As a mental exercise, I've spent the past week thinking about the phenomenon known as the "Dumb Blond" joke that the people of our society so enjoy.
The reason for this contemplation is my realization that I can't honestly think of very many blonds I know who are dumb. Actually, I can't think of very many people, period, who can honestly be called dumb. Now granted there are a large number of people who disagree with me about a great many things, and culturally we are taught that our own opinions are not only more valid than other people's opinions but they are more valid than other people's actual experiences and therefore we are supposed to think of anyone who disagrees with us as being stupid. In reality a person's intellect is unrelated to their opinions, no matter how much this concept might chaff the ass of our egotistical culture.
Once again, I can't honestly think of very many blonds who are actually dumb. Quite the contrary, I've met several blonds who have great depth to their thoughts, but they think emotionally rather than what we call "logically." This has led me to wonder about what it means to think emotionally versus logically. From what I can tell, the only real difference between the two is in the acceptance of socially agreed upon limitations to thought.
To describe what I mean, let me use the example of "Time." We experience "time" as being an all-inclusive "thing" that we all exist within. (That last sentence seems redundant, but there is a subtle difference in the meaning.) We also experience "time" as being linear with a past (that has already happened), a present (that is currently happening), and a future (that will happen).
To approach this subject from a logical point-of-view, time appears to have a certain amount of solidity to it. Sure, time appears to be something that one can stretch and pull with gravity (there are documented scientific experiments which prove this can be done. They can be found in any physics text book.) but time still appears to be some sort of 'thing' since only physical things can be stretched or pulled in a physical manner. Also, because time appears to be linear (with a past, present and future), the logical perspective also suggests that time has a beginning, a middle, and an ending. Logically, if time flows in a linear direction then time must start and finish. Even people who acknowledge that there must have been something before the beginning for the beginning to happen still think in terms of a start and a stop to time. Also, logically speaking, since time must be "some-thing" that we exist within, then existence as we know it cannot possibly exist outside of time. Once again, even the people who logically acknowledge that there must be something outside of time for time to exist behave as if all existence exists within time.
Now, to approach the same subject of "time" from an emotional point of view. Emotional thinking is very difficult to describe within the confines of the English language since English itself is a physical/masculine/materialistic language. If one who speaks English wishes to discuss a non-material subject, they really have no choice but to learn at least a few words from one of the Eastern languages. Never the less, I will attempt to describe this subject from an emotional point-of-view. Emotional thinking has a certain transcendence to it's ability to conceptualize ideas. While the logical mind has the ability to recognize that there must have been some"thing" (for lack of a better term) before the beginning, the logical mind is still bound to following the start/finish mind set of time whereas the emotional mind is able to actually visualize the existence that existed before existence. The emotional mind can actually see how this is possible. The logical mind can acknowledge that something must exist outside of time for time to exist, but the emotional mind has the ability to understand that "thing" (once again, using the word "thing" because English can't describe any"thing" else.) for what it really is. The emotional mind can, in fact, imagine time as being something other than a thing.
To sum up the last two paragraphs, the "logical" mind has no choice but to confine it's thinking to being within the accepted ideas that time is a thing and that every"thing" must be a thing as well. An "Emotional" mind, however, can visualize beyond the physical limitations we've set for ourselves.
Now back to the subject of "Dumb Blond" stereotype. As I've already stated, I've met many blonds who appear to be Emotional thinkers. In our society, where we are taught that logic and intellect are the same thing, we view anything non-logical as complete nonsense. This doesn't mean the emotional concept actually is nonsense. It only means that because we cannot logically visualize the concept, we decide that the idea can't hold any merit.
The result, we declare anything non-logical as being stupid. Because we've declared the idea stupid, we free ourselves to ignore the idea, therefore freeing ourselves to be prejudiced against the person who had the idea. This also allows those "logical" thinkers among us to stroke our egos by declaring ourselves superior (i.e. more intelligent.)
Basically, this line of thinking has led me to believe that emotional thinkers (which we associate with being blond) are of equal intellect, but they think in a way that our culture is incapable of understanding.
-Why Blonds?-
The next part of my conjecture has dealt with "Why blonds?" Why not people with dark hair? Why not people of other ethnicities? Something I've noticed is that being an emotional thinker has nothing to do with being blond, or white, or female, or anything else. The very idea that "blonds are like this" is completely flawed and based on the limited "logical" viewpoint of our culture.
In logic, we attempt to take the things we see and set up separations and limitations based on our observations. To put it another way, we constantly work to "pigeon-hole" everything in our lives into nice neat little files whether the ideas in those files belong together (or separate) or not.
I do want to point out that logical thinking itself is NOT flawed, but rather that it becomes flawed when we treat it as the only "proper" way to think. Logic fails when the person doing the thinking becomes a thought bigot. Under these same circumstances, emotional thinking will also fail.
Many aboriginal societies throughout history have actually preferred emotional thinking over logic. When the Aboriginals of Australia, the tribes of Africa, the shaman of the Natives of both North and South America, and in fact most people from around the world are taken into consideration it becomes apparent that being white and blond has nothing to do with emotional thinking or, by extension, being a "dumb blond." Many whites who are "dumb blonds" aren't really even blond. Their color came in a bottle.
So why have the "dumb blonds" received the bulk of the bigotry regarding intellect?
One reason may be that (as uncomfortable as this idea is) racism might be so rampant in our society that whites are punished for treating non-Eurocentric ideas with merit. In other words, "If you think like a tribesman, then you must be as dumb as a tribesmen." This would be a very deep running and highly subliminal cause of the phenomenon yet it still wouldn't explain why "blond" emotional thinkers are the ones associated with being dumb.
A second reason might be the perception that blond people are from Northern Europe. Ireland and Scotland have a long history of rebellious behavior against authority. During the expansion of the Christian religion across the European continent, these peoples were among the last cultures to abandon their 'pagan' ways. Even after their Christian conversions these people chose to embed their traditional beliefs into Christianity instead of abandoning those beliefs entirely. This embedding of the old beliefs can be seen most easily in Church architecture and Legends of King Arthur and Robin Hood. The Irish monks, especially, found many passive-aggressive ways to rebel against the church. While the monks from the rest of the Christian world ritualistically shaved the tops of their heads to show that they were monks, the Monks of Ireland grew out the hair on the top of their heads and shaved from the temples down and they did this for no other reason than to raise a middle finger towards the Vatican. (I have no idea what the monks who were naturally balding did.) Also, ancient bibles transcribed by Irish monks are renowned for for having doodles and fun pictures drawn in the margins of all the pages of this very serious book. The people of these cultures probably maintained their emotional thinking despite the Western culture's efforts to drive this sort of thinking out of them. This coupled with the idea that blond people came from North Europe could be the cause for our concept of the "dumb blond."
A third possibility could be the personalities of emotional thinkers, themselves. Anyone who stands in the presence of an emotional thinker can attest that even when they are in a bad mood there still seems to be a "brightness" to their personalities. The English language, despite its many limitations, has several terms that we use to describe emotional thinkers. We call them "bright" or "bright and cheery." We describe emotional thinkers as being "A ray of sunshine" or "Airy." We talk about how when they enter a room they "lighten the mood." Perhaps "blonds" who aren't really blond lighten their coloration simply because it feels right to them?
Personally, I suspect the cause of the prejudice is a combination of the three reasons I gave above.
If you made it this far, I thank you for reading. Remember, this is all hypothetical. I wouldn't even call it a theory. But this has been occupying my mind the last few days so I thought I'd share it. Good day. :D
The reason for this contemplation is my realization that I can't honestly think of very many blonds I know who are dumb. Actually, I can't think of very many people, period, who can honestly be called dumb. Now granted there are a large number of people who disagree with me about a great many things, and culturally we are taught that our own opinions are not only more valid than other people's opinions but they are more valid than other people's actual experiences and therefore we are supposed to think of anyone who disagrees with us as being stupid. In reality a person's intellect is unrelated to their opinions, no matter how much this concept might chaff the ass of our egotistical culture.
Once again, I can't honestly think of very many blonds who are actually dumb. Quite the contrary, I've met several blonds who have great depth to their thoughts, but they think emotionally rather than what we call "logically." This has led me to wonder about what it means to think emotionally versus logically. From what I can tell, the only real difference between the two is in the acceptance of socially agreed upon limitations to thought.
To describe what I mean, let me use the example of "Time." We experience "time" as being an all-inclusive "thing" that we all exist within. (That last sentence seems redundant, but there is a subtle difference in the meaning.) We also experience "time" as being linear with a past (that has already happened), a present (that is currently happening), and a future (that will happen).
To approach this subject from a logical point-of-view, time appears to have a certain amount of solidity to it. Sure, time appears to be something that one can stretch and pull with gravity (there are documented scientific experiments which prove this can be done. They can be found in any physics text book.) but time still appears to be some sort of 'thing' since only physical things can be stretched or pulled in a physical manner. Also, because time appears to be linear (with a past, present and future), the logical perspective also suggests that time has a beginning, a middle, and an ending. Logically, if time flows in a linear direction then time must start and finish. Even people who acknowledge that there must have been something before the beginning for the beginning to happen still think in terms of a start and a stop to time. Also, logically speaking, since time must be "some-thing" that we exist within, then existence as we know it cannot possibly exist outside of time. Once again, even the people who logically acknowledge that there must be something outside of time for time to exist behave as if all existence exists within time.
Now, to approach the same subject of "time" from an emotional point of view. Emotional thinking is very difficult to describe within the confines of the English language since English itself is a physical/masculine/materialistic language. If one who speaks English wishes to discuss a non-material subject, they really have no choice but to learn at least a few words from one of the Eastern languages. Never the less, I will attempt to describe this subject from an emotional point-of-view. Emotional thinking has a certain transcendence to it's ability to conceptualize ideas. While the logical mind has the ability to recognize that there must have been some"thing" (for lack of a better term) before the beginning, the logical mind is still bound to following the start/finish mind set of time whereas the emotional mind is able to actually visualize the existence that existed before existence. The emotional mind can actually see how this is possible. The logical mind can acknowledge that something must exist outside of time for time to exist, but the emotional mind has the ability to understand that "thing" (once again, using the word "thing" because English can't describe any"thing" else.) for what it really is. The emotional mind can, in fact, imagine time as being something other than a thing.
To sum up the last two paragraphs, the "logical" mind has no choice but to confine it's thinking to being within the accepted ideas that time is a thing and that every"thing" must be a thing as well. An "Emotional" mind, however, can visualize beyond the physical limitations we've set for ourselves.
Now back to the subject of "Dumb Blond" stereotype. As I've already stated, I've met many blonds who appear to be Emotional thinkers. In our society, where we are taught that logic and intellect are the same thing, we view anything non-logical as complete nonsense. This doesn't mean the emotional concept actually is nonsense. It only means that because we cannot logically visualize the concept, we decide that the idea can't hold any merit.
The result, we declare anything non-logical as being stupid. Because we've declared the idea stupid, we free ourselves to ignore the idea, therefore freeing ourselves to be prejudiced against the person who had the idea. This also allows those "logical" thinkers among us to stroke our egos by declaring ourselves superior (i.e. more intelligent.)
Basically, this line of thinking has led me to believe that emotional thinkers (which we associate with being blond) are of equal intellect, but they think in a way that our culture is incapable of understanding.
-Why Blonds?-
The next part of my conjecture has dealt with "Why blonds?" Why not people with dark hair? Why not people of other ethnicities? Something I've noticed is that being an emotional thinker has nothing to do with being blond, or white, or female, or anything else. The very idea that "blonds are like this" is completely flawed and based on the limited "logical" viewpoint of our culture.
In logic, we attempt to take the things we see and set up separations and limitations based on our observations. To put it another way, we constantly work to "pigeon-hole" everything in our lives into nice neat little files whether the ideas in those files belong together (or separate) or not.
I do want to point out that logical thinking itself is NOT flawed, but rather that it becomes flawed when we treat it as the only "proper" way to think. Logic fails when the person doing the thinking becomes a thought bigot. Under these same circumstances, emotional thinking will also fail.
Many aboriginal societies throughout history have actually preferred emotional thinking over logic. When the Aboriginals of Australia, the tribes of Africa, the shaman of the Natives of both North and South America, and in fact most people from around the world are taken into consideration it becomes apparent that being white and blond has nothing to do with emotional thinking or, by extension, being a "dumb blond." Many whites who are "dumb blonds" aren't really even blond. Their color came in a bottle.
So why have the "dumb blonds" received the bulk of the bigotry regarding intellect?
One reason may be that (as uncomfortable as this idea is) racism might be so rampant in our society that whites are punished for treating non-Eurocentric ideas with merit. In other words, "If you think like a tribesman, then you must be as dumb as a tribesmen." This would be a very deep running and highly subliminal cause of the phenomenon yet it still wouldn't explain why "blond" emotional thinkers are the ones associated with being dumb.
A second reason might be the perception that blond people are from Northern Europe. Ireland and Scotland have a long history of rebellious behavior against authority. During the expansion of the Christian religion across the European continent, these peoples were among the last cultures to abandon their 'pagan' ways. Even after their Christian conversions these people chose to embed their traditional beliefs into Christianity instead of abandoning those beliefs entirely. This embedding of the old beliefs can be seen most easily in Church architecture and Legends of King Arthur and Robin Hood. The Irish monks, especially, found many passive-aggressive ways to rebel against the church. While the monks from the rest of the Christian world ritualistically shaved the tops of their heads to show that they were monks, the Monks of Ireland grew out the hair on the top of their heads and shaved from the temples down and they did this for no other reason than to raise a middle finger towards the Vatican. (I have no idea what the monks who were naturally balding did.) Also, ancient bibles transcribed by Irish monks are renowned for for having doodles and fun pictures drawn in the margins of all the pages of this very serious book. The people of these cultures probably maintained their emotional thinking despite the Western culture's efforts to drive this sort of thinking out of them. This coupled with the idea that blond people came from North Europe could be the cause for our concept of the "dumb blond."
A third possibility could be the personalities of emotional thinkers, themselves. Anyone who stands in the presence of an emotional thinker can attest that even when they are in a bad mood there still seems to be a "brightness" to their personalities. The English language, despite its many limitations, has several terms that we use to describe emotional thinkers. We call them "bright" or "bright and cheery." We describe emotional thinkers as being "A ray of sunshine" or "Airy." We talk about how when they enter a room they "lighten the mood." Perhaps "blonds" who aren't really blond lighten their coloration simply because it feels right to them?
Personally, I suspect the cause of the prejudice is a combination of the three reasons I gave above.
If you made it this far, I thank you for reading. Remember, this is all hypothetical. I wouldn't even call it a theory. But this has been occupying my mind the last few days so I thought I'd share it. Good day. :D
