11-09-2024, 11:43 AM
(11-09-2024, 11:16 AM)Maxmars Wrote: Only because of my anal nature to enforce topic consistency...
Rumsfeld... in terms of "Smart people believing stupid things" how does this apply?
What is "stupid" idea that he believed? In what way was he so intelligent as to merit special significance to the contrast?
(I offer a concession to make this meaningful to me as a member... my own position is that he was following a script - probably not of his own design - he 'represented' an agenda... one that I have never heard authoritatively defined. Like most who are put in such positions, he was highly competent to do so. My agreement or rejection of his positions and utterances is irrelevant.)
Let's try to bring this back to "stupid ideas" embraced by intelligent people.
I did edit in a little closure that you may have missed:
(11-09-2024, 09:12 AM)UltraBudgie Wrote: Edit to summarize: Great call xpert11! Rumsfeld: a smart person who doesn't believe stupid things. Very very carefully and well.
Because it helps contrast the point, it's not about smart or not. It's about operation worldview: working outside the lines, working inside the lines, or working to move the lines (deconstructionism or revolution). Rumsfeld is a great example of "inside the lines", without modal flexibility, although he seemed perfectly aware of the larger scope, he didn't see that as his role.
budgie say lines what lines only happy joyflight!