Stupid Guest Tricks

Would you be referring to the cast from whence they come? That, sir, would be called a "womb".

Big Wallaby wrote:Would you be referring to the cast from whence they come? That, sir, would be called a "womb".

Or a Pouch ;)

CA Screamin Dude wrote:For there to be a stupid guest, there must first be a stupid cast.

Think about it...

Screamin, I get this. Always like they way you think. ;)

A stupid Cast or Employee, as defined by this forum, is one who does a stupid thing. Whether it's a parent, a teacher, a friend, or a theme park employee, stupid guestism is taught through omission, reinforcement, imitation, and the lack of any requirement, save transportation, time, and money, to be able to go to a theme park. It is taught through dumbed down television programming, such as news programs that have no real substance, and tween shows that get laughs from characters being and doing stupid things. Stupid guestism is a condition resulting from someone not being there to say "no" the first time it happened... stupidity gets bigger and bigger until you get a SGT at a theme park. For there to be a stupid guest, there must first be a stupid cast that encouraged such behavior.

CA Screamin Dude wrote:For there to be a stupid guest, there must first be a stupid cast that encouraged such behavior.

I'm afraid I must disagree with you. An SG can "learn" their bad behavior from a number of sources: Parents and friends who act that way, or even strangers who give them "advice" on how to get the things they want by acting poorly. For some, even when faced with CMs who in no way encourage, let alone reward, such behavior, there are SGs who still firmly believe they were in the right, and have no idea how the CM could possibly not see that.

But who are parents and friends other than the child's Cast in life?

Alternate construction: As "stupid" is alternatively used to express exasperation, perhaps we on this SGT website, who discuss the "stupid" guests are in fact, ourselves, "stupid." One cannot be "stupid" unless labeled "stupid" by another person (social reaction or labeling theory, Becker, 1963), who, by virtue of the alternate definition of the word, must therefore be expressing stupidity, and therefore be "stupid." This only works because exasperation is an accepted definition of informal stupidity, as is the more common "lacking knowledge" phrase.

If by all this it is meant that a stupid guest gets rewarded for that stupidity by a CM (not necessarily front line CM's) but management CM's thus encouraging continued stupid guests behavior...then I agree.

A front line CM will succeed in getting only his ass in a sling by correcting or trying to stop stupid behavior, so it is understandable why they don't even try much anymore.

CA Screamin Dude wrote:But who are parents and friends other than the child's Cast in life?

In order to properly discuss something, certain terms must be defined and used in that context. In this case "Cast", as it has been used on this board, refers to Disney "Cast Members". Thus, this would not include parents and/or friends, at least not in this case.

CA Screamin Dude wrote: Alternate construction: As "stupid" is alternatively used to express exasperation, perhaps we on this SGT website, who discuss the "stupid" guests are in fact, ourselves, "stupid." One cannot be "stupid" unless labeled "stupid" by another person (social reaction or labeling theory, Becker, 1963), who, by virtue of the alternate definition of the word, must therefore be expressing stupidity, and therefore be "stupid." This only works because exasperation is an accepted definition of informal stupidity, as is the more common "lacking knowledge" phrase.

Something cannot be anything unless someone labels it as such, and even then, the label means nothing if there is not some method for judging how such a label should be used. In this case "stupid" is not merely used to express exasperation, though a "stupid guest" can lead to exasperation, but to indicate a guest who shows a lack of common sense, a lack of manners, a lack of the ability to reason logically, or a combination of any or all three previous skills. The reason a person might lack these skills does not have to require there be a "stupid cast member", who also lacks any or all of those skills.

In Disneydom, "Cast" refers to the collection of employees that play specific roles. In the real world, "Cast" means something quite similar. Disneydom is part of the real world and the Disney Cast is part of the real world's cast; the comparison is logically valid. "For there to be a stupid guest, there must first be a stupid cast."

Stupidity, as in the case of SGT, is an incident-based judgement of some other person. By definition, in this sense, such stupidity must therefore be considered temporary, for there is no clear and convincing evidence to rule otherwise (presumption standard). This instance of bounded rationality (judging a stranger as "stupid" because of the limited information the judge [i.e., we] has) depends on cognitive limitations of the judge's mind... the stupid guest is "stupid" only because the judge (we) does not have the cognitive capability of understanding the "stupid guest" (Herbert Simon, 1957). By definition, one who is "stupid" lacks cognitive capability. Therefore, the judge (we) must be stupid. The intelligent judge would not label a guest stupid because of limited knowledge of the guest's behavior or character.

[Guest suffers from impaired cognition and commits act] => [Judge interprets act as stupid] => [Due to impaired or deficient cognition, Judge interprets guest as stupid] => [Judge must be stupid, as similar to guest]

CA Screamin Dude wrote:In Disneydom, "Cast" refers to the collection of employees that play specific roles. In the real world, "Cast" means something quite similar. Disneydom is part of the real world and the Disney Cast is part of the real world's cast; the comparison is logically valid. "For there to be a stupid guest, there must first be a stupid cast."

As this was posted to the SGT forum, it would naturally follow that, unless otherwise clarified, the use of the term "Cast" would indicate a Disney Cast member, as that is the most common usage of the term on this board. Further, I do not believe that it is typical for the term "cast" to be used as a synonym for the general public.

CA Screamin Dude wrote: Stupidity, as in the case of SGT, is an incident-based judgement of some other person. By definition, in this sense, such stupidity must therefore be considered temporary, for there is no clear and convincing evidence to rule otherwise (presumption standard). This instance of bounded rationality (judging a stranger as "stupid" because of the limited information the judge [i.e., we] has) depends on cognitive limitations of the judge's mind... the stupid guest is "stupid" only because the judge (we) does not have the cognitive capability of understanding the "stupid guest" (Herbert Simon, 1957). By definition, one who is "stupid" lacks cognitive capability. Therefore, the judge (we) must be stupid. The intelligent judge would not label a guest stupid because of limited knowledge of the guest's behavior or character.

[Guest suffers from impaired cognition and commits act] => [Judge interprets act as stupid] => [Due to impaired or deficient cognition, Judge interprets guest as stupid] => [Judge must be stupid, as similar to guest]

Excuse me, but it does not follow that, because one person judges someone else as doing something stupid, that person is stupid as well for having made that judgment. Is it possible? Sure, but it is not an absolute. If we were to use that logic, then you, in fact, must be "stupid", as you are judging other people as being stupid for judging people to be stupid. Mind you, I am not saying that you are, in fact, "stupid", just saying that is what your chain of logic seems to lead to.

Now, I will agree, "stupid" tends to be an objective term, but the posters here do tend to try and have some guidelines when it comes to judging an SG from someone who makes an honest mistake.