[bitwarrior]

> Not knowing things and not being able to know things (“stupid”) are, of course, simply not the same, and this is the whole point the Escalante character was making.

Alright, I'll take issue with this. My step-sister is mentally handicapped. She is not able to know a lot of things. Does this make her stupid? By the author's definition, yes, but I would aggressively argue "no". She is as smart as she is capable of being, impressively so at times. She knows as absolutely much as she is realistically able to know with the cards she has been dealt.

Instead, I would suggest that "stupid" be reserved for those who have the ability or opportunity to know something, but choose not to.

[BrassFish]

Thank you - I think that this is an excellent point. "Stupid" is what the Escalante figure implies people assume about his students. However, his view is that they just haven't been shown how to do things and therefore have not learned. The implication is that everybody can learn. I agree with your line of argument about how the word "stupid" might be used. Thank you for making me think further!

[gertef]

> those who have the ability or opportunity to know something, but choose not to.

That's "intentional ignorance"