Is sufficiently advanced stupidity indistinguishable from trolling?

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice.

Nevertheless, where behavior which may be explained by either stupidity or trolling shares certain similarities to trolling behavior, it ought to place a burden on the alleged troll to rebut the allegation of trolling. Like, if A alleges that B is trolling and A then proceeds to produce evidence of posts by B generally recognized (according to a reasonable person standard) to be consistent with trolling, B should then be required to produce evidence of his or her own stupidity to rebut A's prima facie case of trollery, or face banning.

SlackWit, for instance, undermined his own case with those ACT scores. Not that they proved he wasn’t stupid. Only that, to the extent they might have given weight towards one factor over another, they were not conclusive towards stupidity. Not so much a tiebreaker as a "makeweight" I suppose.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

SlackWit, for instance, undermined his own case with those ACT scores. Not that they proved he wasn’t stupid. Only that, to the extent they might have given weight towards one factor over another, they were not conclusive towards stupidity. Not so much a tiebreaker as a "makeweight" I suppose.

I disagree -- those supposed ACT scores were the clincher for Slacker, IMO. No one with a bit of smarts could possibly believe that a picture of a piece of paper with test scores, from a complete stranger and transmitted over the internet, could possibly be convincing to other strangers.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

I disagree -- those supposed ACT scores were the clincher for Slacker, IMO. No one with a bit of smarts could possibly believe that a picture of a piece of paper with test scores, from a complete stranger and transmitted over the internet, could possibly be convincing to other strangers.

I'm completely willing to believe the ACT scores he posted were his. The thing is, though, the ACT (or SAT for that matter) is written for high-school students. But Slacker is an adult, with (I assume) a college education. It's the same idea as a 6' 18-year old insisting they're NBA material because they can dunk on high school freshman.

The other thing is Slacker's hardon for IQ and tests for it. He pretends the ACT and SAT are intelligence tests, but that is not compatible with promoting a test tutoring business. If tutoring for standardized tests can significantly increase scores (and it can, access to SAT/ACT prep programs is a factor in income inequality in test scores and college admission rates), it means that whatever the test is measuring, it is not your innate skill.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Someone

OK, serious question here. There have been a few posters lately -- etv78, Urbanredneck(2), etc -- who are just so aggressively stupid that my mind refuses to accept them as real people. Like Patrick Star or Peter Griffin, they're too cartoonishly dumb for me to imagine them functioning in the real world. It's not that I don't think there are people that stupid out there -- but they're just too eloquent in expressing their utter stupidity. I remain convinced that they MUST be trolls, playing a character.

etv78 is simply not very bright mentally ill person.
Urbanredneck is very much what his username says, and he's 100% consistent with that kind of person. There is nothing particularly remarkable about him - he's how Trump got elected, exactly the profile.

And yet... Others seem to think that these are real people with genuine beliefs. My mind boggles.

You simply are not smart enough to grasp people not thinking like you.

Trolling is deliberate baiting. etv78 clearly trolls (see the professor thread) but he's also quite stupid.

Urbanredneck maybe baits sometimes (being in disagreement with most Durpers with their Lefty orientation) but he's also 100% sincere in his beliefs, it's really him.

Really not that hard.

Originally Posted by Someone

Am I malicious in your mind?

Given your mommy board trolling, yes, in a mentally ill indifferent to others fashion.

Originally Posted by Someone

I'm completely willing to believe the ACT scores he posted were his. The thing is, though, the ACT (or SAT for that matter) is written for high-school students. But Slacker is an adult, with (I assume) a college education. It's the same idea as a 6' 18-year old insisting they're NBA material because they can dunk on high school freshman.

The other thing is Slacker's hardon for IQ and tests for it. He pretends the ACT and SAT are intelligence tests, but that is not compatible with promoting a test tutoring business. If tutoring for standardized tests can significantly increase scores (and it can, access to SAT/ACT prep programs is a factor in income inequality in test scores and college admission rates), it means that whatever the test is measuring, it is not your innate skill.

Yeah pretty much.

Although obviously there is some innate skill baseline but a potentially large component of learned skill.