I believe I got a programming job once because, after interviewing applicants, I said, "Programmers should be capable of being clever, but not relying on it." And I meant it in the Einsteinian sense, after many interviews of duds. It was then gently suggested that perhaps I ought to fill the role.
However, the other form of being clever, the Fight Club "How's the working out for you? -- Being clever?" is shallow and often contagious, in the sense that a clever turn of phrase or a meme might replace rational thought. I'll give an example: whenever someone might suggest that someone else who is mentally ill might be violent, the stock response (I'll give you a bit to think of it) is some variant "Mentally ill people are in more danger of having violence inflicted on them than average people."
It's interesting as a response, it might even be true, but it in no way answers the actual question: is there a statistically larger incidence of violence from the mentally ill as compared to the norm? And then if you press further, you can get something like "The vast majority of people with mental health problems are no more likely to be violent than anyone else," which is yet another clever evasion and still doesn't answer the question.
This is just one example, but a lot of "memetic politics" contain such obscuring cleverness. It's a magic trick, at best, and should be stamped out wherever it appears, as a terrible shim jammed in, separating us just a little bit more from the real world.
I don't think the response to the mentally ill claim is a clever dodge, feels like the fictitious interlocutors are just having a bad faith (or maybe just plain ol' bad) argument. Why would someone suggest someone is violent? If it's unfounded, then why even mention it, ultimately seems like it could devolve into measuring skull sizes if you're not careful
However, the other form of being clever, the Fight Club "How's the working out for you? -- Being clever?" is shallow and often contagious, in the sense that a clever turn of phrase or a meme might replace rational thought. I'll give an example: whenever someone might suggest that someone else who is mentally ill might be violent, the stock response (I'll give you a bit to think of it) is some variant "Mentally ill people are in more danger of having violence inflicted on them than average people."
It's interesting as a response, it might even be true, but it in no way answers the actual question: is there a statistically larger incidence of violence from the mentally ill as compared to the norm? And then if you press further, you can get something like "The vast majority of people with mental health problems are no more likely to be violent than anyone else," which is yet another clever evasion and still doesn't answer the question.
This is just one example, but a lot of "memetic politics" contain such obscuring cleverness. It's a magic trick, at best, and should be stamped out wherever it appears, as a terrible shim jammed in, separating us just a little bit more from the real world.