Stupidity
I read about a definition of stupidity in an article recently that I found to be intriguing.
It was based on a very simple system where Stupid people were those who made their own situation worse and the situation of others worse. Whereas those that made their own situation better and ithers worse were called Bandits, those that made their own situation better and the situation of others better too were Intelligent and finally those that [s]better[/s] made their own situation worse and others better were … I forget … I think they were called Helpless.
Although this is an extremely simplified view the point was to show that Stupid people should be avoided as they were unpredictable, whereas the Bandits, although selfish, were at least predictable and so easier to manage.
More telling of this view was that Stupid people were everywhere in society and they are equally spread across all groups (be this in terms of wealth, education or profession).
Given that it makes sense to have less stupid people and more intelligent people, and that ‘education’ in its current state doesn’t sift out the Stupid what can be done to reduce the number of Stupid people in terms of pedagogy if anything?
Obviously this idea is limited as I’m sure many of you will get caught up in asking what is deemed as ‘better’ to which I can only refer to game theory in terms of what is most beneficial. Of course we’d have to consider short term and long term factors too. Overall I do find that view of `Stupidity’ and ‘Intelligence’ is useful as it ignores any idea of morality, intelligence (g-factor) and status/power/influence, as at every level Stupidity prevails in equal amounts.
Another problem we have is distinguishing between raw Stupidity and luck.
In terms of pedagogy I don’t really see how there is much we can do about the number of Stupid people there are in the world. But in terms of cultural attitudes I do think there is something we can do to shift power/status/influence of Stupid people where it is clear Stupidity is ruling. In such a case recognising and logging outcomes that are both detrimental to everyone short term and long term would result in such citizens being stripped of any reasonable influence. I don’t mean ‘imprisoned’ or ‘blamed’ just remove their assets (gained through luck maybe?) and isolate them more from impacting negatively upon others. I am talking about this at the highest degrees of status/power/influence rather than across the entire social strata simply because those that are stupid and in possession of greater status/power/influence can cause untold damage to themselves and many others whilst remaining oblivious to the fact.
Maybe we should all assume we are Stupid?
It was based on a very simple system where Stupid people were those who made their own situation worse and the situation of others worse. Whereas those that made their own situation better and ithers worse were called Bandits, those that made their own situation better and the situation of others better too were Intelligent and finally those that [s]better[/s] made their own situation worse and others better were … I forget … I think they were called Helpless.
Although this is an extremely simplified view the point was to show that Stupid people should be avoided as they were unpredictable, whereas the Bandits, although selfish, were at least predictable and so easier to manage.
More telling of this view was that Stupid people were everywhere in society and they are equally spread across all groups (be this in terms of wealth, education or profession).
Given that it makes sense to have less stupid people and more intelligent people, and that ‘education’ in its current state doesn’t sift out the Stupid what can be done to reduce the number of Stupid people in terms of pedagogy if anything?
Obviously this idea is limited as I’m sure many of you will get caught up in asking what is deemed as ‘better’ to which I can only refer to game theory in terms of what is most beneficial. Of course we’d have to consider short term and long term factors too. Overall I do find that view of `Stupidity’ and ‘Intelligence’ is useful as it ignores any idea of morality, intelligence (g-factor) and status/power/influence, as at every level Stupidity prevails in equal amounts.
Another problem we have is distinguishing between raw Stupidity and luck.
In terms of pedagogy I don’t really see how there is much we can do about the number of Stupid people there are in the world. But in terms of cultural attitudes I do think there is something we can do to shift power/status/influence of Stupid people where it is clear Stupidity is ruling. In such a case recognising and logging outcomes that are both detrimental to everyone short term and long term would result in such citizens being stripped of any reasonable influence. I don’t mean ‘imprisoned’ or ‘blamed’ just remove their assets (gained through luck maybe?) and isolate them more from impacting negatively upon others. I am talking about this at the highest degrees of status/power/influence rather than across the entire social strata simply because those that are stupid and in possession of greater status/power/influence can cause untold damage to themselves and many others whilst remaining oblivious to the fact.
Maybe we should all assume we are Stupid?
Comments (56)
"One pays heavily for coming to power: power makes stupid." ~F. Nietzsche
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
:mask:
Quoting 180 Proof
(Excerpts from TPF for an "Introduction" to a working draft of A Critique of Pure Stupidity by 180 Proof)
I’m happy to be Bandit if this is viewed as an ego boosting comment, but it is made with the intent of ‘helping’ you as you appear more Intelligent than a Bandit by my estimation. Maybe I’m less of a Bandit and more of a Helpless type?
If either of us are Stupid then our current circumstances should tell us (unless we’re simply lucky/oblivious)? Tough thing navigating this mess of human aptitude eh? :D
Varying degrees doesn't dismiss the underlying point being made by this idea of Stupidity. A Stupid use of Intelligence is contradictory too so as defined (see OP) you cannot simultaneously be Stupid and Intelligent in the same moment. You can certainly appear as Stupid one day and Intelligent the next (at different points), but again, that is missing out the point made in how Intelligence and Stupidity are distinguished.
Note: Stupid and Intelligent, not merely stupid and intelligent. I capitalised to make a distinction so Intelligent and Stupid are mutually exclusive in the context given.
Indeed. :up: Actions are intelligent or stupid rather than actors.
Self concern is by definition short-sighted, because in the long run, we are all dead. However, "think global, act local." is the natural result of having good long distance vision and short arms.
One can avoid stupidity by inaction - but that would be stupid, wouldn't it?.
That is kind of the point. Following from this people are more or less inclined towards Stupidity than others (make more Stupid actions).
People who behave in a Stupid way are unpredictable and therefore dangerous. We need to avoid them or they'll drag us down. How do we do this? How do we guard against them falling into positions of influence/power/status?
But the only way to avoid them is to kill oneself, because one behaves stupidly oneself. IOW, It is stupid to try and avoid stupidity.
Take care of stupid therefore, and educate stupid, and understand stupid and be compassionate towards stupid. That is intelligence in action.
Okay. I guess I wasn't addressing the OP with my other posts so much as interjecting a different conception of Stupidity.
Given the specific definition to entangle with Stupid is to become Stupid. Compassion towards a hungry man-eating tiger won't stop it from eating you. Compassion towards someone who is Stupid (in the context of the OP) would just result in greater harm to yourself.
Think of it like this. If someone is walking around with high explosives attached to them - which they believe are expensive jewelry - that have various flashing lights and switches that could sent the explosives off if toyed with. What would happen if you got close enough to tell them they should remove said explosives? Do you put yourself in danger or not? Can they be reasoned with if they have either no concern or comprehension of what situation they are currently in.
We cannot 'teach' people not to be Stupid in this sense. If we can then how? Given the definition of Stupid is to act in a manner that is harmful/detrimental to both themselves and others. Can Stupid be changed? What makes someone Stupid to the point that they un/wittingly cause detriments to everyone in their vicinity including themselves?
Is this just an impossible problem to deal with? Maybe it is. I just found the concept interesting.
A hungry man-eating tiger is not stupid.
Quoting I like sushi
That is a difficult situation. A stupid man in control of nuclear weapons is also a difficult situation. A group of stupid people destroying the environment by burning fossil fuels is also a difficult situation. Nobody said intelligence was easy or comfortable. I am saying stupidity cannot be avoided, and has to be dealt with intelligently, or it will indeed destroy us. Perhaps the best one can do with the chap with expensive jewellery is to try and conduct him to a quiet spot where only he and thee will be killed. Perhaps nothing can be done, perhaps macho-man can shoot him without setting off the explosives, or perhaps if we all ignore him he will stop thinking his jewellery is desirable and remove it. Who knows?
Funny joke.
Quoting unenlightened
Precisely the problem. So if, as proposed, such Stupidity is prevalent in human society we're all screwed. Can our intelligence (not merely Intelligence) figure it out if it is the case. I cannot but I'm not much more than average. Which leads to another idea in the article ...
We all underestimate the number of Stupid people there are in the world and the most Stupid people tend to think they are Intelligent.
I think everyone is stupid - that's an underestimate?
If everyone was Stupid we'd all be dead. So yeah. Huge underestimate I'd say. If everything everyone was doing was a detriment to themselves and everyone else then I wouldn't be able to communicate via the internet with you as they'd be no power and I'd be scrounging around ruins for food starving, so that I could use it as bait to kill people rather than eat in
I don't think we are communicating, alas, so I'll leave it there.
This does make a whole lot of sense! :confused:
AMended: those that MAKE their own situation worse and others better were … I forget … I think they were called Helpless.
:up:
Gettier problem, kind courtesy of Edmund Gettier.
How do we know that all we know are not Gettier cases?
You are undoubtedly right, but I have difficulty believing in kinds of people whether they be goodies and baddies or stupids and intelligents.
"Stupidity is possessing the ability to know better whilst, absent of undue burden, neglecting it. Without this ability, only ignorance remains."
Then again where does maliciousness come in. Somewhere between the two, or perhaps as a result of both.
I don't find the definition of stupidity in your OP a very useful one. I don't have any additional comments about that, but I do about your prescription for dealing with the problem, as described in the quote, above.
In order to implement your program - stripping people of influence, removing assets, isolation - you will have to abandon property rights and the Bill of Rights. Which is ok, I guess. We've done it before - we sent Japanese-Americans to Manzanar during World War 2 and various American Indian tribes to reservations after taking away their property and rights. Yeah, that's what we need. Some concentration camps.
If that’s what you get from what I wrote go away and bother someone else please.
You specifically and clearly propose taking away people's property and social position, apparently based on a half-baked judgement of whether or not you think they are stupid. If the fact that I pointed that out bothers you, well, it should. It bothers me too. You need to take responsibility for your words.
Quoting I like sushi
I don’t see any mention of concentration camps so fuck off.
I get the concentration camp reference. What you are suggesting in the OP is pretty dangerous. I know you specifically said not imprisoning but seizing assets is the same kind of thing. Even if you have the best of intentions and under your guidance its somehow successful, the power to seize assets will be there to abuse. It will be abused.
It is a perfectly fair reference, concentration camps, because this kinda thinking is where all that shit starts. Judgement, anyones judgement, is fallible. It doesnt matter how smart one is (even by the bizarre criteria you’ve laid out for intelligent). When you put rules in place that are so vague its only going to lead to someone gaming that rule to abuse it.
Even by your definitions whats smart or stupid is way to nebulous. As sympathetic as I am to the idea that stupidity is destructive and largely unchecked by society I can’t agree that your suggestions would be a good solution. I mean the distance between your suggestion and the worst examples of fascism history offers us is pretty short. Think about it, you are selecting a certain group and denying them rights that others have. What could go wring right?
Can’t we just educate people better, and across a wider/more useful spectrum? (Like teaching critical thinking in elementary school).
Again. You just aren't willing to take responsibility for your own words. As I mentioned, the US had concentration camps for Japanese-Americans during World War 2. That's how they took away their assets and influence. So, tell me. What methods will you use to implement your program of unconstitutional actions?
The article was The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity, by Carlo Cipolla
I wouldn’t apply Cipolla’s classifications to human beings because they are unjust, impractical, and largely nonsensical.
They are unjust because they lead us to observe the results of certain acts, apply utilitarian considerations, and use them to judge the intelligence of the actor, as if the intelligent cannot make mistakes, and so on. One could never know whether a situation will be better or worse beforehand, in any case, so expecting people to understand the situation before it occurs is to believe in omniscience.
It is impractical because, using Cipolla’s graph, one would have to record every act a person makes in a lifetime in order to determine whether one is stupid or intelligent.
It is nonsensical because one can occupy all categories at once. If someone makes his own and another’s situation worse with one act and better with the next, he is, accordingly, both stupid and intelligent.
Those who would utilize this method in order to discriminate against other human beings would lead me to classify him as stupid.
As a hypothetical problem it is still a problem. Cornering it as an extreme idea by viewing it in its extremities only is certainly one way of ignoring the problem.
Either way I find the overarching idea to be a nice leveller as usually the pompous fools of the world act like they are ‘superior’ due to positioning (IQ/status/religion) and this kind of view would hit them the hardest of all as they’d have to question their own ‘Stupidity’/‘Intelligence’.
There is no test to take. You just have to look at what you’ve done and the effects they’ve had on you and those around you. I think that is a healthy thought to have overall (whether or not you like what you see!) :)
I understand, Im not calling you down about offering this topic. Im not taking the step Clarke is where he jumps to conclusions about your position or character. I would have told him to fuck off too. Unfortunately I think there is some merit to the comparison he made, I just dont think you were suggestion concentration camps. Like I said though, there isnt much distance to get there from what youre suggesting.
If you’ll recall Ive always been someone who understood the thought experiment style topics you’ve introduced.
I find them interesting and useful, so please read my comments with that in mind.
Anyway, what about better education? Wouldn't that be the best way to stop people from being stupid? Not education in the sense of academia but teaching people the merits of living “smart” (still think its an odd set of definitions re smart/stupid but for the sake of discussion) so they understand its better to be constructive over destructive, to lift yourself and others up rather than down or as stepping stones to your own exaltation.
Good to know.
I have to dig into history for those people -- we have historical examples.
No "e" on Clark. I jumped to no conclusions about his position. He was pretty clear on what he proposed - taking away people's assets and removing them from their positions in society. That's what we did to the Japanese-Americans during WW2. We sent them to concentration camps.
Also, I made no reference to @i like sushi's character. Now you are jumping to conclusions.
It appears you haven't bothered to read the OP either. The premise is you CANNOT change how many people are Stupid.
I read it. I disagree with that premise. That you cannot change how many people are stupid hasnt been established.
In the OP it states “education” in its current form. Agreed. Lets talk about changing the form? (Which I did state in my post, speaking of not reading things…)
:fire: :fire: :fire:
[quote=Robert J. Hanlon (Hanlon's Razor)]Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.[/quote]
[quote=I like sushi - (insert your name) Razor]Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by bad luck.[/quote]
Good one!
Give me your surname if you don't mind and you can have a rule of thumb named after you. You'll join the likes of William of Occam (Occam's razor), Christopher Hitchens (Hitchens' razor)n you already know Robert J. Hanlon (Hanlon's razor), etc. What say you?
Don't forget T Clark's razor - When you are trying to decide which of two otherwise equal bottles of wine to purchase, buy the one with the twist-off cap.
:grin: :up:
:point:
:up:
plus
also
The Psychology of Stupidity, ed. Jean-François Marmion
(addendum)
We can take a person's actions and assess them in terms of gain and loss and judge those actions but people don't usually act as a result of such calculations. What I especially dislike about this idea is this oversimplification of decision making. When I read OP I thought of many things, mental illness, addiction, trauma and so on but perhaps that is taking things out of context. Maybe the best thing to talk about is the "seven deadly sins". Pride, lust, sloth, vanity, greed, envy and gluttony, I think all seven are at the heart of much of our "stupid" behaviour. It's not necessarily that we don't know or that we don't realise, but that we're weak. Everyone is dealing with their own unique circumstances, this topic is complicated, simple conceptualisations make simple solutions look far smarter than they really are.
I think you missed something. He was saying that Stupid people are unpredictable whereas everyone else you can figure out roughly what their motivations are.
It is not, as many here seem to take it, some rule of life to live by that explains everything there is to know about every facet of human behavior. It is an interesting take on what people call Stupid and Intelligent.
The harrowing point behind what he is saying is that there is no cure for this kind of Stupidity as some people are simply born this way. Whether it is true or not doesn't make it uninteresting. If it is true then avoiding Stupid people seems to make the most sense. I then added that reducing the influence/status/power of Stupid people at the high end of the influence/status/power spectrum would make sense, but they'd also be hard to move as they're Stupid and so unpredictable.
I really don't know if I've met anyone where I thought it was difficult to figure out what their motivations are, nor heard of any activity where it wasn't pretty obvious. As with the seven deadly sins, addiction, mental illness, and any number of other things I could bring up, just because an act is neither beneficial to the actor nor others, doesn't make them enigmatic. It's really clear to me why a drug addict acts to their own detriment and the detriment of others, and many of the things a drug addict might do can be considered really stupid but we know exactly why they're doing it and what their motivations are.
The most basic premises of this conceptualisation are flawed, what about it is so interesting? How can a human act without motivation? Stupid people just wake up and roll a die to decide what they'll do today? It's complete nonsense.
You apologise that you can't help with my inability to see the merits of your idea? How gracious of you.
I'll also apologise that I'm unable to see the merits, I must be a bit confused, I'm sure there's something somewhere but I missed it.
I guess stupid is being phased out slowly, in stages? Nature doesn't want to make a scene! :grin: Do you see any signs of that being the case?
That's the only exercise I do on a regular basis. :grin:
Everyone is stupid and yet enough of us are also smart enough to keep the species going. So far.
So, in a sense, stupidity hasn't reached critical mass to kickstart the chain reaction of chaos, bedlam and mayhem! How long, do you suppose, before we cross the Rubicon?
I dont find why thats nonsensical. I think although we dont like to admit it, we've all been capable of great harm or great good at some point in our lives. I think his main point was that we had to moderate our stupidity-let it flow softly in some areas, rather than power hosing your way through.
:ok:
[quote=Wikpedia]The root word stupid, which can serve as an adjective or noun, comes from the Latin verb stupere, for being numb or astonished, and is related to stupor[/quote].
Definition of "wonder" (vide Google): A feeling of amazement and admiration, caused by something beautiful, remarkable, or unfamiliar.
Synonym of "amazement" (vide Google): astonishment.
Surprise, surprise! (Information theory, Claude Shannon, Entropy)
A sensawunda is good but stupidity is not but in both cases the concerned individual is astonished. Compare and contrast that to :meh: (been there, done that, seen that, heard that, felt that, what's new? ZERO INFORMATION) and :scream: OMG! (LOTSA INFORMATION).