lack of understanding does not always correlate with stupidity. We as humans have a lack of understanding of God and the universe, yet we still believe (or at least most of us) both exist. We do not exactly act differently, but perhaps more tentatively because of our lack of knowledge. For example, and this is just theoretical, NASA scientist see a meteor that will soon pass Earth. They also report that at the very same time, there will be a astronomical aligning of some sort. What they do not know is that the meteor will explode at that moment and destroy Earth. What is seen here is more of a lack of knowledge, not from stupidity, as the knowledge is now gained and can be applied, even though it destroyed the earth. Considering your position, I believe that it does not fit on a large enough scale. A person who is stupid may be able to understand the universe and all, but is not smart enough to apply the concept or gain knowledge, although they are not negligent to it at all. A stupid person can be negligent, but a negligent person is always stupid. Consider a student at a school. If they are negligent, they will see no value in being at school, nor value in the knowledge that they are supposed to be learning, rather, they choose to busy their minds doing meaningless, and often stupid, things. However, there may be a stupid, perhaps slow or mentally challenged is a more proper term, student who strives to learn but simply does not understand what is going on. I've actually meet a couple of people like that. Therefore, the latter student is not at all being negligent towards what is being taught, while the former is negligent towards all and does not, or will not, comprehend anything that comes towards them. I would also like to quote something that you said: "Stupidity would be avoiding reading a book when you know that it has information that you could make use of." To me, you are almost confirming my point. The person is neglect the information, the book as well, hindering them from gaining anything from the books. While a stupid person may try to read the book for the sake of attempting to understand, a negligent person will, as you said, completely avoid it. I'm just going to go down the row now. I understand your point about the books, as I enjoy certain type of fiction, I was implying that they book was made to teach something to the reader. If someone reads a book on integral calculus, while still trying to simple addition, while they may be able to read the whole book and claim that they read it, they did not gain anything of the sort information through that. Also, theme is a well known aspects of good books, including fiction and all genres. Theme is known as a unifying idea, image, or motif, repeated or developed throughout a work, generally a novel that teaches the reader something of moral, mental, or emotional value, probably more so moral than any other. This moral theme teaches the reader something, thereby allowing them to understand something they didn't comprehend beforehand. Even reading a sign teaches someone something specific, such as a speed limit sign teaches someone the speed limit in a certain area. "Humans are so often content with the norm because the abnormal is difficult. It is human nature to strive for comfort. Still, you could say human nature is stupid in this sense." Yep, no point in arguing idea if you agree. Very well said, I agree as well.... Well, perhaps not human nature, but society as of now. I can probably think of times where human nature was much more different and sophisticated. On your final point, it is right in some aspects and wrong in others. Yes, humans are instinctive, but instinct is not always emotional. Considering the 16 personality types of Myers Briggs, eight of those types are logical and rational thinkers, meaning they choose to use logic over emotional response. Some types, groups of people, would want to save their friend in a fire, while a logical person would reason that the most likely situation is that both of you would die, so there is no reason to waste your life that way. Furthermore, the continuous questioning is not in all cases. As I have pointed out the logical thinkers, there would be a specific point at which one could not give an answer, rather than just a response that uses no actual thought. This also shows how the often named stupid society neglects thought, making them unintelligent at times. Also, not all humans are based upon irrational thoughts. Obviously you and I are taking place in an intellectual debate, which uses rationale. Now, society as a whole may be based upon rampant emotional decisions, while each human may have their own preference, society now is often biased towards the more illogical thinking, giving humans the dim appearance we have now. The answers you provided for these people are more so generalizations of the population. Seeing as you are taking place in a debate and question the legitimacy of society, as well as what people think, I would say that you are a logical thinker, as am I. If you disagree, please give a quick note as to why you do.