mcmoustache wrote: » It doesn't really matter what RSA is. The point of the anecdote was that this person didn't think she needed an internet connection to connect to the internet.
murraykil wrote: » In the world of miniaturisation and wireless communication it's a bit harsh to call this stupid; it's more a lack of understanding or knowledge.
Gee Bag wrote: » 50% of the worlds population are below average intelligence. Try as you might one of them is going to cross your path at some point
Icepick wrote: » That would be under median.
zerks wrote: » Worked with one guy who didn't know how to use a shovel,he was given a yard brush to sweep up along the side of the trench we were filling-he couldn't use that either.To keep him out of harms way we gave him a stop/go sign,cue scores of irate motorists who narrowly avoided head-on collisions. Another guy parked up his JCB on Friday and couldn't find it on Monday morning,I lost the plot with him one day and threatened to bury him in a field.
Deleted User wrote: » Its a fact that people are promoted to a level of incompetence and then remain there. that's not just the public sector either.
Teyla Emmagan wrote: » Not a work story, but I remember some builders furnishing an apartment and my brother and cousin were sent along to carry mattresses upstairs. Anyway, after about five minutes the cousin was sent out to 'watch for guards' because he was getting in the way he was so useless. Not being smart enough to carry a mattress through a door has to be up there with not being able to use a shovel...
D1stant wrote: » Got to disagree. If you have no signal on your phone, most people understand you cant make calls. This is the same
Pottler wrote: » Anyone see that episode of the simpsons where Homer gets a really hardworking, intelligent assistant who has a crap apartment, a crap car and gets crap pay and can't figure out how Homer has a house, car etc being that he is an incompetent slacker? I think the world of work is a lot like that - I see an awful lot of very bright people working their nuts off, long hours, complicated, skilled jobs, crap pay and masses of pressure. On the flip side, I see an awful lot of window lickers who have an inflated ego and self worth who get paid a fortune seemingly despite their total incompetence and sheer laziness. It beats me as to why things are like this, but it's almost as if the arrogant, lazy thickies get a kind of "pass" for life. Pay and what's asked off you in return seems to bear more to do with how up your own hole you are and how full of your own unquestionable self worth - wtf is with that?
The Peter Principle states that "in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence", meaning that employees tend to be promoted until they reach a position in which they cannot work competently. It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous [1] treatise, which also introduced the "salutary science of hierarchiology." The principle holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Eventually they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their "level of incompetence"), and there they remain, being unable to earn further promotions.
lazygal wrote: » I believe that was one Frank Grimes. RIP.
weemcd wrote: » Stupidity is one of the few things that never ceases to amaze me, every time I think I've heard enough something will come along and blow this notion out of the water completley. I work with (in a roundabout way) the general public, jesus wept, I hear things almost daily that actually hurt my head and leave me with a furrowed brow. The problem is that while stupidity on its own is a bad enough trait, stupid people tend to have traits of stingyness, ignorance and down right bad manners to go with it. Plebs, bottom feeders, chavs, scum, I don't know what to call them.
marty1985 wrote: » There's a wiki page for everything!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle
Skerries wrote: » I much prefer the Dilbert Principle
lazygal wrote: » I enjoy the Cries of Retail thread on Ranting and Raving. I was that soldier. The number one thing I learned is that middle aged women who've never had a job always 'know their rights' which never coincide with the actual consumer law pertaining to them. There are some very, very stupid people who torment retail workers with their idiocy on a regular basis.
Genghiz Cohen wrote: » 0-49 below average. 50 average. 51-100 above average. Also, what I love is the Dunning Kruger effect. .
Ficheall wrote: » Aye, that was the 'weighting' I was referring to when I said in my initial post that I wouldn't argue that point. Trying to assign a "number" to the intelligence of an individual is certainly beyond me - even saying one person is "more intelligent" than another is daunting. Theoretically possible though. I don't think that's where any of the 49%ers were coming from, though. I could be wrong. Perhaps one of them will enlighten us.
gigawatt wrote: » btw OP potatos is spelled 'potatos' not 'potatoes'. so your classroom assistant was actually in the right. I think George Bush also made that fatal error while visiting a classroom once and it ended up all over the news.
bluewolf wrote: » It has an "e". Quayle's error was "correcting" potato to potatoe. And it wasn't fatal