When you think I am "stupid," then you lose the ability to convince me of anything. It doesn't matter whether you say it politely or say it at all. It doesn't matter whether you are right. Having that thought makes it impossible for you to communicate with me effectively. Is it worth it?
When you think I am "entitled" in the sense in which people currently misuse that word, then you lose the ability to communicate with me and have me on your side in anything. Just like "stupid," the thought will destroy your ability to convince. I think that one's not worth it either.
These conflicts seem to be a basic property of how human minds work. When we have the thought about others being "stupid" or "entitled," we put our brains into a state in which they can't perform the computations necessary for effective communication and empathy. It doesn't matter exactly how it works, though; what matters is that it's true and we have to deal with it. There's no getting around it by trying to use different, politer words. There's no escaping it with intelligence or training. Smart people and educated people don't seem to be any better at avoiding this trap than anybody else. Sometimes quite the contrary. We all have to make the choice between thinking people are "stupid" and convincing them. We all have to choose between thinking people are "entitled" and having their cooperation.
I have a friend who believes that the practices called alternative medicine are based on delusions, and he works hard trying to help people who he sees as having fallen into those delusions. He doesn't achieve his goals in that realm very often. I have several friends who are concerned about what they call "entitlement" in relation to things like gender and race. They write a lot about it and get positive feedback from each other but don't convince very many of the people whose attitudes they want to change. I fall into the trap frequently myself. Many times I've tried to talk to people I thought weren't as smart as me or as deserving as they claimed to be, without getting what I wanted from the interaction. Nobody is exempt. Everybody has to face it.
Is it so important to you to think that I am "stupid"? Is it so valuable to you to think that I am "entitled"? Are those thoughts your important values? The price of having those thoughts is that you will never be able to convince me of anything and you will never be able to have my help in changing the world. It's not enough to try to hide them behind politeness. Human beings aren't actually capable of hiding those kinds of thoughts. You can't have those thoughts at all and also have real communication. Are "stupid" and "entitled" worth what they cost?
Comments
Matt from 216.59.230.119 at Mon, 02 Jun 2008 04:51:15 +0000:
I'm not sure there is a meaningful difference here - convince or persuade, neither is going to happen after the person making the attempt thinks "stupid" or "entitled."
Axel from 65.94.176.59 at Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:45:29 +0000:
Usually I am all in favour of recognizing polysemy and being aware of different meanings and connotations for a word, but "entitled" is maybe one case where we should go back and use the word strictly in its root sense, which isn't at all down-putting, in fact quite the opposite. But really, it isn't the word "entitled" that's bad, it's the phrase "Oh, well, you're entitled [to your stupid opinion]." And guess what, I *am* entitled to my stupid opinion.
Kygron from 75.118.172.112 at Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:51:24 +0000:
And so we have a dilemma: how do you convince someone to stop thinking about people a certain way when you know they were too stupid to figure it out on their own?
Matt from 216.59.230.119 at Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:30:08 +0000:
Axel: I don't like the current usage of "entitled" at all. The people who use it nowadays seem to use it for the exact opposite of its original meaning - as I see it, someone who is entitled to something (and you can only be entitled *to* something in particular, not just generally "entitled") ought to mean someone who has a legitimate claim on that thing. The typical example would be in a purchase transaction - I pay for something from someone who has legitimately agreed to sell it to me and then I become entitled to receive what I bought. Everybody's entitled to basic human rights. Entitlement is by definition whatever you *really do* have a claim on. If your claim isn't legitimate then by definition you're not entitled.
But the current usage seems to be for describing the state of mind of someone who falsely claims an entitlement they don't actually have. The whole point is that someone who is called "entitled" now is by definition someone who is not entitled to what they demand. That's what most people who use the word at all mean when they use it, in the circles where I travel.
I was reluctant to use the word "entitled" in the above because I'd like to stamp out its usage to mean "not entitled." However, there are other people who do use it to mean "not entitled," and I wanted to leave no doubt that I'm talking to and about those people. Like it or not, that word is the word for that concept, in the language understood by the people I'm addressing. You probably noticed that I only used it in quotes and usually added qualifiers to make clear that I'm talking about other people's usage of the word rather than a usage I'd endorse in my own voice.
I've been reading a lot about sin recently and it occurs to me that what's being called "entitlement" might be very much like what people used to call "the sin of pride"; but if I called it pride instead of entitlement, readers wouldn't know what I was talking about or why it was relevant to themselves.
Kygron: maybe people can fail to stumble across non-obvious facts, without being stupid. If one thinks about one's own discoveries in terms of "I was fortunate enough to find this by luck and others will want to share in it" rather than "I'm the only one smart enough to find this and others need me to watch out for them," that could help.
Edward Sauve from 99.250.147.201 at Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:10:23 +0000:
http://www.slepton.com/slepton/viewcontent.pl?id=1845
Kygron: Perhaps this illustrates Matt's point. Matt will no doubt note if it does not.
Dale Carnegie noted that the second you suggest someone is wrong, stupid, or dumb, you've wounded their pride, awakened resentment, gotten them defensive, and set up an uphill battle.
Matt from 129.97.79.144 at Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:18:49 +0000:
I think Dale Carnegie was right. I'd go a step further, though - you have a problem as soon as you *think* it, even if you don't *say* it.
Edward Sauve from 99.250.147.201 at Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:00:47 +0000:
The assumption of superiority. Not only does it jack you up socially, but it can set you up for a great deal of trouble when it turns out you're wrong.
Alan Jackson from 90.240.104.251 at Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:49:06 +0000:
I don't like the slepton article. He introduces his own judgement words -"negative", "toxic", "suspect" etc, without validation.
Dale Carnegie is right, though. But it's surprising how many people take the opposite view - that if you disagree with them you therefore believe them to be stupid.
I also am not quite sure what is meant by 'entitled' in Matt's article. I don't recall seeing it used to mean 'not entitled'. Could he give an example of its misuse? Please?
Alan Jackson from 90.240.104.251 at Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:50:23 +0000:
Oh, and pride can be a vice as well as a sin, and I think it is more the vice of pride that Matt is talking about here.
Matt from 129.97.79.144 at Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:01:52 +0000:
Edward Suave: note that the pride (as a religious infraction) is also called "superbia" - the feeling of being superior to others.
Alan Jackson: two links illustrating what "entitled" means to some people are http://www.websnark.com/archives/2004/10/entitlement_and.html and http://dawn-guy.livejournal.com/201343.html . It is not my purpose to attract unwanted attention to dawn_guy, who is a friend of mine, nor Websnark for that matter; I cite those links only because they illustrate the word usage (and needn't be public if they weren't meant to be public).
Alan Jackson from 90.240.104.251 at Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:21:23 +0000:
Thank you. Now I understand. It is being used to mean "having made an (usually emotional) investment in something without thereby acquiring title in the area of investment, but acting as if title had been acquired". As you say, the exact opposite of its correct meaning.
I note too that I am in serious danger of becoming part of the Bonobo Fandom. Steps must be taken to prevent this dreadful fate.
Edward Sauve from 99.250.147.201 at Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:36:19 +0000:
Alan: Valid, and I by no means think his rhetoric is perfect. This imperfection perhaps aids the point at hand; in introducing them to the classes the way he does, you do see how his method allows people to come to see his point without the more damaging effects Matt is bring up above?
I'd also say "entitlement" has become a close synonym for "privilege" in this sort of discussion.
Matt: I was aware; thank you for raising the definition when I did not think to.
Kygron from 75.118.172.112 at Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:57:40 +0000:
Edward: I was in fact behaving exactly as you and Matt advise: presenting a problem that my audience must solve in order to come to my conclusions.
I've seen all too often the personification of "do as I say, not as I do", and I'm pleased that no one here "fell for" my dilemma. I just wanted to stress that, (since you're been reading about sin)
"You must first remove the great plank from your own eye, so that you can see clearly enough to remove the speck of sawdust from your brother's"
Axel from 65.94.180.58 at Tue, 03 Jun 2008 02:06:49 +0000:
Well, I must admit that the shade of "entitlement" appearing in the webpages you mentioned had just passed over my head during the last 20 years. But we seem to be in the shadowy forest edge of new meaning here. Having been a translator on and off for 54 years - since age 14 - and seen "issues" take over from "problems" and "perceptions" supplant "opinions", I tend to accept whatever the speaker/writer means: I always know my version in the other language will be more precise and tasteful. :>
Alan Jackson from 90.240.104.251 at Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:33:03 +0000:
Edward, now I do see what you were getting at - thank you for the clarification. This Socratic approach certainly is one way of avoiding Matt's traps - not the only way, nor necessarily the best, and it is open to misuse in other ways (as Socrates also demonstrated - or so my wife tells me.) The point of the method - and I think the point you were making - is that by giving the other person sufficient respect so that they are allowed but not forced to take ownership of the argument, you necessarily avoid any judgement that would put their backs up.
Dee Shoolingin from 207.200.157.155 at Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:33:38 +0000:
I claim entitlement to consider myself stupid at various times. At those same times I can not conveince myself of any contrary or redeeming opinion. On the other hand I grant all entitlement to convince me otherwise, but few do as I do not often broadcast it.
This seems to be true if I only think that I am stupid. On the thinking of others may be entitled I can not be as sure because
I find myself assuming that 'they' are entitled to what they are.
On word usage I think it a fact that most use popular conotations
of words more so than the denotation of the words. When I converse or write to most and find a reflection of the information impedance mismatch, it is normally due to them focusing on the conotations while I am trying to convay the
denotations of my words.
But in casual friendly banter I connote with the rest.
Please excuse my spelling and typos.
Deke Eusey from 69.134.199.235 at Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:44:25 +0000:
Do the references to the misapplication of "entitled", above, refer to situations where the intended meaning is that of "privildged"?
Matt from 216.59.230.119 at Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:52:49 +0000:
I think so - or very close, anyway. But of course substituting a different word isn't going to make the thought any less damaging to one's ability to communicate. It's the thought that is costly, not the word.
Matt from 216.59.230.119 at Thu, 05 Jun 2008 21:30:31 +0000:
One critical difference: being "entitled" (new meaning) describes one's own state of mind, whereas being "privileged" describes how others treat one. Maybe it could be said that you'll be called "entitled" if you think you ought to be "privileged."
Captain Smokeblower from 168.103.67.105 at Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:47:02 +0000:
Matt, is it possible that thinking/believing/knowing other people are stupid because we see them doing stupid things is a part of being human? (With apologies to Descartes: "You didn't think therefore you are typical.") In a sense I'm looking for an excuse for my behavior. The war in Iraq, Reality TV, consumerism in America, creationism by whatever name, and the other things I rant about seem to me to have lacked access to three digit intelligence. My conclusion is the majority of humans do stupid things. (I cringe when I remember one of my stupid things.) So in a different sense I'm looking to change my behavior so how do I --
1. Divest myself of my opinion that what someone is doing is stupid when I want to change their behavior or (failing that)
2. Avoid coming across as accusing them of being stupid?
I'm not looking to you for an answer. (Aren't you glad it's a rhetorical question?) Each of us must develop our own answers.
Many punch lines in Bonobo Conspiracy are illustrations of someone being stupid. In the case of Matt and Cynthia's recent exchange (#1010) Matt doesn't call Cynthia stupid and there's no attempt to change her, but the whole cartoon is about someone being (I don't think it was acting) stupid. If I were looking for a moral to the cartoon I'd say, "If you find yourself in this situation you may be doing something stupid." I mention this because, in Bonobo Conspiracy, you seem to have found a way to report some of the stupidity you see without calling others stupid. Though in some of your writings on politics . . .
owen from 65.95.171.45 at Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:30:55 +0000:
I totally don't believe that somebody thinks you're stupid.
Matt from 128.100.5.116 at Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:43:31 +0000:
Some of the evangelical atheists claim to think that.
Jay from 76.20.24.37 at Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:12:12 +0000:
I count myself lucky that the people I find myself in communion with don't misuse the word entitled. When dealing with people who feel that they have some special attribute that gives them access to resources above and beyond those that a rational human being would perceive to be the norm, they are possessed of an "entitlement philosophy", which is not the same as calling them "entitled". Why anyone would omit the word philosophy when chances for its use in daily conversation are limited, is beyond me.
sharkey from 67.241.1.165 at Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:51:09 +0000:
And your point is?
![[RSS syndication file]](/i/rss.png){kind=small}
rone@ennui.org from 216.101.146.218 at Mon, 02 Jun 2008 04:33:21 +0000:
"the ability to convince me of anything"
There are those who say that people can persuade you, but not convince you.