On arguing with those with limited intelligence

I find that one of the most frustrating experiences is trying to argue with someone that is stupid. And by stupid, I don't dealing someone that whose education isn't up to normal standards, such as attempting to correct someone's poor grammar on Facebook. Nor do I mean debating with a person whose subjective opinions don't match my own. What I mean is the soul-crushing experience of arguing with someone who is wrong about a simple fact that is widely accepted, scientifically proven, and blatantly obvious. You may think that I'm about to start talking about the Anti-vaccination movement, but I'm not going to tackle something that big. Instead, I'm going to look at a smaller argument I had with a stranger on Facebook, and why I finally had to eventually give up and let him keep being wrong.

A few months ago, one of my cousins posted a picture of couple Viewmaster viewers with the caption "Who has used one of these?" For those who don't know, Viewmasters were toys that allowed you to view stereoscopic 3D still pictures by showing each eye a slightly different picture. The viewers used a disc with 7 3D pictures (or 14 2D pairs).

I noticed that one of my cousin's Facebook friends had responded. This friend was (and remains) a complete stranger to me, so I had no knowledge of him beyond his comments upon which to base any opinion of him, but as the discourse continued, I began to realize that he wasn't one of the world's greatest thinkers. I doubt he'll ever read this, but just in case, I won't use his real name, but rather the pseudonym 'Dull Witts'. I shall also leave any grammatical and spelling errors as originally written.

Dull was the first responder to my cousin's post with the comment: "Slightly different but they still sell them and the picture disc really improved, some in 3 - D"

I thought this was a bit strange to say. 3D was the whole point of the Viewmaster viewers. They were all in 3D. Otherwise, they were just ordinary still pictures. So I responded: "Some in 3D? They were all in 3D - that was their main feature"

But no, they couldn't be 3D back then, because as he explained "Hi graphic 3 -D discs didn't come out till about 97"

Oh! He thinks that I mean that they were Hi Definition 3D - like modern TVs have. So, I say "It wasn't HD, but it was 3D", pointing out that although HD 3D is relatively new, 3 dimensional technology has been around a fair bit longer and Viewmaster used one of these older 3D technologies.

His response "We have a box full of them none are 3 - D just cartoons. 3 -D wasn't invented in the 60s" Okay, I'll leave aside the fact that cartoons can be 3D as well as photographs. But 3D not being invented in the 60s? What about all those 3D movies that were a big fad back then? But before I can reply, he add some more 'facts'.

"Early 70s they came out with 3 -D glasses to watch movies then the view finder and jig saw puzzles, etc. Color TV wasn't around in the 60s my kindergarten class picture is black and white the technology of three dimensional came after color tv and photos."

I am shocked at how much blatantly wrong information he has packed into a single run-on sentence. Colour TV, colour photography, 3D technology, and jig saw puzzles have been around a hell of a lot longer than the early 70s. I make a trip to Wikipedia and verify that I'm right about these facts. Luckily for the sake of my sanity, Wikipedia is in agreement about these facts. So what can be making him write such blatantly crazy stuff?

Going back over the conversation so far, it occurs to me that maybe he's not disagreeing with me so much as we do not understand what each other means by 3D. I mean 3D in general (i.e. pictures, movies, etc.), but when he says 3D, he understands it to be movies specifically. He must think that I'm claiming that the Viewmasters show colour 3D movies, not stills. Of course he would be correct in pointing out that the technology wouldn't be there yet. So I post, "Dull, I think I see what the misunderstanding is. The Viewmasters here don't play movies. The discs you put in them contain 3D still pictures. All Viewmaster discs were 3D. The technology for 3D still pictures has been around since 1844."

But he's having none of it. "We have a box full of still pictures that are not in 3D I don't think that was invented in the early 60s. my daughter now 20 has these and a lot of them are just regular pictures. amazing how you think 3-d was around in 1844 when color tv and color pictures were not even around in the early 60s. doesn't make sense. Hi tech in my day was a real to real silent movie I wish this 3 d view finder was around when I was a kid cause the youngest of 6 I had hundreds of them I remember when 3-d came out I statrted buying them for my kid."

Obviously, he has no idea of when any of these technologies were first being put to use. He also can't seem to wrap his head around where I would come up with a statement like 3D being invented in 1844. So, I decide to show him my source and quote Wikipedia at him. "From Wikipedia 'View-Master is the trademark name of a line of special-format stereoscopes and corresponding View-Master "reels", which are thin cardboard disks containing seven stereoscopic 3-D pairs of small color photographs on film. The View-Master system was introduced in 1939'". This quote affirms the 1844 date, that Viewmaster viewers are 3D, and that Viewmaster's specific iteration of 3D technology has been around since the 1930s. Let's see him come up with some logic to refute that argument.

His response isn't so much logical as confusing. "I looked but back then 3 D didnt exist kind of like saying cds were around in the 1800s". He says he looked, but doesn't say where he supposedly looked. Then he uses an analogy that doesn't make any sense, because I have produced evidence that 3D existed in the 1800s, so it isn't the same as claiming the same about something that was invented much later.

He further adds, "now a days you can buy anything you want digitally remastered", which seems to be a non-sequitur, but perhaps he's implying that pictures or movies that were in 2D can be converted to 3D. They can, but the 3D pictures that exist from before the 70s were 3D then, not newly converted to 3D with modern technology.

So, I show him that Wikipedia is just my starting point for information and bombard him with a timeline of 3D history:

"The History of 3D:

1844 David Brewster introduces the Stereoscope, a device for taking stereo photographs.

1851 A 3D photo of Queen Victoria is displayed at The Great Exhibition.

1855 The Kinematoscope (Stereo Animation Camera) is invented.

1915 The first anaglyphic movie is produced.

1922 The first anaglyphic movie is shown in theatres (The Power of Love).

1935 The first color 3D movie is produced."

But he's done arguing and has moved to mockery. "I have my grandfathers phone from WW1"

I try to explain what Viewmaster's 3D technology isn't really high tech, but I fear it's falling on deaf ears, "The Viewmaster reels had 2 still pictures, one for each eye taken at a slightly different angle. Nothing high tech about it, all you need is two cameras side by side to take a 3D photo."

He makes one actual attempt to argue from logic by stating an observation he believes supports his argument. "Even in this picture the original one is plain and the newer one advertises 3-D on it , looks about 20 years newer." He is referring to the picture that started the argument in the first place. It shows an older Viewmaster alongside a more recent counterpart. The newer one sports a log that says "3D" where the older one says "gaf". However, this isn't due to the newer ones incorporating 3D technology as a new addition. The change is due to the fact that the GAF Corporation is no longer the manufacturer, and the new manufacturer has decided to stress the 3D capabilities instead of putting a new company logo in that space.

At this point, I realize that nothing I can do will convince him. He just "knows" he's right and refuses to be told any different. So, I throw in the towel and just drop the argument. I don't concede, I just drop and don't post a thing more. I'm severely tempted to make some witty remark about how stupid he is, but I realize that just makes me look petty, and he's already done a much better job of making himself look dumb than I ever could. So, I just leave it there. When I looked back to write up this recap, I notice that neither he nor anyone else replied after that either, so it looks like no one came out ahead this time.

I guess the moral of the story is, "If you argue with someone stupid, you might be the stupid one."