How do you define smart? Part 5

This is the final installment of our series on the question: how do you define smart. Upon our investigation, we've learned that education does not make you smart, because there are well educated people all over this world who are not smart. Smarts is a perception thing, and how you define it depends on whether you are an idealist or a realist.

Imagine, for a moment, that you knew the truth.  What would you do with it?  You know if you tell people the truth they might get mad.  You know they will because, as the old saying goes, the truth hurts before it makes you better.  Yes, it's true, most people can't handle the truth.

Now, if you don't share the truth, you are an enabler.  I think way too many of us know truths but we don't share them out of fear of causing controversy.  Yep, we are chicken shits afraid to offend people with the truth.

I know there are many respiratory therapists who know bronchodilators don't cure pneumonia, but they don't say anything because they want to keep their jobs; or, as a bottom line, they want to keep the peace.

I know there are many people who know truths (which are answers based on facts, not theories) in politics but they won't speak what they know because they are chickens.

When you know the truth and don't share it that makes you an enabler.  Harboring truths makes us enablers.  We enable people to be stupid, and Lord knows stupidity doesn't make the world better, never has and never will.

You have all sorts of people, some of them nurses, doctors, politicians, or whatever, and they're really smarter than everybody else by not having firm opinions on things.  They say they are independents, centrists, and moderates, and they do this so they can keep the peace.

They don't care that your breathing treatments are a waste of time, and it's not even worth investigating if they are.  What they care about is that it feels good to give one; it makes money for the hospital; it makes them feel like they are doing something good.

I'm open-minded and so are you.  We study both sides of the issues, and then we make informed decisions. If you're like me in this arena, you are one of the biggest dupes, because you are sitting around judging both sides while one of them is lying through their teeth with everything they say to you.

Idealists lie because they know there is no proof to what they are proposing. These are the people who believe every feel good theory ever created.  And it's is not new, because it was started sometime around 400 B.C. with the philosophies of the ancient Greeks.  They sought answers, and when they didn't find them they created their own answers which they called theories.

Just think, for over 2,000 years a theory raged in the medical community that asthma was a nervous disorder.  There were many physicians along the way who challenged this theory, but they were ridiculed, harassed, and laughed right out of the medical community.

There is the history of stupid bronchodilator orders that's for sure, but there is no solid evidence, only theories, that they do any good for anything but asthma.

You'll even see insurance companies allowing breathing treatments to meet admission criteria because some doctor said this is what will help them get better quicker, but never any evidence of this provided.

The even sadder part is, I hear people talking about this all the time, but they never bring it up to people that matter because they are afraid of causing controversy that might cost them their jobs.  When they do come out into the open, they are called "complainers," and you are told just to "stay away from the complainers."

The powers that be say: "If a doctor orders it, it's needed.  If a doctor orders a breathing treatment, it's needed."

Evidence?  Who needs evidence when we have feel good theories?

Bronchodilators are but a small thing and a safe thing thankfully. But what if an idealist theory has the potential to destroy the economy?  What if it has the potential to destroy the medical profession?

Yet when you challenge these idealists on their Utopian views, that's when it gets real interesting. Yet when you consider the cost of all the needless bronchodilators given daily, and the costs of employing RTs to dole them out, you'll realize how deep, complicated, and puzzling this really gets.

So I have to consider these things very seriously, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the charge that bronchodilators cure everything from rickets to pneumonia.  Idealists are saying we really are saving lives with Albuterol and so forth.

Some politicians say we are saving the planet by educating people about global warming, which, by the way, is just a theory, a guess.  Surely we should respect our planet, but we shouldn't risk making changes many fear will destroy the economy based on a theory.  Why?  Because the theory might be wrong.

Many people look at people like me and you as being realists. And they link realism with being judgemental, which is true. If that's the case, I am more than happy to judge.  I'm more than happy to call piss piss when that's what it is.

So, to come full circle: what is smart? Well, I'm going to tell you. Anyone with an average brain can see idealism. We know what it is doing to the planet. We know what it is doing to the health care industry. We know what it is doing to the economy with it's regulations and taxes and government programs to create their ideal world.

We know what it is doing to the lungs (Well, nothing if you consider bronchodilators for pneumonia and CHF and rheumatoid arthritis and rickets are a waste of time.)  But it's costing hospitals millions of dollars each year that could be spent on more important things, like raises for us RTs.

All you have to do is look at Detroit and California to see where idealism will take you. All you have to do is look at all the failing nations. Look at the old Soviet Union. Look at Cuba.

Look at France for crying out loud.  Creditors decided France bonds are junk bonds long ago, and no one will loan that country any more money because it has no credibility.

Sure idealists have good intentions, but good intentions and sound economics don't always jibe.

All you have to do is look at what is going on in Washington. All you have to do is look at all the people who are scared because the people in Washington want us to be scared. All you have to do is look at your own emergency room at all the people who really don't need to be there, who are complaining because you aren't taking care of them in a timely manner. All you have to do is look at all the people who are complaining because they aren't getting enough time off work, or aren't getting enough benefits, when what they should be doing is the job the were hired to do.

That's where idealism has taken us. That's what happens when we all become sheep and never think and never question and never judge. Everywhere idealism has taken you you'll see real disaster.  Just look at what they did with healthcare.

Sure it looks good that 7 million signed up, but how many of that seven million were people who were forced out of their own healthcare plans because of Obamacare?  As a perfect example of this look at Maryland, where 60,000 people signed up for Obamacere, but 73,000 lost their health insurance plans because of Obamacare.

That's idealism. It's all with the intent of creating equality for everyone, but it results in inequality. It'a all about creating what they think will be a Utopia, a perfect world, but their attempts to create it make everything they touch worse. Why?  Because there is no evidence their theories will work. 

And of course they do it all with good intentions.

I think, if we were real smart as a nation, we'd listen to the people like you and me at the bottom of the ladder, the people who actually see what is going on, the people with average brains and average educations, to get ideas for real reform.

I know I'm right because I know who these idealists are. They will not look at it ideologically, and the only way they're going to be able to solve our problems is if they ask, "What are we doing here?", "Is this really science that we're dealing with?"

The only way they are going to be able to solve our problems is to think, "Hey,the numbers don't make sense," "It's a total waste of time here. I don't see the point in doing all this if the numbers are so far off."

Because if they asked these questions, they'd realize how humorous all their bronchodilator fallacies are. They'd realize our U.S. health care system really is the best in the world as is (or it was before they screwed with it). They would realize that all these taxes and regulations are are ruining the economy, and not creating anything close to a Utopea.

Yet they won't ask these questions. They'll continue to believe in their idealist theories and they will continue to bog down the medical system with waste

Our scientists are supposed to be the smartest, most open minded people in the world.  A scientist, therefore, should not take the idealistic route because that would pollute science.

Yet we see that all the time too. Look at the global warming for one example. I'm neither a believer nor a disbeliever in the global warming theory, yet you have those who support it -- even scientists, willing to do anything to show it is real -- even lie and twist facts.

Instead, what scientists should be doing is, if global warming is real, let the facts and stats speak for themselves. But since they are so enshrined in idealism instead of realism, they don't care about facts.

So you can see why it's so easy for politicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, teachers, and even doctors and scientists to become rapt in idealism.

But I'm just telling you, folks, the only way to understand this with certitude, with confidence, and then to be able to explain it to others is to understand what being a realist means, and what being an idealist, means. Once you understand that, it is so easy, because all you have to know is that everything idealists say -- I know this sounds extreme -- everything they say is a lie. That's basically it. Once you come to accept that, then the rest is easy.

Idealists will tell you world peace is possible, while idealists know it's not.

Idealists believe if we get rid of all our nuclear weapons all the bad guys will all of a sudden go away and the world will be at peace. They believe the only way to peace is by disarming.  A realist will look into the past and see that there was war way before nuclear weapons were discovered, and the only way to peace is through strength.

Idealists will tell you that if you raise taxes high enough you will be able to afford enough government programs to help all the needy and to get rid of all the poor. They really believe some day world poverty will end if we stick to idealist programs. The realist knows this is impossible.

Idealists think there is only so much money to go around, so if a rich person, or a rich country, is hoarding all the money, then everyone else will suffer.  They believe such people, such nations, are selfish.  They think such people, such nations, don't know how to spend their money wisely.  So they create programs to take it from them and spend it the way they, as idealists, think it should be spent based on their idealist theories.  They take fro those who work hard to earn it, and give it to every one else.

A realist will look at the facts and know that there is enough money in the pie so that every person can enjoy a slice of it, if they are willing to make an effort to get off the cough, to relocate if necessary, to educate themselves, and get the job that pays.  Any of us can do this, but most of us don't have the energy to do it. 

An idealist will look at the rich as bullies, as greedy people who take advantage of the poor and middle class to fill their pockets with money.  An idealist holds up the rich as a symbol of what is possible only in America, and instead of trashing those who achieve and create the jobs for everyone else, they teach everyone else how they too can gain a piece of the pie; how they can become rich.

Idealists think American Exceptionalism means that we think we are better than everyone else, so we need to apologize to the rest of the world.  Realists know that for 99% of human history only the ten percent who were in the social elite were allowed to obtain an education and to improve their lot in life, and America gave every man and woman this opportunity.  Realists know that American Exceptionalism means that only in America is every person born free with an equal opportunity to get a piece of the pie.

Idealists will tell you bronchodilators work for all that wheezes, or for all annoying lung sounds, or for all lung diseases. The realist at the bedside giving the treatment sees the truth, that such treatments, when not ordered for asthma, do nothing but absorb time, money, and energy.  Realists see that we are wasting our time here.

Once you realize idealists are lying, then it all makes sense.

Once you know that everything doctors and nurses who think bronchodilators cure everything is a lie, the rest is easy. It's easy to understand.

You might not want to accept that, might be too tough. "Oh, my gosh, I don't want to think half the doctors and nurses are lying." Well, think about it, they're either lying, or they are simply flat out ignorant. Those are the only options.

If idealists continue to run the healthcare system it will not get better, it will continue to get worse.  Of course if we continue to be enablers, holding back the truth as to not offend people, it won't get better either.  If we continue to be enablers, none of the facts we learn will ever matter.

The same thing is true of our nation.  I love our country and it's for this reason I want to learn as much as I can about it.  Yet, at the same time, it's frustrating to know that the same people who are lying to me are calling me the liar when I have the facts on my side.

So, what is smart?  Well, it depends on whether or not you are an idealist or a realist. If you are an idealist, you are smart if you believe in theories.  If you are an idealist, only the facts matter.

How do you define smart? Part 4 (Idealism -vs- Realism)

Idealists believe it's possible to create a perfect world by experts
 in Washington making rules for all to follow. The get so caught up
in their dream world that they often disregard history and facts.

So we have been investigating the question: how do you define smart.  I think the answer to this question lies in the definitions of two key words: idealism and realism.

Actually, the idea here comes from an article written several years back, and published in Playboy, by William F. Buckley Jr. I think he defines smart better than anyone, and Lord knows many people have attempted to define smart.

So you approach a group of people, you share with the group facts that you learned about a subject, say that the earth is closer to the sun in the winter. They get mad at you, because to them that doesn't "sound" like the right answer.  "It only makes sense," they say, "that the sun is closer to the sun in the summer."

Realists will tell you when the glass is half full of piss.
They will try to share such facts with idealists,
and when they do, they will be called idiots.

You confronted them.  They got mad.  They made fun of you and made you out to be the dummy, when all along you had the facts on your side.

I approached a doctor once and explained to him that a medicine I use, albuterol, treats asthma and no other lung disease.  I offered him proof.

Instead of being open minded and at least considering what I said, he said: "You are behind on your research.  Everybody knows albuterol helps a patient cough up pneumonia."

How do I respond to that without insulting him?  How do I respond to that without risking losing my job?   I can't.  So I have no choice but to let him go on believing something that is not true is true.

The only way to understand what's going on here is to understand the difference between different ideologies. You have idealism versus realism. Education, years on this planet, experience, has nothing to do with how people think.

What it all comes down to hear is idealism versus realism.

Idealism is when a person, an idealist, believes an ideal, or perfect, or Utopian world is possible.  In order to accomplish this they create ideals and theories for people to follow.  They deal with problems by setting rules, standards, or laws for people to follow based on these ideals and theories in order to entice people toward the Utopian goal.  Since the human mind cannot conceive of perfection, it's assumed what perfection would be.  The truth, therefore, is what sounds good, or feels good.  The truth, to the idealist, is the theory, the guess.

Realism is when a person, a realist, knows perfection is not possible.  They only understand what is real, and shoot for goals that are real or possible.  They do not shoot for Utopia because they know it is not real.  They deal with problems in an effective and practical way.  They shun opinions in favor of facts.

So now let's return to our examples.  You go to the crowd of guys and you say, "The earth is closer to the sun in the winter."  They get mad at you.  They make you out to be the idiot even though you have the facts on your side.   These people have educations and degrees, and yet they continue to fall for this crap.

You go to a doctor or nurse and explain that pneumonia is an inflammatory disease, so how could albuterol, a bronchodilator, have any effect on it.  But they make you out to be the idiot and complain that you're just trying to get out of work; that you're lazy. These people have educations and degrees, and yet they continue to fall for this crap.

You go to a group of people who believes in global warming, and you explain that there hasn't been an increase in global temperature since 1996, and they get mad at you instead of considering this new wisdom.  These people have educations and degrees, and yet they continue to fall for this crap.

You see, they are idealists.  They live in an ideal world.  They don't care about the facts.  You do care about the facts, but because you are willing to call a cup of piss piss they get mad at you.

Remember, we have Yale and Harvard graduates running our country who are not smart the way realists define smart, so education has nothing to do with smart.  In some cases, depending on where you are educated, education can corrupt you.

Idealists don't like it when you come up to them and are truthful. They say that when you do that you are confrontational. You are causing confrontation. You are being controversial.  They might also call you a complainer, and they will tell your friends to stay away from you when you are complaining.  They, in turn, will make you out to be the outcast, when all along the facts are on your side and not theirs.

So how do you define smart?  In order to define smart you have to have a grasp on what idealism and realism are.  You have to realize that education does not make you smart, it's whether you are a realist or idealist.  Realists are all about sounds good and feels good, while realists are all about facts and possibilities.

How do you define smart: part 5

How do you define smart? part 3

So we're continuing today our series on the topic: How do you define smart? Perhaps one way to define smart is to determine whether a person relies on facts, or relies on feelings, or what sounds good.

So, what do I mean by this?  Well, I think the best way to explain this by asking you a question.  Have you ever been in a situation, you're arguing or not even arguing, you're just discussing things with a group of people, and you know you're right, and you know you can prove it, and it doesn't matter to them.

And the reason that you know you're right is that you know things they don't know. And because they don't even have that baseline of knowledge to chat with you, they can't even understand where you're coming from.

So you offer your facts, and they get mad at you and walk away.  Or, better yet, they laugh and mock you and tell you that you are being ridiculous; that you are being controversial; that you are just creating conspiracy theories; that you are a liar; that you are a Nazi.

Ever have that happen to you?

Perhaps I can provide you with a better sense of what I'm getting at with an example.  My friends are sitting around discussing why it is colder in the winter and warmer in the summer.  One person says, "It's warmer in the summer because the earth is closer to the sun, that's why?"  Everyone else agrees because what he says sounds good; it feels like the right answer.

But you know better.  You know from reading books that the sun is closer to the earth in the winter, and the reason it's colder in the winter is because the sun hits the earth at an angle, making it colder.  In the summer the earth is further from the earth, but the sun hits the earth straight on, making it hotter.

So my friends get mad at me.  They make me feel like I'm an idiot.  They call me names.  But I know I'm right, but no matter what I say will not satisfy them because what I say doesn't make sense; it doesn't sound good; it doesn't feel right.

So the next day I go online and research this topic, and I verify that I was right all along.  So, here's an example of all the facts were on my side, but I was made out to be stupid one.  When, in fact, I was the smart one, at least in this example.

You can go into politics here too. There are people who have a political position, and then you come into the discussion and say, "Hey! Wait a minute! If you consider this fact, what you guys are saying is poppycock!"

Let's take the theory of global warming as an example.  Maybe you support this theory and maybe you don't, but let's just assume for sake of argument that you don't support it.  You walk into a bar and your friends are talking about how man is causing global warming.

You say, "Wait a minute you guys.  I just got done looking at statistics on this subject, and there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1996.

Of course you think you're friends would be glad you were throwing facts on the table, and, perhaps, they might reconsider their position.  But, instead, they get mad at you.  They make fun of you and make you out to be the idiot, when all along you have the facts on your side.

Consider these questions: Isn't it the role of scientists to be doubters? Isn't it the job of scientists to be open minded?  Isn't it the job of scientists to constantly be looking for facts?  Isn't it true that theories are educated guesses, and not facts?  So if facts show a theory to be false, shouldn't new theories form?

The answers to all these questions should be yes.  But, this is not always the case.  It's not always the case because some scientists, like some lay people like you and me, form opinions based on what sounds good, what feels good, not based on what is good.

Now, this is fine, so long as we are willing to change our opinions once better wisdom is available.  But this is not always the case.  There are scientists who become so rapt in their opinions, their political agendas, that they refuse to accept new wisdom when it slaps them in the face. This, in my opinion, is not science; it is not smart.

In fact, if I remember right, Socrates was sentenced to death for this exact reason. He questioned authority. He would walk up to successful business men and question them about how to succeed in business, and he'd get some very useful wisdom.

Then he'd ask the businessman about how to make, say, horse shoes. The person would talk as though he knew what he was talking about, as though he were an expert in that area too, when Socrates knew he was not an expert in horse shoes. The businessman, in essence, was pretending to know everything, when in fact he was ignorant in nearly every area except running a business.

So, for questioning authority, for encouraging people to think, and to admit they did not know what they did not know, Socrates was sentenced to drink a cup of hemlock poison that killed him.  Socrates took the poison willingly knowing that if he did his wisdom would become eternal.

Anyway, they make you feel like an outcast. Like the ancient Greek Senate voting for the death penalty for Socrates because he dared to disagree with the common theories of the day, your friends, or whomever you're debating with, might want to kill you, or otherwise shut you up.

Now, this brings me to idealism and realism.  I think, and this was the topic of William F. Buckley's column in Playboy a few years back, that as we delve into the subject of idealism and realism we will gain a better grasp on what smart is. This will be the topic of our next post.

How do you define smart? Part 4

How do you define smart? part 2

The continuing theme this week is: how do you define smart.  Yesterday we postulated the theory that education does not make you smart, in fact, depending on where you get it, education can corrupt you.  What makes you smart is common sense.

Today we're going to delve into the topic of idealism versus realism, and how these two terms are key to how most people develop their smarts.  To begin with, we must realize that there there are idiots with degrees all over Washington, DC. There are idiot doctors prescribing medicine and running ventilators.

So how can this be?  How can someone come out of school with a medical degree and still not be smart?  Well, the answer depends on how you define smart.  So how do you define smart?

First off, I don't think it takes a smart person to make a smart decision. All you need are the facts on your side. Yet sometimes talking to people who think they are right yet they are wrong can be frustrating.  And you know someone is wrong and you are right when the facts are on your side.

If, on the other hand, you don't have the facts on your side, then you, if you are smart, if you have common sense, should be listening instead of speaking.  Twice in my life a psychologist, both of whom I saw back in 1985 when my asthma was really bad, said they suspected I was smart.  I also had several teachers say that to me, even when my grades were bad.

I remember asking one psychologist: "Sometimes I get As, but sometimes I get Cs, and right now I'm not doing good in school.  So why do people think I'm smart."

He said, "Because you speak little and you are a good listener, two qualities of common sense."

So we once again come to the conclusion that common sense, not education, makes you smart.

Now, what that psychologist said didn't mean much to me back then other than to give me the needed confidence boost I needed.  But, in retrospect, as I hear those words again, I realize the seed he planted in my mind, which is what psychologists do

How do you define smart? Part 3

How do you define smart? Part 1

William F. Buckley Jr. once wrote a piece for Playboy -- I actually have never read Playboy -- and the title of the piece, it was brilliant. The title was: "How Do You Define Smart?"

I never read Playboy. Honest -- I never did.

I learned about this article through various other media outlets I read. You know, the one's that warp my mind. Actually, nothing I read ever warps my mind because I'm a free thinker. I believe as long as one is a free thinker nothing and no one can warp him or her.

So I think the question Buckley posed in this playboy article was a brilliant question. The answer to it, though, is multifaceted.

When I was a kid I always thought of my grandpa as smart. I say this knowing my grandpa quit high school despite his principal telling him he'd never amount to anything if he quit. He ended up starting an auto dealership from the ground up, and this ultimately became a Chrysler dealership in Manistee.

Whenever I had a question he always had the answer. Yet there are old people in Washington and Lord knows many of them sure aren't smart.

So do we become smarter when we become educated? Well, Lord knows there are graduates of Harvard in Washington, and there are tons of ignorant politicians making laws who have no clue what they are doing.

We have many doctors who are definitely educated who don't have a clue what a bronchodilator is supposed to do, and they order bronchodilators for anything that causes a wheeze and treat any person who's short of breath as though they had asthma.

And there are doctors who think a 1,000 tidal volume (that's a very deep breath) is appropriate for a 5 foot lady just because she's 550 pounds.  What he doesn't realize is her lungs will be the same size regardless of how much she weights, so if you try to push too much air into her lungs just because she's obese, you'll blow her lungs like an over inflated balloon.

So there are lost of politicians, and lots of doctors, who are not smart.

So what is smart?

Here you have a lifelong asthmatic who abused his inhalers because his asthma wasn't controlled, and yet all the other asthmatics he knew were gaining control of theirs. Then one day he woke up and thought, "Hey! Take your medicine, stupid!"

Yet, how can a blogger who has gotten every thing wrong for so long, be called smart. How can someone who did everything wrong in every way, shape, manner, or form be called smart? How does that compute? He's educated; he can string a couple sentences together; proper syntax. What the hell is smart? Why would someone read his blog.

This has always been something that has bugged me.

Then, at some point in my life, I realize that education doesn't make you smart, common sense makes you smart. The problem with common sense is that some of us have it, some of us don't have it, and it can't be taught.

The fact that common sense can't be taught is probably why education does not make you smart.  So, education does not mean you're smart. In fact, education, depending on where you get it, can corrupt you.

How do you define smart? Part 2

Top ten guy movie actors ever

Guys tend to have a different agenda when seeking out a good movie than women. That’s not to say women don’t enjoy guy movies, or that men don’t like dramas. But as a general rule of thumb, guys gravitate toward—well—guy movies.

A proper guy-actor list should include (duh) the top guy actors, even if they’re not in the order you’re used to seeing them. To show how consistency factors into the equation, each actor gets an impact rating based on the scale in the graphic. This helps narrow down which guys are most likely to pick a “boring” movie and which ones have a long history of choosing only the best action-heavy, tough-guy films. For example, Robert De Niro and Steve McQueen almost never appeared in anything less than an A+ guy-movie classic, so they earn a perfect 10. If you want to guarantee a solid guy flick, stick to the 10s. The 9s usually deliver strong second-tier guy movies. If you want a guy comedy, look for the 8s. And if you want memorable one-liners, the 3s have you covered.

1. Sylvester Stallone: Let’s be honest—Stallone practically invented the modern guy movie. Sure, he made a few snoozers in the ’80s, but he more than made up for it with Rocky, Rambo, and The Expendables franchise. His movies are so guy-approved they spawn sequels faster than he can jog up the Philadelphia steps. You could make a strong argument he’s the greatest guy-movie actor of all time, which is why he’s #1. Guy actor impact: 10.

2. Robert De Niro: I have never watched a boring De Niro flick. Goodfellas, Godfather II, Mean Streets, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, Cape Fear, Casino, Midnight Run. Even in his comedies—Meet the Parents, The Fockers—he’s still basically playing a tough guy. De Niro always delivers. Guy actor impact: 10.

3. Clint Eastwood: Some people expect Eastwood at #1, and I get it. He’s the greatest tough-guy presence ever captured on film. Dirty Harry, Gran Torino, Unforgiven, Josey Wales… he simply never made a boring guy movie. But any veteran of guy films knows De Niro’s range is wider. Still, Clint is the purest tough guy on this list. Guy actor impact: 10.

4. Al Pacino: He starred in two of the top ten guy movies ever made—The Godfather and Scarface. Nuff said. Guy actor impact: 10.

5. Steve McQueen: The King of Cool. Smoothest guy actor ever. Biggest box office draw of the ’60s and ’70s. If he hadn’t died too young, he’d probably still be making movies today—and possibly be #1. No one has ever made “quiet cool” look this effortless. Guy actor impact: 10.

6. Arnold Schwarzenegger: Only in America can a bodybuilder from Austria become a blockbuster action star and then a governor. Arnold is everything a guy actor should be: loud, huge, and impossible to ignore. When he first appeared in Expendables 2 and refused the small handgun because he wanted “a big one,” that summed up his entire career. Guy actor impact: 10.

7. Mark Wahlberg: Wahlberg has officially earned his spot among the top guy actors. The Departed, Shooter, Four Brothers, Invincible, The Fighter, Italian Job, Ted, Ted 2—he consistently picks roles guys love. Solid, dependable, masculine. Guy actor impact: 10.

8. Jean-Claude Van Damme: He’s not in many top-tier classic guy movies, but he is absolutely reliable. If you see Van Damme on a movie cover, you know exactly what you’re getting: sweat, kicks, splits, and dependable guy entertainment. Kickboxer alone cemented his place. Guy actor impact: 9.

9. Bruce Willis: Yes, he’s been in a few meh movies, but when Willis hits, he hits hard. Die Hard alone puts him in the conversation forever. Even his mid-tier stuff is usually fun because it’s Bruce being Bruce. Guy actor impact: 9.

10. Chevy Chase: Chase is the master of guy-comedy absurdity. Fletch and the Vacation movies alone secure his legacy. His humor captures the everyday chaos of being a man in a world full of expectations. Guy actor impact: 8.

11. John Wayne: You can’t have a real guy-actor list without the Western king. Calm voice, iconic walk, football-player build. He ranks a bit lower only because older movies focused more on story than explosions, body counts, and chaos—but he’s still the blueprint for masculine screen presence. Guy actor impact: 7.

Honorable mention: Charlton Heston (10), Nicolas Cage (9), Dolph Lundgren (9, 5), Chuck Norris (9), Steven Seagal (9), Liam Neeson (9), Mel Gibson (9), Will Ferrell (8), Eddie Murphy (8, 3), Marlon Brando (7), Danny Glover (6), Ray Liotta (5), Harrison Ford (4), Sean Connery (4), Roger Moore (4), Pierce Brosnan (4), Daniel Craig (4), Joe Pesci (3), John Travolta (2), Leonardo DiCaprio (2), Christopher Walken (2), Tom Hanks (1), Tom Cruise (1), Emilio Estevez (1), Christian Slater (1), Paul Newman (1), Robert Redford (1).

Who am I missing? Where am I wrong? Help me add to this list.

She said, "What do you mean by religious?"

So he asked the wise old lady, "Are you religious?"

She said, "What do you mean by religious?"

Ah, he thought, I hate it when people toss questions back at me!  After pondering it a moment, he tossed it back: "What do you mean?"

"Well," she said, "Everybody is religious about something; even atheism can be a religion, and, therefore, atheists religious."

He said, "I never thought of it that way."

She said, "Even politics can be a religion.  When people get all upset when you oppose their political views, you are, in essence, insulting their religion."

He said, "Interesting."  

She said, with a smile, "So what do you mean by religious?"