>>136738102/2
I'm not saying these people aren't stupid.
I just question whether they're quite as stupid as that poster had concluded.
Yeah, it's dumb to find the concept and utility of hypotheticals (and others' interest in them) so difficult and incomprehensible but that's a different thing from having no concept of hypotheticals at all.
I'm reminded of Clive Wearing, a man with perpetual amnesia and almost no working memory who isn't able to learn anything new. He gets distressed if you take things head on or try to actually discuss new subjects.
But somewhere it was noted that he actually did absorb new info, just in an extremely passive way.
He grew accustomed to the care home he was placed in could perform his daily routines on autopilot and he also would ask occasionally about major world news events that had occurred years after his brain damage.
For all intents and purposes, you can say he has no memory and can learn anything new but there's a chasm of difference between that glib interpretation and the more complicated reality.
