This is objectively false because beauty/ugly is not a linear scale.
If it were a linear scale then 50% of people would be ugly and 50% would be beautiful. If it’s a scale with two axes, then 25% would be ugly, and 75% would be beautiful to somebody.
And beauty has way more than two scales. Some can be funny and be attractive, they can be pretty and be attractive, they could be caring and be attractive. The list goes on and on.
And what ends up being the case is that the vast majority of people are beautiful, to someone. Except for the dumb fucks that think that others are ugly. They’re beautiful to nobody.
It’s actually not. People who are brilliant in one topic could be easily stupid in another. Picasso couldn’t do calculus. Fish can’t climb trees.
It’s very rare to find an actual stupid person. Uneducated, sure. Ignorant, you betcha. But to be actually stupid across the board, you either need to have a real genetic deficiency, or be stubborn in your ignorance.
And I found that people who think others are stupid very often do so because they are ignorant themselves about the multiple types of intelligence.
It’s a reference to measures of intelligence sometimes being poorly thought out. Imagine if a monkey society came up with a basic competencies list. Among the list would probably be the ability to climb a tree. Now imagine if the monkey society tested a fish according to their competencies list. The fishwould be deemed lacking due to their inability to climb a tree.
It’s the same thing with asking a painter to measure the stars or asking a manager to do middle school-level math.
This is objectively false because beauty/ugly is not a linear scale.
If it were a linear scale then 50% of people would be ugly and 50% would be beautiful. If it’s a scale with two axes, then 25% would be ugly, and 75% would be beautiful to somebody.
And beauty has way more than two scales. Some can be funny and be attractive, they can be pretty and be attractive, they could be caring and be attractive. The list goes on and on.
And what ends up being the case is that the vast majority of people are beautiful, to someone. Except for the dumb fucks that think that others are ugly. They’re beautiful to nobody.
Wow. Deep.
Next tell me if stupid is a linear scale or not.
It’s actually not. People who are brilliant in one topic could be easily stupid in another. Picasso couldn’t do calculus. Fish can’t climb trees.
It’s very rare to find an actual stupid person. Uneducated, sure. Ignorant, you betcha. But to be actually stupid across the board, you either need to have a real genetic deficiency, or be stubborn in your ignorance.
And I found that people who think others are stupid very often do so because they are ignorant themselves about the multiple types of intelligence.
How does the fishes inability to climb trees make them stupid?
It’s a reference to measures of intelligence sometimes being poorly thought out. Imagine if a monkey society came up with a basic competencies list. Among the list would probably be the ability to climb a tree. Now imagine if the monkey society tested a fish according to their competencies list. The fishwould be deemed lacking due to their inability to climb a tree.
It’s the same thing with asking a painter to measure the stars or asking a manager to do middle school-level math.
Gotcha
It’s a figure of speech