The Plan

[Angrboda]

I think we should call this, "Ahriman's Broken Clock Theory of the World."

[Ahriman]

Easily proven. If there are two lawyers in a court room, one for each side (plaintiff and defendant), and one of the lawyers is smarter than the other lawyer, but the judge/jury sides with the less intelligent lawyer, and he/she wins the case, then what was more important in this instance.......being smarter than your opponent, or being seen as right?

First, you dodged my question again.  I asked how you know this.  Where did you learn this?  Who told you?  You answered with an example.

Second, you didn't prove the point you think you did.  Just because the jury sided with lawyer B in this case doesn't mean he was "right".  Attorneys lose cases all the time when their client is innocent and vice versa.  What usually happens is the attorney with the most resources wins the case, though even this is a far reaching oversimplification.  If an attorney is smarter, he/she may often win a case whether their case is just or not.  Being "smart" in a legal context often means you just know the laws better and understand how to manipulate the legal system, thus you "win" more often.  Are you familiar with the case of O.J. Simpson?  Simpson, guilty as hell, gets off because of two things, better representation was one.  Cochran was smarter than his opponents.  The other was jury nullification.  That's a thing that makes attorney intelligence and evidence irrelevant.  Bottom line is that you picked a poor example to demonstrate your assertion.  Try again.

I'll agree that people can sometimes be right when they don't even have the smarts to know it, but it's not the high percentage play.  What you are basically asserting is that its better to be lucky than smart.  Good luck with that.

You analyze things too much. Over-analysis can lead to faulty conclusions. And of course it's better to be lucky than smart.......two people play the lottery.  One is smart, the other is dumb. They are both struggling to make ends meet, financially. They are both desperate to win the lottery. The dumb person wins. He/she is awarded millions of dollars, and will never have to worry about having enough money ever again, just because he/she got lucky. I would much rather be dumb and rich, than smart and broke.

[Astreja]

I would much rather be dumb and rich, than smart and broke.

I'm the exact opposite. With knowledge I'm much better positioned to deal with any problems I encounter. Money can be acquired much more easily than knowledge and wisdom.

And lottery winners are notorious for not being able to manage their winnings, and a lot of them end up worse off than before the big win.

[Ahriman]

I would much rather be dumb and rich, than smart and broke.

I'm the exact opposite.  With knowledge I'm much better positioned to deal with any problems I encounter.  Money can be acquired much more easily than knowledge and wisdom.

And lottery winners are notorious for not being able to manage their winnings, and a lot of them end up worse off than before the big win.

Well that's not really true.......if I want to learn something new, all I have to do is read a book, or search for something online. A lot of people have to actually work to earn money.

[Spongebob]

You analyze things too much. Over-analysis can lead to faulty conclusions. And of course it's better to be lucky than smart.......two people play the lottery.  One is smart, the other is dumb. They are both struggling to make ends meet, financially. They are both desperate to win the lottery. The dumb person wins. He/she is awarded millions of dollars, and will never have to worry about having enough money ever again, just because he/she got lucky. I would much rather be dumb and rich, than smart and broke.

No, analyzing things is how we learn.  Not analyzing things enough almost always leads to faulty conclusions.  Is your head screwed on correctly?

And of course it's better to be lucky than smart.......two people play the lottery.  One is smart, the other is dumb. They are both struggling to make ends meet, financially. They are both desperate to win the lottery. The dumb person wins. He/she is awarded millions of dollars, and will never have to worry about having enough money ever again, just because he/she got lucky. I would much rather be dumb and rich, than smart and broke.

You are amazingly good at picking horrible analogies.    Actually, a large percentage of lottery winners go on to become miserable because they blow the money and end up destitute.  Do think they got that way because they were smart?

Why do you assert that the dumb person in your analogy is more likely to win than the smart one?  If it's just one ticket per person and they don't pick the numbers, their odds are the same, intelligence is no more a factor than the color of their hair.

Take two people, one highly intelligent and one rock stupid (not unlike yourself), who both decide to start playing the lottery.  Do you assume that the dumb one will have the same chance of winning?  Not true.  There are strategies that lead to increased lottery winning.  I won't say it takes a lot of intelligence, but at least the intelligence to lean about winning strategies and do what's necessary to increase your odds.  The dumb guy (again, yourself) is probably just playing the same set of consecutive numbers every week. 

Really, why are you trying to desperately to prove that being dumb is a good thing?

---

@Ahriman

Analysis of an image.  Consider the following image for only a second, no longer:

---

---

What did you see?  How would you describe it?  Now look at it for a longer time and describe what you see.  Would you say your first visual impression was accurate or a more careful inspection?

[Ahriman]

Would you say your first visual impression was accurate or a more careful inspection?

They are both equally accurate.

[Angrboda]

I'm the exact opposite.  With knowledge I'm much better positioned to deal with any problems I encounter.  Money can be acquired much more easily than knowledge and wisdom.

And lottery winners are notorious for not being able to manage their winnings, and a lot of them end up worse off than before the big win.

Well that's not really true.......if I want to learn something new, all I have to do is read a book, or search for something online. A lot of people have to actually work to earn money.

Questions for you.

Are you likely to be reliably right, rich, happy if you aren't smart?

Are you likely to understand what you read correctly if you're not smart?

[Spongebob]

Would you say your first visual impression was accurate or a more careful inspection?

They are both equally accurate.

You didn't post what you thought the image was, but let's presume that you thought the obvious, that you saw an 8 legged dog.  You really think that was an accurate analysis of that photo?

[Ahriman]

They are both equally accurate.

You didn't post what you thought the image was, but let's presume that you thought the obvious, that you saw an 8 legged dog.  You really think that was an accurate analysis of that photo?

According to my brain, yes, it's an accurate analysis. Using my mind, I can determine there are actually two dogs.

[Spongebob]

You didn't post what you thought the image was, but let's presume that you thought the obvious, that you saw an 8 legged dog.  You really think that was an accurate analysis of that photo?

According to my brain, yes, it's an accurate analysis. Using my mind, I can determine there are actually two dogs.

So you don't even understand the exercise.  The point is to show that your first impression suggests there's a dog with eight legs, but that's not accurate.  Further analysis (in this case just looking at it more closely) reveals that it's actually just two similarly colored dogs walking closely.  But your first assumption would be inaccurate, wouldn't it?  There is not 8 legged dog in the picture.  Or is this whole conversation just wasted on you like virtually every conversation?