Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mark Neyer's avatar

What’s the utility of saying, “this person is a nut, that one not?” Maybe starting there gives a very different conclusion: not all conversations are a good use of time. Saying someone is a nut means, to me, that me talking to them isn’t a good use of time. Yet this seems to me that it’s more an admission of weakness on my part; maybe if I were more patient and loving it could go well.

Expand full comment
Jorg's avatar

“Nutty” generally falls into that Justice Potter Stewart “I know it when I see it” category, I think. To the extent that I think about it at all, I lump “nuts” into 2 broad categories: 1) the harmless nuts who just firmly believe things I am very certain are not true, and 2) dangerous nuts whose silly beliefs may lead to real harm to others. Since I grew up in a very low population area, it was very easy to see and recognize some of each of these. We all “knew” which locals were nuts but safe, and which nuts were dangerous and you should avoid being around them and/or “setting them off.”

For instance, here's a borderline case. I knew a woman with a very good job as a bookkeeper (and an accountant, really, with no formal training) whose personal hobby was suing people – family, friends, neighbors, random strangers, whoever. She was simply not happy unless she had 2-3 ongoing lawsuits at any given time. Was she “dangerous”? Absolutely not, Wouldn't physically harm a fly. Was she extremely troublesome to those she sued? Absolutely. Did she endanger them or their lives or health? Well, that's kind of hard to say. So. “Nutty”. No doubt at all. But, where on a harmless to damned dangerous would she fall?

I think we might consider “nutty” to be someone whose beliefs and behaviors are so far from the local norms (defined by however community she and you both occupy) and so resistant to change so as need to be tolerated (at best) rather than engaged.

One of my favorite profs was Leo Strauss's last grad assistant. A very interesting, thoughtful guy. (Most of my academic colleagues who were aware of Strauss regarded him as “nutty”.) My prof said that the problem with (moral) philosophy was that “God or evolution has equipped us to know how to ask questions and seek the Truth, but there is no guarantee that we will find it, or even that it exists.” Nutty, or deeply thoughtful?

Anyway, I tend to think of “nutty” as firmly holding beliefs that most people would find contrary to discoverable facts. Or something like that. A lot of beliefs by all of us don't seem to depend on actual facts at all. I strongly suspect that evolution 'chose' us to be able to ignore many facts that have little or no impact on our reproductive capacity. Considering too many facts is dangerous in many ways. It kind of reminds me of Robert A Heinlein, who said (paraphrase from memory), “While a modern soldier is busy integrating all the facts provided by all his equipment he may have a barbarian creep up behind him and brain him with a stone ax.” Too much attention to too many facts can be very dangerous to an individual. So it is selected against.

And rather a lot of interesting, useful, and eventually acknowledged ideas have started with someone who was considered pretty “nutty.”

Expand full comment
35 more comments...

No posts