It makes them ignorant. Stupid is unable to learn. Ignorant is able to learn but having not learned. Thus, those who refuse to learn may well be able to, they just won't. That leaves them uninformed and, hence, ignorant, yes?
Isn’t it true that the blindest man is the one who will not see?
Metaphorically, probably, but metaphors are an observation of reality and only have validity when they constructively interpret it. They do not determine reality. Those who are unable to see are blind and must figure out their environment, those who refuse to see will just blunder into whatever comes into range. You can try to steer them clear, but it's likely wasted effort. So, you have a point: those who want to see but can't will likely be more co-operative than those who could see but won't.
That still doesn't make those who are wilfully ignorant stupid, just ignorant, which entirely suffices for the purpose of figuring out what they are likely to do or insist on next, yes?
>>If one is too lazy to apply their own intelligence, how does that make them NOT stupid?
>
>It makes them ignorant. Stupid is unable to learn. Ignorant is able to learn but having not learned.
>Thus, those who refuse to learn may well be able to, they just won’t. That leaves them uninformed
>and, hence, ignorant, yes?
I disagree. You see their unwillingness to learn means that they are unable to learn (very rarely does one learn against one’s will, but that is not saying one cannot learn from bad experiences); so, by their own choice to embrace unwillingness to learn and laziness, they have made themselves unable to learn: hence stupid.
Now, it is possible to be both intelligent and ignorant. For example, I’m a CS major, I enjoy listening to music, but I could not tell you what alto, contralto and all the rest are (except bass, that’s the low one), which makes me ignorant on the technicalities of music.