Monday, 26 January 2009

Thinking Men "Use" Women For Sex

There are many people who believe that men habitually "use" women for sex. It's a common belief held by some (not just women) that sexual intercourse is in essence taking something from a woman if not done in a way that's considered "right".

And apparently, what's considered "wrong" is not related to sex itself, but in the feelings that arise afterwards, because of "expectations" that were not met along the way.

"I enjoyed the sex but I didn't get a relationship out of it sooo.... (I guess that means) I was used!"

And if, as a guy, you don't want a relationship (but want sex) that means you just want to use women.

Some women think that men only view women in one of two ways: relationship material or "fuck and dump" material. Yes, it can feel very empowering for some women to view things through this black and white filter.

Typically, people who see things this way are unable to enjoy sex by itself. It has to be a stepping-stone, prerequisite, or bargaining chip for something else.

Otherwise it's the same thing as picking up a rag, cleaning something off with it, and discarding it.

Now, given that some guys really don't want a relationship, but want to get laid, they are prepared to lie to women in order to get what they want. The problem with this is that afterwards they quickly get bored (or they realize the games aren't worth it), and move on. Result: she feels used.

Given that the typical societal expectations for having sex are so abnormal and difficult to live up to, the end result will always be women who feel used.

However, intelligence is key.

One must screen for intelligence in sexual matters. And the easiest way to do this and waste no time dealing with dummies, is to tell people upfront that you only want to be friends with benefits, with no strings attached. This will automatically disqualify 99% of all the dumb people who have sexual hang-ups.

The reason this works so well is because only someone who has gone though the process of questioning the status quo will realize that FWB can be a great thing. And even if you actually prefer a relationship it's much more healthy to develop one with a FWB than with a sexually repressed dumb person who would make you go through a bunch of hoops and bullshit exercises.

Sunday, 25 January 2009

Denying Global Warming Because It's Winter

Now that it's the middle of winter and it's cold outside, dumb people are up in arms denouncing the threat of global warming and climate change.

It seems that now is the perfect time to view the scientists warnings (and satellite images of polar ice melting) as one big hoax designed to scare people.

The attacks are many and reminiscent of something from the "let's hate on something" bandwagon. Not to mention they are bored and don't have much to do this time of year, so why not.

Here's one of the first things a dumb person will say with regards to global warming:

"But 2008 was one of the coldest years!"

This is true, but only in the last 8 years or so. One has to consider that the general trend has been upward. Climate change doesn't follow smooth linear trends; the kind that dumb people can follow.

Dumb people also have short memories. Back in the 1980s the 2008 temperatures would have been considered warmer than normal.

Facts can be a bitch but in an effort to stand their ground dumb people will say things like:

"I'm so sick of hearing about this!"

Which is unavoidably followed by:

"Guys like that scam artist Al Gore are making a ton of money off this!"

If someone is making a living and maybe even getting rich then it must be false right? In that case let's denounce religious establishments as well since they are also in a way spreading "fear" and making lots of money in the process. And they are doing it all based on beliefs, and not at all based on facts.

But surely, anyone can understand that releasing many billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air each year will eventually have negative results.

Furthermore, pollution and global warming is something you can feel, and over time measure. And shouldn't an upward temperature trend over the last hundred plus years at least make the idea plausible? And what if the rate of temperature increase closely matches the rate of increase of global carbon emissions, especially in the last 60 years. Shouldn't that at least make the idea plausible? Not according to some.

Have a look at the chart that "proves" global warming is not real. I pretended I was a dumb person and added the note you see on the bottom right. The original chart is courtesy of the UK Meteorological Office. NASA also has a similar chart (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008).


Click on image for larger view


There you go. Over the last 100 years there are at least eight distinct regions that "prove" global warming is fake. Somebody send me a cheque.

Sunday, 18 January 2009

Writing Mediocre Personal Ads And Expecting Quality Responses

Many people write online personal ads that have little in the way of unique personal content. They write things that are very generic, with little substance and which don't offer anything insightful to the reader. And the reader, usually having nothing to work with, can only send a simple one-liner like: "I like your profile. Let's chat." The person then reads this and deletes the message because it's "too boring" and shows "no effort" on their part to get to know them. Well duh, it's because they have nothing to work with!

The overwhelming majority of the time this scenario plays out with women. So let's focus on that.

There are many dumb women who put up superficial personal ads and are swamped with responses, only to reject all of them because they lack substance. Most of the women who do this are the ones who spend a lot of time on makeup and clothes in order to attract a "mate". They then take pictures of themselves, upload them, throw in a sub par profile, and assume that's enough.

But ironically, given that the bulk of the profile is contained in the pictures, it cannot be the basis for a response - it would be chastised as "superficial" and quickly discarded. So the only alternative is to base a response on the sub par profile itself.

But really, how can someone write something of substance in response to:

"I'm 28. Very successful. I'm looking for a guy with a great sense of humor and who likes dogs. I'm very laid back and like things like camping, candlelight dinners and walks on the beach. I enjoy life and am looking for that special someone who will give me butterflies. I'm looking for someone who is interested in the same things as me. If you think we might be a match send me a message."

Now, what the heck can a guy write in response to that?

"Hi, I'm very successful too, and I like dogs. Let's talk"

"Hi, I also like camping and walks on the beach. I think we might have a lot in common! P.S. luv the profile!"

"The fact that I enjoy life too means we are probably meant for each other."

Now, in her mind these will sound fake. And it's true, they are fake. They are attempts by guys reaching out to women using any means they can think of. But because the women are giving them nothing to work with they are in fact over-reaching. And it makes them appear needy.

So here's the result of this. There are only two possibilities:

1. Receive boring lame responses from men. Result: delete and no hook up.

2. Receive no responses because the men are smart enough to know it's a dead end (unlikely since there are way too many needy guys online). Result: no hook up.

It's a lose-lose situation. No matter what happens, these women will never meet anyone, and will never understand why. All they'll have to show for it is frustration that there's no "good men", and some version of carpal tunnel; the result of being a serial message-deleter.

Saturday, 17 January 2009

Getting Stressed Planning Vacations

Vacations are meant to relieve stress and gain a fresh perspective. So it is very odd that this activity stresses so many people out, both in the planning stage and during the vacation itself.

Dumb people see vacations as big to-do lists. Gotta do this. Gotta do that. They get hung up on the details of how to have the "perfect vacation". But they never really enjoy themselves because they are too busy dragging themselves through the motions of what they feel they have to do to make the most of it.

Can't stay at home. Too boring.

Can't go somewhere local. Too easy.

Can't go somewhere that isn't super-crowded. Too unpopular. As a member of the herd you have to all be doing the same things in order to feel good about it.

Afterwards it's funny to hear a dumb person say how they can't wait to get back to work because of how stressful the "vacation" was.

And the next time around they are compelled to top it. This adds to the sense of restlessness and unease, and keeps the momentum going the next time they want to get away from it all.

Tuesday, 13 January 2009

Criticizing Prince Harry For 'Offensive' Remarks Caught On Video

Prince Harry is having to deal with criticism resulting from a video of him made three years ago, in which he said certain things which are not considered "appropriate".

While it is understandable that certain statements can be interpreted as offensive to someone, somewhere, they are hardly a rare occurrence. People say crap all the time. So why is this getting as much attention (if not more) than that meteorite which landed in western Canada a few months ago? Now that was actually a rare occurrence worth mentioning.

It seems that the problem is this:

I can call someone a "ho" but I just can't get caught on video saying that, or be third in line to the British throne and get caught saying that.

Such things are only offensive if caught on video.

But here's food for thought: Context. What if Harry's so-called racist and crude remarks were just part of relieving the group tension commonly found in groups of young males. And what if his comrades were saying equally "sinister" things in turn, but those weren't included. I know I've said some pretty nasty stuff in the past but it was generally superficial, and letting off steam, not meant to hate on anyone. You tend to outgrow such juvenile outbursts, but once in a while something comes out which encroaches on political correctness territory.

Can't be serious all the time can we?

But amazingly, such comments, when coming from celebrities and politicians, are very offensive for some. And yet people say them all the time. And dumb people especially, who rarely think before they speak, are the first to call the kettle black. It's a sign of hypocrisy and a double standard between what goes on in our private lives and what is expected from those in the public eye.

And now, as expected, Harry has to apologize for it. In the words of his spokesman:

"Prince Harry fully understands how offensive this term can be, and is extremely sorry for any offence his words might cause."

Yeah, I'd be pretty sorry too, for all the mentally challenged people out there who think this is a big deal when there are other bigger problems in the world to deal with.

Friday, 9 January 2009

Bashing Vegetarians and Vegans

"If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did He make them out of meat?"

A priceless Homer Simpson moment, and equally hilarious. Except that there are those that actually think this statement is valid.

A dumb person will never question the wisdom behind eating a big juicy hamburger. After all, it came from meat. Never mind the fact that the cow itself was not raised on meat.

"But humans are carnivores."

In that case we are different from every other carnivore on the planet. We don't have sharp teeth, claws, and the strong stomach acid necessary to digest raw meat. As well, we have long intestines designed for plant matter primarily, whereas carnivores have short intestines - a necessity because rotting meat must be quickly expelled to avoid the toxins.

Furthermore, we are the only carnivore that has to cook meat in order to make it digestible.

This will no doubt give a dumb person pause. But they won't give up that easy. They'll just bring out the big guns; namely statements beginning with "If God didn't..."

"If God didn't want us to eat animals he would not have made them taste so good."

"If God didn't intend man to eat beast, then why did he make them furry, and killable?"

"My dad says, if God didn't want us to eat meat he wouldn’t have invented steak sauce."

Apparently the relationship between God and dumb people is a close one.

Dumb people are sickened by the fact that Vegetarians and Vegans are denying themselves meat - one of the best things in the world. For them, it's equivalent to saying: "I don't breathe." In their mind both these things are vital for survival.

Furthermore, if it's part of a balanced diet it's perfectly healthy. This is actually true to an extent. Meat does provide some nutritional value, but then, why do dieticians always tell us to eat vegetables with meat. It must be hard to digest or something.

This will usually bring another wave of responses in the form of fabrications and anecdotes.

"Vegetarians are pale and skinny."

"Vegetarians don't get enough protein, calcium, etc."

"Vegetarian diets cause people to emit more gas. All those beans and roughage makes people fart!"

"Vegetarian is a North American Indian word for bad hunter."

"Vegetarians are not less violent. They are more critical of others who don't follow their ways. Hitler was a vegetarian. I can't stress that enough."

This last one is clearly a not so subtle attempt at vilification by association.

And then there's the personal accounts:

"He told me that he had been a Vegan for 7 years. Later on he had to ask me to pull down his wife's suitcase from the overhead compartment. Poor guy just didn't have the strength. I had no problems lifting that suitcase."

If there's any overlap between physical weakness and not eating meat, that's all the proof you need.

Heck, let's throw in "Obama is a muslim" as well. Off topic, but on the same level.

When anger rises the dumb comments flow freely:

"Plants are just as alive as animals. It is no more wrong to kill/eat an animal than to kill/eat a plant. Vegetarians who think it's okay to slay plants, but not animals, are like other racists who think it is okay to kill blacks, but not whites. This reveals vegetarians as hypocrites, too."

But I agree that killing carrots may be wrong.

However, plants are not sentient beings and have no nervous system, so they don't feel pain.

In the wild, it's true that many animals become food for other animals. But the difference is that they are not born into captivity and made to endure what farm animals typically go through.

And on that note,

"Humans are at the top of the food chain so it's justified."

In that case, let's put you in a cage unarmed with a polar bear. If it eats you it's justified.

And then there's the defensive strawman arguments:

"Humans ARE superior to animals. That is the way God and /or Mother nature planned it. And there is a very BIG difference between beating a child or fellow human and slaughtering an animal. You just proved what all the meat eaters have been saying about vegans. Humans just aren't important to you."

God + ego + capital letters = dangerous tool for dumb people.

And as if dumb wasn't enough. Let's upgrade to just plain stupid:

"Those who think we should not eat meat because all life is sacred are naive. Would they be happy allowing mosquitoes to spread malaria, or having rats run loose in their home? Not all creatures are equal. There are natural hierarchies in the food chain."

Apparently tolerating pests and malaria are in the same camp as wanting to spare farm animals. Being Vegetarian means you would gladly allow the spread of disease.

Another hilarious reason on why eating meat is better:

"Vegetarians are not more moral because they are killing plants to survive and many animals die from wheat thrashers. And those animals are left to rot and suffer in the fields and are not eaten."

This one is like condemning wind turbines because they occasionally kill birds, while overlooking the fact that bird deaths from cats, vehicles, and windows are far, far greater.

However, since this one is based on a shred of truth it must be addressed. Animals raised for food consume 10 times the amount of energy in plant matter than the meat they provide. So with no livestock there would be much less land needed for growing the wheat/grains to feed them. So in fact, less animals would die from "wheat thrashers", as Earl so aptly stated.

In addition to freeing up land it also takes about 100 times as much water to produce meat than to produce wheat.

Food and water shortages would be much less of a concern.

And we would also not have to deal with all the animal waste and runoff into rivers/streams etc.

The American Dietetic Association and the World Health Organization, among other groups, point out that vegetarian and vegan diets provide all the nutrients people need to be healthy. And it cuts down on a lot of the things that are bad for us, which contribute to obesity, disease, etc.

Many people are vegetarian/vegan and have lived happy healthy lives for many years, including celebrities, scientists, and prominent people from the past such as Leonardo DaVinci and Albert Einstein.

I could go on but this post is about dumb people bashing vegetarians and vegans, not the reasons to switch.

Wednesday, 7 January 2009

Dating And Relationship Books That Teach Manipulation

Due to mass appeal, certain types of dating and relationship books have become very popular. These books typically teach strategies that involve the use of deception and manipulation in order to get the men (or women) you desire. For most individuals they are an affront to intelligence and individuality but for dumb desperate people they appear as a godsend.

In addition to feeding off insecurities, these books also play on the ego; especially the books for women.

For example, dumb women with big egos love hearing:

"It's okay to want a guy to call you everyday. Because you're awesome and you deserve it!"

Anything less is, of course: "He's just not that into you" - which is actually the name of a dating book.

Using junk science, rhetoric and attacks on the self-esteem, the authors of such books manage to convince their dumb readers that they should follow certain guidelines to have any chance of succeeding in romantic relationships. These guidelines are essentially "scripts" which involve deception and leading the other person into believing you are something you are not. Apparently, this is the key to having happy and fulfilling relationships. If you can't get someone by being yourself than be someone else.

The dangerous aspect of these books is that they can in fact work, but only on the most insecure, hedonistic, and emotionally unregulated individuals. The fact is, the techniques rely heavily on there being people out there who will get sucked in by them. It's like banking on the worst traits that some people have and then calling that the method of choice.

There are two books I'm going to focus on for the remainder of this post. They are "The Rules" - the dating book for women, and "The Mystery Method" - the dating (pick-up) book for men.

Dysfunctional Dating For Dummies

Dumb, hurt, jaded women will have plenty to celebrate when they manage to reel in the most neurotic of Don Juans who get off on the chase (and lose interest soon after). This will cause them to brag to their girlfriends that the material works! Some of them will then log on to amazon.com and under Book Reviews, will proclaim how wonderful The Rules is because it landed them a man (sometimes accompanied by tons of grammar and spelling mistakes). And in a predictable manner (as if to diffuse potential criticism), they will also repeat/parrot what the authors wrote by saying that the only men who are turned off by this are "jerks" because they refuse to appreciate a "real" woman and put in "the time" to get her.

Similarly...

Dumb, hurt, desperate men will have plenty to celebrate when they finally reel in the most insecure, hedonistic women who respond most favorably to men who give the impression of not wanting them. The self-esteem bait really works, they will say. You keep it just within their reach and eventually lead them to the bedroom (which is usually the main intent). And legions of men will follow suit, hooking up with the same type of women, and reinforcing the belief that "all women are like that", so it must be justified to do this stuff because it's the "only thing that works".

The problem is that the authors of these books never attempt to instill any rational thought into the mind of the hapless reader. They communicate that insecure thoughts are okay to have, no matter how infantile, and they can be resolved by getting "something" external. But no effort is made to get to the bottom of those bad feelings and deal with the core confidence (and intelligence) issues. Instead, they feed those fears and amplify them. For example, in The Rules this is done using shock value, such as:

"It's not fun to break The Rules. You could easily end up alone."

And in "The Mystery Method":

"If you don't learn how to attract a beautiful woman, nature will mercilessly weed your genes out of existence."

And now that the fear is primed, a solution is offered.

And any success that follows (if it follows) makes the authors appear to be geniuses.

If someone is truly so clueless about dating and relationships, any improvement, no matter how obscene, can be seen as salvation.

But holding on to a life raft is not the same thing as being on solid land.

Of course, the methods used tend to raise ethical concerns. But the authors, in order to shield themselves from rational scrutiny (and sleep better at night), do some very clever and cult-like things. For example, from the book "The Rules", the author tells the readers:

• Don't discuss The Rules with your therapist

• Do The Rules even when your friends and parents think it's nuts

• Don't read books that advise against The Rules

• The only guys who will be turned off by this are the guys who weren't really interested in the first place

• Men have a biological need to pursue, so don't make things easy for them

• The authors were once skeptical too, but it works

All these points are written to discourage independent fact finding, leaving the female followers with a certainty that the book is right and, by process of elimination, removing all those men who could cast doubt on the usefulness of the methods.

Now, from "The Mystery Method", the author says things like:

• Don't listen to what women say. What they say they want is the opposite of what they actually want

• Don't try to think about this logically. Women are illogical creatures and logic doesn't apply to them

• Women enjoy "the process". You are giving her the emotions she craves

These dogma are a bit more clever, which is why this book gets higher reviews. So the points need to be addressed separately:

The first and second point: Translation - don't listen to what women say because (god forbid) you may get a different perspective. And don't try and think about this stuff logically because it might result in you looking elsewhere for information.

The third point: This is basically the same as "Men have a biological need to pursue, so don't make things easy for them". You're just giving them what they want, after all. So it's okay to do it.

A subtle point to make is that insecure people on the receiving end would never tell you that these techniques would work on them. The reason for this is because no one (men and women) likes to admit to a weakness in character. Weak people generally don't admit they are weak. And dumb people don't generally admit they're dumb. This is why it's a common belief that people behave differently than how they say they will behave (when asked), especially if those people are susceptible to manipulation.

Books like these are written by, and feed into, a result-oriented class of people with large egos who are determined to do anything to achieve their goals. Never mind the PR campaign saying that the focus is on "self-improvement" and "setting boundaries". It's a masquerade and smokescreen for justifying a lot of bad advice.

Following these practices, it is only by accident that anyone will meet someone worthwhile. But unfortunately, dumb people won't know the difference between meeting someone worthwhile when the odds are against it, and meeting someone worthwhile "because of".

Tuesday, 6 January 2009

NIMBY'ism

The path to renewable energy use is steadily catching on. As people slowly begin to realize that we can't just keep burning fossil fuels indefinitely, the obvious alternative becomes utilizing energy available from nature.

But this is where Not-In-My-Backyard thinking, or NIMBY'ism, becomes a source of protest from dumb people.

The best example of this is for wind turbines. Certain people do not like the idea of having large wind turbines located near to where they live, even if they are small dots in the distance. They fear that it will lower property value, or kill birds, to name a few of the main concerns. Now, there is a degree of truth to this, but what is usually missing is one major thing.

Perspective.

What is perspective? Perspective is seeing the big picture. Seeing what the major factors are, and what we're doing now in comparison. There is currently:

High levels of pollution from coal-fired and other fossil fuel power plants.

Hazardous high-level waste from nuclear power plants.

On the other hand let's consider wind turbines.

Do birds get killed by wind turbines? Unfortunately yes. But it's something like 1-2 birds per year for each large turbine. If all the United States generated all of its electricity from wind turbines the resulting annual bird deaths would be around one to two million. A lot yes, but...

Vehicles, cats, transmission lines, and especially windows, kill (in combination) hundreds of millions of birds a year in the U.S.

Wind turbine fatalities would be much less than one percent of this.

But vehicles, cats, transmission lines, and windows form part of an established structure which dumb people don't question.

However, dumb people want electricity but at the same time would hate the idea of breathing polluted air or dealing with hazardous waste. But wait, that’s already happening… So let me rephrase, they want electricity but they don’t want “eyesores” like wind turbines dotting the landscape. Um... sure... that’s much worse.

And what about property value and the threat of it decreasing? This is only a problem if you plan on selling to dummies.

The other bit of fodder used in fueling NIMBY'ism is the intermittency factor. It is said by some (i.e. those in the coal and nuclear industry) that wind turbines only operate when the wind is blowing and so they are unreliable. The first part is obviously true. They only produce power in the presence of wind. But, if you network different wind farms together the intermittency reduces due to the statistical fact that the wind is always blowing somewhere.

Besides, any intermittency problem can be solved by the use of fossil fuel power plants (especially peaker plants), which can quickly come online when the power from renewables falls short, and go offline when the power returns. These plants are currently in place and are being used to deliver peak power when required, such as in the summer when people are cranking their A/C. Peaker plants can easily switch their function to that of supplying backup power when energy from renewables temporarily falls short.

It's a really simple concept that anyone (and I do mean anyone) can understand: Any power that is produced by a clean renewable source means less power that has to be produced by burning something.

Sunday, 4 January 2009

Criticizing Steve Pavlina For Deciding To Try Polyamory

Steve Pavlina, the well known personal development blogger, has decided to try polyamory as a way to explore intimate relationships with other people (in addition to his wife). He still wants to keep his family together but wants to explore intimate relationships beyond the realm of monogamy.

While most readers of his blog are in full support of his decision, there is a small but very vocal group of dumb people who are adamantly opposed. I should mention that these people are not dumb because they don't agree with him; they are dumb because of the arguments they use. For example,

"You can't have your cake and eat it too!"

This is a common phrase used by dumb people when it comes to intimate relationships that don't involve 100% undying loyalty.

Dumb people honestly believe that just because they have sex with someone, that person automatically can't be intimate and have sex with anyone else. They believe that this entitles them to complete ownership over that person's sexual expression. They believe this so strongly that they are willing to go so far to say that it is "disrespectful" to them and in some cases, "emotionally abusive".

Other ridiculous arguments put forth are:

"If they are having sex with someone else it means that I'm not good enough for them!"

"Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?!"

This last one usually draws strong cheers from other like-minded dummies, especially when preceded by: "My mamma always taught me..."

Worn out phrases like these are part and parcel with how dummies view sexuality. They are catchy, which is why they like to parrot them when attempting to prove a point.

Dummies judge situations only based on what they have been taught and directly exposed to, not based on their own ethical insight. And they fear change, or the threat of it. Do they ever.

Another interesting notion thrown around is that of "zero sum game".

"If you are with someone else there is less for me".

Only for orgies, perhaps. But seriously, this assumes that you need to spend all your time with someone. Is it reasonable for a child to complain that he doesn't get enough attention because he has brothers and sisters?

Think of how ridiculous that is.

Monogamy, which admittedly is the best choice for some based on personal/rational grounds, is also a means for dumb people to flex their ego muscles. When a doctrine happens to align with the ego, dumb people are the first to get on board. The book called "The Rules" is a good example of this, teaching women that the man must chase endlessly or else he "doesn't care enough".

Similarly, the monogamy concept is the doctrine that dumb people like to use to rationalize having something all to themselves. For them it's vehemently justified to be selfish about something when society promotes that particular model.

The formula:

Social construct + ego = dangerous tool for dumb people

If toilet seats were considered sacred every dumb person would demand their own personal throne at public restrooms, because "sharing" would be disrespectful to them.

However, having sex with different people involves much less ass than that.

Now, in the case of Steve Pavlina, he is married with kids, so dumb people will try especially hard to use that as ammunition against him. They will say things like: "He is being selfish and it could screw up the family".

Even though the monogamy and marriage model has been proven to have many faults.

Even though they don't know Steve personally.

Even though they don't know his wife and kids personally.

They assume that Steve's family would suffer because their own family and kids could suffer. They say this while not considering the fact that their own family and kids (and possibly others they know of) were raised according to the "monogamy" social model, and as a result would likely rebel against any deviation from that. So really, they may as well say:

"Other biased people would be against this if it happened to them"

The fact is, Steve's family is not like the typical family so it makes no sense for anyone to project beliefs onto them if they come from different worlds. His posts on this subject are very clear, and he covers all potential areas of concern. He is honest about it, open about it, and wants to experiment. And above all, he is on the road to personal development, and should be allowed to do so. So dumb people should at least try to back off.

Friday, 2 January 2009

Sugarcoating

If it's rotten on the inside, who cares. Sweet on the outside is what matters.

Got to put on a good show. Got to make it look good. It doesn't bother them that beneath the surface there may be something very different going on. This satisfies the cognitive dissonance dumb people are content living with throughout their lives.

Pleasantries. Niceties. Valentine's Day gifts. All symbols for the heart but not necessarily symbols from the heart.

Your boss might know you dislike him but as long as you don't show it then you can keep your job. Like a bad smell covered up with air fresheners. No wonder they are so popular.

Everyone knows that gas guzzlers pollute, but when commercials show someone happily driving through a forest in the countryside, it makes dumb people feel better about purchasing an SUV.

The packaging on some egg cartons show cartoon chickens smiling and happy, even though they were raised in battery cages. It makes them "feel good" about the purchase.

It's important to show up at the company Christmas party to show that you are a team member even though you don't enjoy working with members of the team. And the funny thing is, some of them may be feeling the same way. But here you all are, pretending to be happy to be there, working in a company you are pretending to enjoy working for.

When it comes to sugarcoating, formalities in the public eye are the sweetest icing of all. Some people are very critical of the slightest step down from rich sugary sweetness when it comes from someone in the public eye. And yet these same people have no trouble saying the same things in their home, or to their friends. To them, you just can't say something that is politically incorrect when in the public eye. But when it's just you and the boys (or girls) then the gloves can come off with no repercussions. And the true irony (and double standard) is that, if public figures were to say those politically incorrect things away from the media spotlight (such as at an informal get together with buddies), they would not be judged nearly as harshly. In fact, they would probably receive compliments and pats on the back for telling it like it is.

Being Right

Dumb people love the feeling of being right. They get off on it. They are good at giving unsolicited advice in an effort to prove how knowledgeable they are.

When they aren't listened to they get defensive and resort to guilt tripping; presenting (imagined) scenarios of what will happen if they are not listened to.

"I have a friend who did this and then got screwed over for not listening!" is a well rehearsed defense in case things go awry.

Dumb people especially like being right about controversial subjects. When it comes to emotionally charged subjects such as religion, politics, dating, sex, all dumb people are experts. When it comes to giving advice related to something that is influenced by their ego they are the first to dispense with the wisdom.

The more emotionally invested they are the more certain they are right. The more they can find people who agree with them (and ignore the ones that don't) the more certain they are right.

When it comes to discussing subjects that cannot be proved or disproved, such as the existence of God or aliens, dumb people are the authority. No one else can speak with such certainty on something that doesn't have a factual basis. Dumb people love thinking they are right if they can't be proven wrong. Unfortunately, the fact that they can't be proven right either doesn't register with them.

The same goes for opinion based views. For example, dumb people are very certain that their favorite movie or band is the best and that other preferences are wrong. All effort is made to convince others of their preferences using reasons that are, by themselves, based on other personal preferences. For example,

"It's the best because there are these parts in it which are freaking awesome!"

When faced with the possibility of being wrong dumb people do a very clever thing. They interpret wrong answers as if they were right all along. In their mind they weren't wrong. The question was wrong.