Fundamental Laws of Stupidity

[Felix]

In terms of what to do against stupidity (especially your own), I like the Cosmic Schmuck principle. It seems to point at the underlying cause of stupidity.

The Cosmic Schmuck Principle holds that if you don't wake up, once a month at least, and realize you have recently been acting like a Cosmic Schmuck again, then you will probably go on acting like a Cosmic Schmuck forever; but if you do, occasionally, recognize your Cosmic Schmuckiness, you might begin to become a little less Schmucky than the general human average at this primitive stage of terrestrial evolution.

[IlliniDave]

Hmm, I'm not sure what to make of this. I think stupidity, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. For whatever reason, humans are wired in such a way as to keep excessive logic in check. I suspect there are good reasons for that.

Mathematically, optimization requires a cost function. Immersed in the vagaries of the universe as we are, the proper cost function for one's specific future is generally unknowable. Investing is a simple example. In the simplest sense there are three considerations: growth of wealth, stability/preservation of wealth, and insulation against black swans (various disasters). What is the "smartest" way to invest? What is the "stupidest" way to invest? The answer to both depends on the future, which is unknowable. In the more general sense, about all I can conclude is the broader the species response is to the same stimulus, the better the species' chance for survival. In other words, it's probably hard-wired and assigning labels to it won't do much except provide one more dimension of divisiveness.

[jacob]

The cost function for anyone's future is often knowable. If I go on a camping trip with a group and I don't bring water, I know that this choice will be costly later because I know I will be thirsty and I know that my choice not to bring any will cost me because I won't have any water in the future. It will also be costly to the group because they will have to deal with my choice, whether they choose to share and so will have less or if they don't and so will have to deal with me being thirsty. My choice not to bring water will thus be stupid because I'll be harming myself and others.

If this example sounds too good or stupid to be true ... consider this true story example as related to me by a sailor friend. A bunch of friends (he was one of them) fly to the Caribbean and rent a yacht with the goal to go cruising for a week. At the end of the first day, one of them decides to take a long shower and proceeds to use up their entire freshwater supply in the process. Consequentially, they have to spend the next day going back again to refill thus losing two days of their very expensive vacation.

I'm not really hardwired to keep that kind of logic in check nor is it po-mo when I'm personally involved. So stupidity can be identified although there are certainly situations where it's hard or impossible to foresee if a given action or inaction is stupid or intelligent. What makes a stupid person stupid is that they seem to lack this ability to identify their stupid choices.

[George the original one]

> What makes a stupid person stupid is that they seem to lack this ability to identify their stupid choices.

Examples:
1) Smoking at a gas station.
2) Driving at night without headlights.
3) Making a right turn from the leftmost lane (or taking freeway exit from furthest lane).

[JamesR]

4) Getting a tattoo

[IlliniDave]

The cost function for anyone's future is often knowable. If I go on a camping trip with a group and I don't bring water, I know that this choice will be costly later because I know I will be thirsty and I know that my choice not to bring any will cost me because I won't have any water in the future. It will also be costly to the group because they will have to deal with my choice, whether they choose to share and so will have less or if they don't and so will have to deal with me being thirsty. My choice not to bring water will thus be stupid because I'll be harming myself and others.

If this example sounds too good or stupid to be true ... consider this true story example as related to me by a sailor friend. A bunch of friends (he was one of them) fly to the Caribbean and rent a yacht with the goal to go cruising for a week. At the end of the first day, one of them decides to take a long shower and proceeds to use up their entire freshwater supply in the process. Consequentially, they have to spend the next day going back again to refill thus losing two days of their very expensive vacation.

I'm not really hardwired to keep that kind of logic in check nor is it po-mo when I'm personally involved. So stupidity can be identified although there are certainly situations where it's hard or impossible to foresee if a given action or inaction is stupid or intelligent. What makes a stupid person stupid is that they seem to lack this ability to identify their stupid choices.

That's an ironic example of a cost function because I'm sitting here unable to recall a camping trip where I brought water along. Maybe on a hike or picnic, but never a camping trip. So that would make me stupid in your eyes. It's often in the eye of the beholder.

No doubt there are instances when the cost function is knowable, a least in part. If you're going to go camping in the desert, bringing water would be wise. Of course if the extra weight makes you the slowest person in your party and that critical half step latency makes you the cougar's dinner rather than your eventually-to-be-thirsty companion, then you would have to take a further step back and say it was stupid to go camping where there is no water and there are cougars. Pure logic would arguably dictate against a huge number of recreational activities (I imagine it is inconvenient to haul an injured or dead skier off a slope, for instance, not to mention the increased risk of injury/death to the skier), but our non-logical motivators (adrenaline, endorphins, emotions, pride, etc.) compel us to do such things. Out of 6 billion shuffles of the genetic deck, I'm sure there are plenty of people where logic is a dominant trait. But for every one of those I'd suspect their opposite exists somewhere. Evolution couldn't care less about a single individual. It's the aggregate that matters and uniformity of behavior can be a species killer. So some of us are wired to zig when most everyone else zags. "Stupidity" certainly is a burden to the individual and to the collective at times, but my guess is that it's a deliberate part of the natural design.

[jacob]

There's nothing deliberate about natural/evolutionary design. Neither is natural design necessarily optimal. If stupidity is genetic in origin it can stay with the gene pool as long as people manage to procreate before stupidity or helplessness kills them. Darwin Awards are handed out to those who manage to kill themselves in particularly dumb ways before managing to do so.

I'll agree that stupidity exists on a scale from more stupid to less stupid to can't tell. And that there is lots of "can't tell" situations. However, I won't go as far as saying that it's all in the eye of the beholder. The kind of informed harm, e.g. smoking, is discussed above already.

[Nyarmith]

So, where does compulsion come into this? If someone does compulsively does something that they are aware is against their best interests but are too stupid/weak willed to solve? Most obese people probably know it's bad for them to be obese(not necessarily society) but often don't know how to fix it or the methods they know of fixing it are too dififcult to try or are just too set in their ways to change. I like your model but I just don't know how to apply it.

[7Wannabe5]

Is it really stupidity or is it something more like "denial of self-interest?" If you know that it feels better (more happy juice squirted by your brain) to give than to receive, do you then become a "bandit" rather than a member of the "helpless" if you toss a package into the Toys for Tots box? Of course, this is a bad example because children and pets do not feel obligated to reciprocate in order to re-establish social status. Getting a boob job is a well-established happiness increasing purchase. Is it banditry to get one or stupidity to choose not to?

Also, where does "neglect of acquired responsibility" as opposed to active-disregard come into the equation? I think one of the most fascinating characters in literature is Mrs. Jellyby in "Bleak House" by Dickens. She spends enormous energy engaged in altruistic work for the starving children of Africa but neglects her own husband, children, household and appearance. Interesting to contrast her behavior with that of Scrooge who is very narrowly concerned only with his fiscal self-interest.

Anyways, I would say that for my personality type the greatest enemy of "self-aware, self-care" (which my intelligence informs me is the best practice for helping myself AND others) would be tedium but it is difficult to determine whether "denial of need for more stimulation" or "inability to develop stoic tolerance for boredom (the fear of death by slow burial)" is more like my particular flavor of "stupidity."

[Dragline]

So, where does compulsion come into this? If someone does compulsively does something that they are aware is against their best interests but are too stupid/weak willed to solve? Most obese people probably know it's bad for them to be obese(not necessarily society) but often don't know how to fix it or the methods they know of fixing it are too dififcult to try or are just too set in their ways to change. I like your model but I just don't know how to apply it.

Yes, I would think that a lot of activity in the stupidity quadrant is driven by addictive or compulsive behaviors of the smoking, drinking, gambling, overeating and other consumptive or hoarding-related activities.

Another good part of it would be simple carelessness or thoughtlessness -- the kind of things most children are guilty of or a pet might do, but most people grow out of.

And then there's just plain unexcusable ignorance and its twin, hubris or overconfidence -- like people who fail to read directions (or ask for them) or just erroneously think they know more than they actually do.

Unwittingly falling into one or more of Cialdini's six psychological traps of being influenced (Reciprocity, Commitment and Consistency [often foolish], Social Proof, Authority, Liking and Scarcity) could also lead to stupid actions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cialdini

But I think the usefulness of this analysis outside of trivial matters may be limited due to the temporal factor -- i.e., a decision that appears stupid or wise now may turn out to have been the opposite in hindsight. There are also measurement issues, but this just reflects the weakness of "utilitarian" theories generally.

[JamesR]

A couple of links I stumbled across today that seem related to this thread

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ests-miss/
http://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2014/ ... sts-exist/

[Chad]

Furthermore, it's hard to defend the helpless against stupidity because they are such willing victims. Hence the fourth law. Stupidity is best avoided.

So true. My sister's ex-husband was stupid and helpless. He couldn't tell telemarketers no, so he would end up buying most anything they were selling. He didn't even want most of it, let alone need it. Guy couldn't even just hang up the phone.

[Tyler9000]

I always find it telling that when you discuss something like this, 90% of the people assume they fall into the intelligent group, and 10% are honest enough to recognize themselves as bandits. The rational preening is thick, and no one recognizes their own stupidity or helplessness. And let's face it -- we're ALL stupid or helpless in some area of life.

Contrary to the natural inclination of INTJs, not everything in life is easily categorized. There are overlaps, shades of gray, and simply differences of perspective. Just one example: An atheist will see a religious person donate a large amount of money to a church and deem that a "helpless" or perhaps even "stupid" behavior, while to the religious person the spiritual benefits of the gift on both sides makes the decision purely an intelligent one. Many other examples abound. Any discussion about the "right" way to raise kids will quickly degenerate for these very reasons.

Individual truth is not always absolute. I personally believe that hubris is harmful both to oneself and to others. Which would mean to categorize myself as intelligent would actually be textbook stupid.

[stand@desk]

To be fair, some actions are plain stupid (walking while texting in heavy traffic and getting hit by a car) It really can not be intelligent, helpless or banditry behavior. Yes, we can look at far fetched explanations how it might be something other than stupid, but really it should be reasonably obvious that this is stupid because it is strongly putting the odds against you for safety.

Working out and eating healthy, this is not stupid or helpless or banditry behavior. In general, working out and eating healthy is putting the odds in your favor for a better life.

The point of the article is not to defeat it by coming up with elaborate possibilities on how stupid behavior turns out favorable because of luck. Intelligent behavior is putting the odds in your favor, while stupid behavior is putting the odds against you. Knowing this, playing the lottery is not an intelligent move if you win, it is a stupid behavior that was rewarded because of luck.

Behaviors are determined intelligent, stupid, helpless or bandit when performed based on their odds of helpfulness, not based on the results of the execution because of luck.

[George the original one]

> Knowing this, playing the lottery is not an intelligent move if you win, it is a stupid behavior that was rewarded because of luck.

Playing the lottery is stupid if one is doing so outside of a discretionary fiscal/time budget. If it's within the discretionary budget, then it's merely entertainment (after all, most entertainment is stupid behavior and we merely rationalize the forms we enjoy as "not stupid").

[George the original one]

I always find it telling that when you discuss something like this, 90% of the people assume they fall into the intelligent group, and 10% are honest enough to recognize themselves as bandits. The rational preening is thick, and no one recognizes their own stupidity or helplessness. And let's face it -- we're ALL stupid or helpless in some area of life.

Agreed, though intelligent people tend to recognize when they don't know and start asking questions. True bandits would see no gain in doubting their own actions.

[Tyler9000]

Agreed, though intelligent people tend to recognize when they don't know and start asking questions.

True. But too often they direct the questions in the wrong direction, such as at the intelligence of people whose behavior they don't understand.

The number of highly intelligent engineers I know who are helpless at investing (harming themselves while enriching others) and stupid at relationships (harming themselves while harming others) could fill a concert hall. And most realize it. But their natural inclination to rationally conquer every problem just digs the hole deeper.

[jacob]

@Tyler9000 - I think you're discussing this using different definitions of intelligence, stupidity, ... than defined in the OP.

[Tyler9000]

Using Cipolla's classification, the engineers I refer to behave intelligently with design matters but helplessly with investments and stupidly with relationships. Throw in a competitive bonus, and they're bandits. People are complicated.

[jacob]

Sure, people, being complicated and inconsistent, exhibit all four traits. Therefore, Cipolla works on a weighted average of the four traits to get the expectation value of a person's choices in order to make theoretical statements/practical guidelines. This is no different that MBTI.