I think the word ignorance might fit what you're trying to get across better than gullibility. Gullibility simply means you're easily fooled while ignorance means you simply are unaware of something. Now in the case that I'm wrong about what you where trying to get across I can address both. I think the problem is not when someone is gullible or ignorant but rather they are willfully gullible or ignorant, ie they have the ability to investigate something that is told to them when others are saying they're wrong but refuse to do so because they'd rather remain complacent in what they've chosen to believe. This act is one worthy of disrespect because this complacency can cause much suffering in the world, a healthy dose of skepticism can do wonders to avoid it.

They do make a good test to see what the state of the world is, a gullible person in a perfect world could do no wrong so someday when they aren't detrimental we will know we've done a good job making things better.

Now that I can agree with.

I think Sig is on to an interesting train of thought. Gullible people can be seen as the overly-trusting people who can be taken advantage off, and often quite easily (or so depicted at times)

In situations where having numbers of people warrants more sway to the situation, gullible people can therefore be seen as "part of the problem" if someone is being contested who has many uninformed, etc., followers, as touched on in the journal.

It's funny that things will a low percent chance of happening occupies our thoughts more than things that will probably happen, yet having more people believe something is considered important. We are very contradictory sometimes.

An excellent point. Most things have such low statistical probability that they aren't worth worrying about much of the time. Perhaps because the more likely events are considered normal due to frequency, making the rare ones stand out more?

But if we run things like that then we end up putting a disproportionate amount of value in stopping that event from occurring and slowly grind away at our weakest links.

If we ever terraform mars the first people living there may be as lawless as the wild west was, especially since no real military force or law enforcement will be there to prevent that from happening. I hope that once we do go there they prohibit guns on the flight, because then the amount of weapons are limited and easy to control.

I think you're mixing up gullibility with ignorance. Being gullible means you're easily fooled and it's more detested of people to take advantage of someone who's gullible instead of being gullible.
Ignorance is detested because they're either blissfully unaware of what's going on in the world or try to give an opinion on something they know nothing about and claim it as fact.

I've met a few people who verbally attack others that were known for doing something and not suspecting it was wrong. Ignorance may have played a part but they were visibly surprised once they were informed of what happened.

That's called "being called out".

Is it the right thing to do when they haven't masterminded the operation? Especially if the one doing the calling-out would rather take it out on them than on the dude who orchestrated the whole event.

There's also fervor: being caught up in the moment, also at the time before the Nazi party took over, Germany was in the crap hole they were still recovering from WW1 and there economy was in the toilet with a loaf of beard costing 100 Deutsche Mark or more furthermore owing other countries money but that all when the Nazi party comes. Sure at no one much cares or listens to them at first because of there wild claims and radical views but that all changes when they brought in a certain failed art student and with the help of a stage magician (I'm not kidding, they actually hired a magician to help him with his public speaking) they manage to final not just get people to listen but to take them seriously because at the time they were offering something Germany didn't have at the time: hope, hope for a better future and because of this belief they manage to get this art student elected Chancellor moreover after he gets elected he and his party make good on their promises by turning your war torn nation back into a industrial super power in only a few short years, now you might be saying "But wait! what about all that horrible stuff they did?" well there was reason for that some of it had to do with there beliefs but mostly what it came down to was land.

You see they had big plans which started with One: Revitalizing Germany, Two: Conquering other countries take there land so they can turn it into farm land which in turn would help turn Germany into a global-power, in other words an empire now, as for the why know one at the time called them out when the holocaust happen well that's because they had sold everyone on the idea and it gets more interesting when you find out they had plans to do this to other groups of people so that those they deemed worthy would only reap the rewards with no one have a problem with this because it was for the glory of Germany.

So in the end what it comes down to is fervor and not wanting to see the forest for the trees and also wouldn't you fallow some who make claims wild like restoring your country so you could feed your family and then makes them happen even though in the process they do terrible thing in order to accomplish this and you see it as some greater good because "Hey! I can feed my me & family and my quality of life has improved since this person took over so, whatever they do to make this happen and keep it going I'm ok with that".

Basically the whole world pushed them to that point at the end of WWI with war debts. If France hadn't been as pushy to get back their land just before WWI and then such jerks about the whole affair after WWI this whole thing would have been avoided. They were angry that Germany touched their stuff, and then punished them severely.

That's about it and as you pointed out, it wasn't because they were gullible it was because they were desperate.

On one hand, they're the ones that keep, for example, a crooked car dealership in business, always buy the $300 electronic rustproofing (which is nothing more than plastic boxes with LEDs held on with two-sided tape). On the other hand, they'll vote for tyrants who say nice things and support onerous laws "for the children".

Being uninformed is forgivable. Sometimes you run into someone who doesn't know something "everyone should know," like the Beatles or Star Wars or something, and they've never heard of it. It's appropriate to have a little fun at their expense for it, but not in a mean way. It's also polite to advise them of how to fill that particular gap in cultural repertoire, if not offer to do it yourself. Fill them in on a little history and why it's important to know that thing.

Being gullible is not forgivable. Humans are the smartest animals on the planet by a very wide margin. We can make intuitive leaps in logic, spot patterns in phenomena and behavior, use language and complex tools, and understand complex or even abstract concepts. Yes, even the dumbest of us can do all these things, even we often make fun of them for not doing it as well as the rest of us. We are smegging brilliant super geniuses compared to everything else on planet Earth.

This is why when one encounters a person who hasn't grasped the simple and extremely common concept of "people lie," we tend to ridicule them. Lies are everywhere and it's patently obvious. They may even be aware of this, but for whatever reason their ability to detect lies is almost completely absent. It's not always because they're stupid, either. Smart people can be gullible, but it tends to be more selective. An engineer with 3 PhD's and an IQ of 153 might believe anything he hears about UFO's, but remains skeptical of everything else in life. In fact most people are gullible in this way; it's quite rare to find someone who believes everything they hear about anything.

Simply put, gullible people are foolish. They have a filter of skepticism to protect them from bad ideas, but they don't use it. They turn it off and leave it off. We're all fooled by clever lies or the ones we just want to believe, but they are fooled by the obvious ones that wouldn't make it past a child. Gullible people have the ability to be skeptical, they just don't use it, and then it costs them or someone else. This, perhaps more than anything else, is certainly deserving of ridicule and ire.

And on that note, I would also like to add that most of us are gullible twits on a few subjects. Like politics! Everybody got a gris-gris.

Hmm, lets introduce a philosophical concept to challenge this.

"I think, therefore I am."

A popular question regarding truth is what do we know is true? The knowledge of truth is ever changing, science is forever altering our views of how the universe works, and what people say seldom contain the whole truth. Most of the time a close approximation of the truth is enough "Lighting strikes tall objects first", but when analyzed are not necessarily true, or are completely inaccurate. "Roll a ball with a diameter of 60 meters and anything it touches can be struck by lightning" in this instance the second statement is better at predicting the potential areas lightning will strike.

So, if gullible people are foolish because they believe something that isn't locally accepted is true, isn't it possible for people to believe that someone who is right is just being foolish while they are wrong?

If everything we know to some degree is wrong, then what is the truth? Does anything really exist as we know it?

And so we conclude that there is one thing we do know, that we have been thinking about this. And by thinking we have proven that at least we exist. We may not exist the way we think we do, but our existence is guaranteed.

Gullible people may make dangerous mistakes believing the wrong sort of people, being tricked into joining pyramid schemes, and so on. Only their trust is misplaced, their intentions are good, but some people truly need to stop existing, and it isn't them.

I make no assertion that gullible people are foolish because they believe something that isn't locally accepted as true. What one believes is unimportant and does not make a person gullible, even regardless of whether it is true or false. It is why one believes something or has come to believe it that makes them gullible or not.

For example, Let's say I run up to you in a parking lot and ask for 60 bucks in gas money to reach a dying relative in the next county and you just give me the money without a second thought. That makes you gullible and a sucker because you not only believed me, but I got something of value from you as well. It doesn't matter if I was telling the truth or not; you didn't apply any reasoning or skepticism to the situation at all.

But let's say you aren't a fool, so instead of just forking over a wad of cash right away you take a moment to analyze the situation. Do I really look anxious? Do I really sound desperate? Does my attire suggest I could really be out of money? Maybe you ask me to open my wallet to make sure it's actually empty. Better not be any credit cards in there. Or maybe you ask to see my fuel gauge or something. Once again it doesn't matter if I was telling the truth or not. Maybe I'm a good con artist and I fooled you, maybe I was telling the unfettered truth. The point is you had good reason to believe or doubt me because you actually thought about what was happening before you made a decision. That makes you smart.

Unless you are fabulously wealthy and handing 60 bucks is about as meaningful as handing out a ball of lint you scraped out of your pocket. Then the question of gullibility becomes moot; you're so rich that a matter of 60 dollars is trivial and not even worth the time to wonder if I'm being honest or not. It's easier to just hand over the money and be done with me.

As for all that other stuff about "what is truth" and "I think therefore I am." Well, that seems to be going on a different tangent entirely. I certainly love to discuss issues of philosophy, but questions pertaining to the nature of reality itself and what it means for something to be "true" are generally subjects I try to avoid. They can go on forever and no one ends up with any better understanding of things than when it started.

This is a pretty good counter-argument, my only response is kinda weak as far as they usually go, but it comes in the form of a story from a show I watched a long time ago:

"The Most Foolish Traveler in the World"

"Once upon a time there was this foolish traveler who had gone on a journey. Why was he foolish? Well because he was fooled by everyone he'd met.

Everywhere he went people made up all kinds of sad stories to tell him, and the traveler fell for every one of them. Pretty soon his money, his clothes, even his shoes have been cheated away from him, but the foolish traveler was always glad to help and he always told people the same thing; I wish you happiness.

But by this point, the traveler was completely naked and nothing left to cover himself he decided to leave the main road and travel through the dense forest where no one can see him. But soon he was discovered by the goblins that lived in the woods.

The goblins wanted to eat the traveler's body!

So they begged and pleaded and used kind words to try and trick him. Of course, the traveler was fooled. First he let the goblins eat one of his legs, then arm, then more and more. After it was over all the traveler had left was his head. He'd even given his eyes away to the last of the goblins.

And as the last goblin was eating the traveler's eyes, he turned and said, "Thank you, traveler. In return I leave you this present." All the goblin left was this piece of paper with the word fool written on it. The traveler couldn't see it, he didn't know what it was. Even so, tears began to float out of his face. "Thank you," he said, "This is the first present anyone's ever given me, I'm so happy!" Even without his eyes, he cryed with tears of joy.

Then, the traveler died, the smile still on his face."


This character is gullible because he consistently believes the people he meets until he died, and was a sucker because he might have found that they were lying if he had tried. However, he was morally superior to them all. These people didn't deserve his kindness, and as a result all that is left is corruption, all the good is now gone from their world. They could have nurtured it and made it grow, but instead they killed him before he could even start to help.

There are many characters portrayed like this, and when they are in positions of power they tend to be the most inspiring of all, though not when life is good, only when things start going wrong. This was another reason for this discussion, I'm trying to think of a character with these traits and was having a hard time narrowing down the benefits of being gullible. So, that's sorted, this journal worked out very well this time.

Simply any lack of information these days is given the hate-stamp *grumps*.
I have a belief that major of most trends of this stems from the fact that intelligent people are "not allowed" to not know something, know something about a subject, or otherwise not want to figure out query or assist in knowledge. This sums up to the smart can have a lazy day. So if the average society/person reveres knowledge and figures to "if we don't even allow the smart ones any slack, its a given any else is better off always being on their Points and Queries, lest we bash them until they do".
Gullibility may also be disliked since it can be related to a innocence, nullifying accountability in social situations. Dare I say its a 'grass-is-greener' complex: "if I have to be on point, why does this person get to live deloused in the same situation?". Ironically, this statement would support the former paragraph if said by a smart person in the same context.

So could the lacking ability to apply responsibility and fault to the gullible be a big reason of detest? Could the new responsibility and added need for more emotional intelligence for the gullible be spice to distaste?

gullible people are revered as evil, yet the higher powers do everything to make us gullible *head bursts from confusion*

Gullible people are only evil if they are fooled by evil, therefore higher powers are evil if they manipulate gullible people. A truly good leader does not take sides and only does what is right. Gullible people test the world to see who is right and who is wrong, yet this perfectly good gauge for human rights goes unused.