Don't you realize how sad half of the humanity is

Mieaz · 2017-05-29 00:20:38

I haven't yet consolidated this thought, enough to be serious talk, nor have I yet ordered it properly to explain it properly, but here it is:

I am not sure about the numbers but my estimation is that over 50% of people world-wide are narrow-minded (as in life-style). Look around yourself, for example: most of your high school friends and many of everyday people who do ordinary jobs for basic salary
They look like "normal" people that have common life problems, but they indeed have massive problem, narrow-mindedness (on different scales). They don't realize their potential nor they seek self-improvement. I am not saying people people shouldn't "be happy what you have", but there are thousands of possible self-improvements.

Basically: narrow-minded person is someone who tends not to be expert on anything nor does want to self-improve, does not have a specified goal or a plan for himself, does not consider or observe changes, usually thinks they are "the most right" and/or without observing enough the rest of possible ideas/solutions. On-top of this all, they are somewhat un-satisfied with their life (and aren't really willing to make it better).

By "narrow-mindedness on a different scale" I mean that even people who are good at something, often aren't self confident and don't believe in themselves to become even better.

Before I start something else remember these things:
1. No one really knows what they are doing and everyone is doing the best they can according to their own level of consciousness (The less self-control, the less intelligence (but this can be changed with proper teaching and tips!))
2. Anyone that has healthy brain (over 99.999% of people) isn't stupid, they are just used to think that way (and that "way of thinking" can be changed!)

If I had to arrange people on the "narrow-mindedness scale" from bottom to top it would be:

0. Mental disorder, this is not in the actual list, as it varies

1. Someone you would simply call stupid, but as I said, no one healthy is really stupid (probably 99% people you called retarded didn't have any mental problems (don't get me wrong, emphasizes on narrow-mindness are not because it is the only thing at the scene for defining someone's intelectual personality, just that is theme of this post)) , he is just subconsciously used to think close-minded (btw no one will ever directly think for themselves that they are "idiot", even if you are sure they are, they will just think they are not good enough at something or that you're not right)
2. Normal, an everyday person, which as I described above, does not intend to question, let alone utilize his potential

(all of these scales have their own "lower to higher ratio scale")

3. Better than average, someone who is very good, but unfortunately does not want to extend his limits
4. Non-narrow-minded-people, these are the so called smart people (but people in 3. can also be smart (but as stated not willing to push their limits a lot), as well as people in 2. (on specific topics)), people who self-improve in many directions in order to fulfill their goal, or even new goals. Literally the successful people or people who know how exactly to become successful.

What affects narrow-mindness on huge scale

1) Subconsciousness
The way of thinking, how you're thinking is affected in huge scale by subconsciousness, and thinking itself affects how you subconsciously think, hence the loop. But this is also affected positively/negatively by environment (for example reading an useful book or early-school program which I will talk about later)

The thing is, you need to literally revolutionize your subconsciousness in order to make it better, because without nice repetition and understanding, it's barely any effective. Imagine it this way: you are an angry person all the time, then you watch a movie that "touched" you, now you feel like your life-style has almost completely changed, but that fades quickly, and soon you are barely 1% less angry
Note: Your subcon. needs to understand what, why, and how you need to think

Just for example: Imagine a typical league of legends 15-year old player (what a bad move at 15th year)
Now imagine he and his friends get a presentation on how to be more successful at life, during the show on his mind it's "I need to be more productive", and even deeper on his mind "league is not actually useful for me"
But as soon as gets home, he is much less affected by that "personality-change feeling", and he is like, "meh, I'll play some league and then study", and very soon, he is almost the same as he was

Emphasizing again: in order to change way of thinking, subcon. must understand specifically and clearly what you need to change in your life, what to improve, what to reduce, what tendency to force etc.

2) Young-age experiences
What happens to you as a kid HUGELY affects the way of your thinking. Ironically, schools are to blame for this. School separates children, thus changing their way of thinking in mostly negative way, as it does not give their confidence back.

Imagine this scenario: 20 kids in a class, as soon as "grades" start on, separation begins, kids have no idea what's affecting their life. So, one kid might not have time to study to get good grade, another might be sick, one might forget that he had a test, etc...
These life ups and downs (that are based on luck) will continue until there are excellent kids, and not so-excellent kids. Later on, this is going to continue in following way: excellent kids are usually (but not always) going to understand their potential and be successful at what they want, while worse kids will refer to excellent ones as "oh this nerd is so godlike there's no way I will be like him", and thus these kids don't understand how much potential they have, even worse it wasn't directly their fault to have worse marks.

Schools need to fulfill this!
No wonder why people like Da Vinci were self-taught? He had no reason to doubt in himself (but neither he knew how much he could extend his knowledge and imagination!), so that's why he kept on improving, and gone really far on that.

On beginning of school, over half of the lessons (and slowly reducing as children progress) need to be "how to study", "how to improve" and such lessons. This would dramastically change kids perspective, and even after many failures in life, they would know that they can actually succeed on what they're up to.
This is just roughly the improvement idea on early-education, there are many other things, such as less stressful grading. For example: if 9 yr old kid accidentally gets bad mark in math, and is unable to have excellent mark by the end, do you think he would even bother that effort? No, and that will just negatively affect his later education, and then life overall.

It's better teach people why and how to learn, than to force-learn them something without giving them a proper reason. Barely any teacher ever tells kids or explains properly why they need to know math in life, and thus the #Math_Haters

I have thought this idea up in my head, and as I am far from philosophist and psychologist, I hope one day this will be much more expert-wise considered

For me, this is incredibly sad, globally, less narrow-minded people are manipulating more narrow-minded people, and only less ones can change the system, but they don't want to.

Slabdrill, danielcool1

Tomahawk · 2017-05-29 02:17:26

This post is so vague and baseless that arguing against it would be like punching a cloud; there's no solid matter anywhere.

All I can say is that I disagree.

Onjit, Emma333, LukeM, mutantdevle, hummerz5

Abelysk · 2017-05-29 03:55:26

Tomahawk wrote:

This post is so vague and baseless that arguing against it would be like punching a cloud; there's no solid matter anywhere.
All I can say is that I disagree.

Agreed, what about everyone that uses social media outlets to try and inspire others like Instagram, Tumblr, Twitter etc.

Jobs aren't anything but things to make money with. Hobbies are so dofferent.

N1KF · 2017-05-29 04:21:45

Do you really know the mind of a "normal" person? If not, how can you say that they aren't reaching your potential? And what would you consider your potential? The amount of questioning and soul-searching you do in life (which is what you seem to be implying)?

Tomahawk wrote:

This post is so vague and baseless that arguing against it would be like punching a cloud; there's no solid matter anywhere.

My mind is vague and baseless, so naturally I find some interest in the post!

Norwee · 2017-05-29 08:11:10

Shut up.

Mieaz · 2017-05-29 09:37:35

Tomahawk wrote:

This post is so vague and baseless that arguing against it would be like punching a cloud; there's no solid matter anywhere.

There's no real agree/disagree, this is the phenomenon I have noticed in my region and I am not sure on how big scale it applies to others, e.g if you are student you will meet many smart people and won't have this perspective as in post

Tomahawk wrote:

All I can say is that I disagree.

yeah, just disagree with something if you aren't exactly sure you agree or not, nice...

Abelysk wrote:

Hobbies are so dofferent.

they indeed are, hobbies are one of 4 most important things to do in your free-time, but "normal" person doesn't seek to further improve on his passion (if he chooses to do so, he might even make a profitable and enjoyable "job", but most people as I said are not confident to go that far (and don't realize that it's not "that" far))

N1KF wrote:

Do you really know the mind of a "normal" person? If not, how can you say that they aren't reaching your potential?

I don't, but you can easily spot one as I said in beginning of the post what a narrow-minded person is (ofc I didn't list everything in-details as even I am not sure)
Just imagine someone when they're 65-years old, would they recall their life as: "life was okay, I had some fun and some experiences and some troubles but I didn't accomplish anything of actual importance in my life"?

N1KF wrote:

And what would you consider your potential?

Talent and potential are two distinctive things, talent is when you're naturally better at specific topic, and potential is, well, everyone has potential to become expert at anything, how hard they will get to that point depends on their starting point (which is dependent on things such as potential that gives easier/harder start).

And if you think I'm not using my potential because I am "wasting my time on EE", there's something called destressing

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

Shut up.

Can't say I didn't expect such a minor-spam from you.

mutantdevle · 2017-05-29 10:21:22

The way you phrase your post it seems like you are suggesting anyone can just get up and go out and do anything and get any job they want. You're basically saying the cliché "you can do anything if you put your mind to it". Well guess what, the world doesn't work like that. You can't do anything you want. There are several factors that inhibit this such as location, wealth and the system you live in.

"my estimation is that over 50% of people world-wide are narrow-minded"

What evidence do you have to support this? It seems like you have just plucked a random number out of the air. You also seem to suggest that only people who come under '4' are not narrow minded. So you think 50% of the world's population are 'successful' and know exactly how to be so? Sorry to burst your bubble but most people do not achieve the things they want to; mostly because they don't get the chance to do so. 50% is probably an understatement by your definition of narrow mindedness (which i disagree with). Especially when you consider that over 3 Billion people, almost half the population of the planet, live on less than $2.50 a day. These people are not trying to improve themselves as people and go on and achieve great things, these people are trying to stay alive. Does that really make them narrow minded?

"Barely any teacher ever tells kids or explains properly why they need to know math in life"

Has it not occurred to you that your teachers have very little power? The teachers can't tell you where it will be useful for 2 reasons. First of all, they don't know themselves. Secondly, it isn't actually useful. Teachers do not decide what you get taught, that's what the government does. They decide what we learn and what we don't learn. The education system (in most countries) doesn't function primarily as an education system. We go to school to become qualified to work and not educated as such. If the point of school really was to properly educate us then there would be little to no exams, they would teach us more life skills and not the basics that employers want us to know.

"less narrow-minded people are manipulating more narrow-minded people, and only less ones can change the system, but they don't want to."

It's not that they don't want to, it's that they physically can't. The 'system' is set up so that it cannot be over ruled and it restricts us all. If there was even a single person that could change the system (properly change it) it would have been done by now.

If you really want to know how sad humanity is, then consider these statements:

80% of the world's population lives on less than $10 a day.
On average, only 70% of what you donate to charity get's to where you intend it to go. The other 30% is usually pocketed by those who run the charity.
Most charities are ineffective. Eg. Giving money or feeding those who are homeless or hungry does not solve the problem. You are feeding them for 1 night. They are still homeless.
The majority of people donate to charity to feel good about themselves. Charity doesn't help (in most cases)
51% of war casualties are civilians (average from all wars since 1900)
22,000 children die every die due to hunger and starvation related illness.
A typical cow in the European Union receives a government grant of $2.20 a day. This means that the cow earns more than 1.2 billion people do on a daily basis.
At least 10 times as many girls are trafficked into brothels annually as African slaves were during the peak of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
Cargo ships and cruise liners dump 14 billion pounds of garbage into the ocean every year.
34% of the (first world) homeless population are under 24.
1 in 4 people will struggle with a mental health issue at some point in their life.
Over half of people who do develop a mental health issue will be between the ages of 14 to 18.
350 million people around the world are struggling with depression right now.
Roughly 788,000 kill themselves every year. Men between the ages of 15 and 30 are at the highest risk of suicide.
250,000 cases of rape or attempted rape are recorded by police annually (worldwide). These are only the ones we know about from people who have spoken out about it as 60% of rapes are not reported.
1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men will experience some form of sexual assault during their life.
15% of sexual assault and rape victims are under the age of 12.
About 6% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail. 15 out of every 16 rapists walk free. Only 16% of rapes reported to the police will be jailed.

Many of these problems can be solved or reduced with proper education. Sadly, this is not the things we are being taught in school.

So yes, the world is a depressing place. But the narrow mindedness you suggested really isn't much of a problem and to be honest isn't that real anyway. Many people would want to change the statistics that I have listed above. Everyone* would make the choice to have a world without all these problems over a world that does. Narrow mindedness does mean that these problems are ignored, but the notation that anyone can simply change their situation or the situation of others if they are not narrow minded is completely wrong.

"everyone has potential to become expert at anything"
Do you still agree with this? You mentioned starting points affect how well you can achieve things but are you ironically that narrow minded that you think anyone can overcome their starting point? Because for most people, the starting point is too far down to ever achieve anything of importance.

Mieaz · 2017-05-29 11:26:23

I will have more time to make a nicer post in a few days but from quick evaluation (might be wrong because I have just taken a look at your post) I think you're missing the "It's better to learn how to learn, than to learn"

There is a thing in which non-narrow-minded person can stand up, and that's education system, and the reason no one has already properly changed is because smarter people want to have less-smarter as slaves for themselves

We go to school to become qualified to work

Deciding what people will learn at school:

That's what the government does.

Don't you think government could easily change education to be proper one?

mutantdevle · 2017-05-29 11:31:16

Mieaz wrote:

Don't you think government could easily change education to be proper one?

Yes they could, but they won't. Typically, politicians don't actually want us to do well. Everything is centred around a profit and smarter people means less profit.

skullz17 · 2017-05-29 11:59:46

Well there are some valid points here, but mostly it only applies to a school setting. I don't like using the phrase "narrow-minded", but I do agree that poor attitude and poor self-perception can lead to people squandering their potential. There are people who don't understand everything they are told in a maths class, for example, but when they don't understand something, they don't ask. Doesn't an attitude like that make that class totally ineffective for them? This may lead to poor self-perception, which makes them less motivated to improve. Then there's the league player you mentioned. Well many people like him know what they should do, they just lack the discipline to make the sacrifices they need to make. Personally, I think discipline is the most important part of self-improvement.

LukeM, hummerz5

hummerz5 · 2017-05-29 15:27:57

N1KF wrote:

Do you really know the mind of a "normal" person? If not, how can you say that they aren't reaching your potential? And what would you consider your potential? The amount of questioning and soul-searching you do in life (which is what you seem to be implying)?

A good point. I think OP throws in some glancing qualifier that would deny me that angle of the argument, but the glaring question about "narrow-mindedness" is by whose standards do we declare it sad? If you expect of them to strive for achievement as an expert in something, you'll find that achieving cannot really be quenched. On the other hand, these individuals who might be " almost-satisfied" with their position can be closer to happiness without the struggle. Ignorance is bliss? Agreed, though, people who are upset with a situation but won't take available steps to change it are not in a position to express their dissent. However, most often this happens is when the illusory steps available are prevented by circumstances we would argue over. We can't declare other people ignorant of their own affairs.

Some people are just content to not fulfill their potential. That is sad in your view because they do not conform to your belief in happiness? Or you've formed your happiness based on a rule that requires the input of others? Cliche as I make that, it's not a good way to do things.

Devlin wrote:

Yes they could, but they won't. Typically, politicians don't actually want us to do well. Everything is centred around a profit and smarter people means less profit.

you guys sound really jaded or something. I mean yes, that's true, but shouldn't you guys be like "hey, there is hope in the world! we can persuade our politicians to do good things" I mean otherwise there's little use in debating something you expect no good to come from. (I mean yeah it's unlikely)

Mieaz wrote:

There's no real agree/disagree, this is the phenomenon I have noticed in my region and I am not sure on how big scale it applies to others, e.g if you are student you will meet many smart people and won't have this perspective as in post

I'm not sure you're in a position to declare your point as an absolute. "There is no disagreeing, there is only whether or not you have seen my truth." I mean yes philosophically you could say the scale applies a "zero level" but that's distracting and pedantic.

Devlin wrote:

The teachers can't tell you where it will be useful for 2 reasons. First of all, they don't know themselves. Secondly, it isn't actually useful.

Whoa there. Teachers cannot give specific instances for everyone, nor can they say for certain that all their pupils will actually reach a stage where any abstraction benefits them. However, you can't say it's useless. For some, yes. For others, no. Therefore, it has use. The teacher could say "some of you will use this in college" and be knowing and not wrong. Why so quick to gainsay the benefits of learning?

Devlin wrote:

It's not that they don't want to, it's that they physically can't. The 'system' is set up so that it cannot be over ruled and it restricts us all. If there was even a single person that could change the system (properly change it) it would have been done by now.

How do we know this? We can picture it to be true in our imaginations, our defeatist expectations. However, even in your single-person breakpoint situation, you assume this person would actually believe your "proper changes" are desirable. If they are a single person in that position, they very well could have reached the position simply through maintaining the status quo. Of course, this is baseless hypotheticals that are highly unlikely. But isn't it more fun to pick some sort of scapegoat without specifics to complain about?

Devlin wrote:

"everyone has potential to become expert at anything"
Do you still agree with this? You mentioned starting points affect how well you can achieve things but are you ironically that narrow minded that you think anyone can overcome their starting point? Because for most people, the starting point is too far down to ever achieve anything of importance.

You're bringing up a good point in a weird way. Obviously we can't all be "experts" because then no one would be. I guess I don't know your region, but in the united states that belief is flawed. Yes, there still is the chance, have hope, etc. But it's hardly a guarantee.

skullz17 wrote:

There are people who don't understand everything they are told in a maths class, for example, but when they don't understand something, they don't ask. Doesn't an attitude like that make that class totally ineffective for them? This may lead to poor self-perception, which makes them less motivated to improve

And yet we have to apply this to the long-term situation we have in education. There is no "step one. don't ask questions. step two. poor self-perception." This sort comes from multiple iterations of negative actions. But at the same time we have to recall the effects of family life on the work ethic or expectations or ability to focus on studies. Individuals in troubled households don't do the young education as well as others. OP, would you consider that to be the fault of the child for being too narrow-minded?

skullz17 wrote:

Personally, I think discipline is the most important part of self-improvement.

good choice of terms. Discipline doesn't necessarily make achievement or deny it. However, to improve, there seems to be by definition a required down payment of effort. If there wasn't, would that "improvement" actually be anything of value?
upwoot

edit: there's so much to say
like "perhaps he chose 50% because if you lined everyone up you could say 'this half is less motivated than this half' because that wouldn't be wrong, though not really useful either"

mutantdevle, skullz17

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#1 2017-05-29 00:20:38

Don't you realize how sad half of the humanity is

#2 2017-05-29 02:17:26

Re: Don't you realize how sad half of the humanity is

#3 2017-05-29 03:55:26

Re: Don't you realize how sad half of the humanity is

#4 2017-05-29 04:21:45

Re: Don't you realize how sad half of the humanity is

#5 2017-05-29 08:11:10

Re: Don't you realize how sad half of the humanity is

#6 2017-05-29 09:37:35

Re: Don't you realize how sad half of the humanity is

#7 2017-05-29 10:21:22

Re: Don't you realize how sad half of the humanity is

#8 2017-05-29 11:26:23

Re: Don't you realize how sad half of the humanity is

#9 2017-05-29 11:31:16

Re: Don't you realize how sad half of the humanity is

#10 2017-05-29 11:59:46

Re: Don't you realize how sad half of the humanity is

#11 2017-05-29 15:27:57, last edited by hummerz5 (2017-05-29 15:28:45)

Re: Don't you realize how sad half of the humanity is

Board footer