Preface:
While I am aware of how pathetic this may(or may not) make me; I listened to AM radio this morning during my nearly 90 minute commute. Now, that alone isn't a big deal, what is however, was that I took a piece of paper and made a mark for ever person who called into "intelligent-radio" and either used the word "they" in reference to the Government/authority or was just so pathetically stupid that "they" left me with no choice but to generalize them.
Note: A prime example of something that would be said that would instantly leave you categorized (and marginalized) would be;
"It isn't nearly as bad as what THEY put on THE TV and let OUR kids watch."
I:
To help clarify my thought process, I am going to dissect my example given above as to show you just how it is I analyze or perceive peoples thoughts, commentary or beliefs. You will see that I highlighted above three (3) words in bold. I think it is important to break simple sentences down into points of logic. Perhaps this is reading too deeply into a person's message, but in my mind’s eye; I view any statement as something conceived out of logical thought and then expressed in a specific manner to convey a well thought-out message. At least that is how I personally form statements or convey messages (which is not only the reasoning for developing languages among civilized cultures, it's also the way in which communication was meant to be conducted).
Going by this logic, I will either hear the person speak or read their statements then in a way, filter it through my “logical thought processor” which similar to the children’s toy that you fit different shaped blocks into their respective shaped slots, I attempt (key word) to fit different mediums of communication into their respective logically structured message. In this example (which was actually said multiple times on the radio this morning), the communicator chooses to use the word “They” to describe what can only be assumed as a governing body of some kind, then references “The TV” as if the world is watching one gigantic television located in the sky (perhaps that explains some of this), then there is my personal favorite “Our kids” as if her useless spawn is my responsibility. Listen lady, you fell victim to that slow witted- fat fuck of a husband and chose to have a child; “that’s your baggage, you fall behind, you’re on your own”. When I hear a statement like this, I almost immediately discredit it and the person vocalizing it. It is just unimaginable to me that this person can hold any form of education.
II:
The meaning behind the words: (or more appropriately as used in the movie "Wizard of Oz”, The man behind the curtain) People regularly use the word “They” to describe things, specifically things to do with authority or forms of power. It is perhaps the single most identifiable word usage utilized by the mentally inept communicator. “They” did it. “They” allowed this. “They” said this. “They” who asshole? “They” is you fucknuts. If you are so stupid as to not even know who to properly identify, then why in the hell should I even bother hearing the rest of your statement? Simply put, there is no reason to, so I don’t.
People who use words like “The” before naming the subject, like “the TV” or “The Jewels”, listen asshole, it is just television. “'They' allow this message to be shown on television” NOT “the TV”. You went to pick up groceries at Jewel food store. NOT “The Jewels” you incompetent fuck.
“Our children”: No, your children. Take some responsibility you pathetic Cretan. These are your children, not mine, not your neighbors (well maybe your neighbors, but not as far as your husband knows). It isn’t the FCC nor the Whitehouse’s job to censor what YOU allow YOUR children to watch and hear. It is YOUR job. You mean to tell me we have become so stupid and misguided that we can no longer even do the most primal of tasks anymore? Managing your family is something animals do with great success and in the wild they actually have other larger animals preying on them; we just have those guys Chris Hansen pokes fun at in “To Catch A Predator” to worry about. Get your shit together. I go this bonkers on such word usage because I firmly believe that people say things like this because subconsciously (or consciously) they believe it is other people’s responsibility to help them tend to tasks.
It just astonishes me how different I am in my lifestyle than the vast majority. People try like HELL to associate themselves with certain groups or to tag themselves within a certain click of people, even our education process has gone to a group mentality (which just BAFFLES me because while the theory of “two minds is better than one” is practical, it is not rational, because personalities take over and it just becomes a large scale “group think” resulting in the minimizing of ideas and forms of thought). When I was in college (with exception for when I cheated because I had been binge drinking instead of doing my studies), I did everything I could to avoid being placed in group projects for fear that somebody might mistake my groups intelligence (lack of) with my own.
III:
I listened to “intelligent radio” for 90 minutes and throughout the entire show there were 25 callers that I counted. Of 25 callers 19 people communicated their message in this fashion or made an argument that literally was so off subject that one could only surmise they were semi-retarded or were victims of severe head trauma at some point in their lives. Now, like everything else involving people, you have to apply a curve. So, figure 10% of the people had stage fright from being ‘on air’. This leaves you with 17.1 callers just being incompetent (typically people will say ‘how can you quantify people in fractions’ and I believe, very easily. In fact, I think we should do it more often, I think people ought to be measured in fractions of a fully functioning brain. For example, “Christine is 5/8ths of a fully functioning adult”).
If you bestow any merit to the statistics linking IQ to certain types of music (which have concluded that rap/pop attracts itself to the lowest IQ and classical music is generally listened to by an individual of a higher IQ) and it would be fair to assess by using Arbitron ratings systems that stations such as B96, Q101 and WGCI are pulling in the largest audience (it’s valuable to note the B96 morning DJ goes by “Eddie & Jobo” – not guessing it's terribly informative programming); this means that if the majority of listeners (most of which make up the “lower IQ” according to the study) are listening to FM pop music then a small fraction of people are listening to classical radio and then another fraction are listening to their iPod (most of which are listening to pop music), the remaining listeners who have chosen to listen to AM “intelligent-radio” of political subject matter are generally speaking going to have the highest IQ or education level of those tuned into the radio at that given time.
That said, 17.1 (curve applied) out of 25 (or 68.4%) of the listeners with the highest IQ tuned in could not formulate nor communicate a rational thought or statement.
Epilogue:
I understand that my observations aren’t scientific, but I believe through my own experience of working with people from very diverse backgrounds that my findings are probably more accurate than they are ‘not’. I also know that most people would probably think I am weird for even analyzing people’s words to such a degree or interpreting a person’s statement so precisely. Am I wrong for assuming that people mean what they say? I am wrong for measuring people based on their output? If this is the case then we have a serious problem when it comes to how people are measured anymore. I mean, look at it this way; the people who called in, did so willingly, they weren’t called upon, they were passionate enough about the topic that they physically dialed in and put it on the line for the world to hear (and me to judge).
It is no wonder this country is so fucked up anymore. These people are calling and screaming about our politics or governing style and yet these same delinquents are the people responsible for voting for public office. Do you not see a major problem here? Because, I sure am concerned.
Lastly, as I never like to give my perspective without offering at least some advice; you can't improve stupid. You just cannot. Dumb people procreate, introducing even dumber versions of themselves. So there (unfortunately) is no effective way to limit or legislate such activity but what can be done is properly educating people. I think it is fair to say that everyone knew who was going to be sitting outside "Check N' Go" by about 10th grade, so why didn't we stop trying to stuff their limited brain capacity with worthless history and science (all things they will forget before the bell rings) and put them into classes to help access what few attributes they do possess? Because it isn't P.C. that is why. So now, we have people running around with very little common sense, skill, AND knowledge. As I said, you can't fix stupid, but what you can and SHOULD do, is teach to harness it. Teach people no matter how brilliant or how mentally defunct, to think things out before communicating. You can teach that. You can teach a person (and dogs) to follow a script or procedure.
Procedure:
1. Learn your limitations
2. Carry a note pad and pencil (assuming you are literate)
3. Listen clearly, focus on the messages coming in. Focus.
4. Think before you speak.
5. Write down whatever it is you are thinking.
6. Read it over.
7. Re-read it.
8. Say it out loud.
9. Think of an alternative response, in case you're questioned.
10. Repeat steps 4 -8.
11. carefully and slowly, deliver your message.
This will not guaranty you abstain from idiocy, but it certainly will serve as a preventative maintenance to if nothing else help make your stupidity appear carefully created.
No comments:
Post a Comment