Fundamental Laws of Stupidity

[jacob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M._C ... non_troppo

Given how prevalent and influential stupidity is, it's surprising that stupidity has not been researched to a greater degree. Perhaps because non-stupid people (who could actually do this study) have a hard time understanding actual stupidity. For example, cognitive dissonance seems like a rather highbrow attempt describe stupidity as some deliberate attempt to avoid internal incoherence, whereas from observing stupidity in action it seems rather nondeliberate and any quest for coherence also seems to be rather far from the stupid person's mind. In other words, cognitive dissonance seems more like an intelligent person modelling a stupid person as if the stupid person was actually intelligent. Yet, I don't think that's what's actually going on.

Dunning-Kruger is more about the level of self-reflection on part of the intelligent or stupid person. This makes sense to me.

In any case, I think Cipolla goes much farther than this. His classification scheme makes it possible to sort people into intelligent people (whose actions help themselves and help others); bandits (whose actions help themselves but hurts others); helpless people (whose actions help others but hurt themselves); and stupid people (whose actions hurt themselves as well as others).

It's Cipolla's posit that stupid people are the most dangerous group.

You'd rather someone be evil than incompetent, because then at least you can make sense of their actions. Yet, "never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence" suggests that there are far more stupid people than evil people ... or at least we'd like to think so.

[stand@desk]

Thanks for posting this JLF. This is definitely an important concept to keep in mind when dealing with the public. To determine which category the individual falls into and to act accordingly with them. No wonder good leaders are always proclaiming how important it is to surround themselves with good people. One would think that the bandits are more dangerous than the stupid, but the author makes it very clear that the stupid are the most dangerous.

I would think each MBTI type could be one of the 4 groups as the author also said that a person's level of stupidity is independent of any other characteristic of that person, thus turning 16 personality types into 64 potential types. Although I would think certain stupidity group types would correlate more frequently with certain MBTI types.

Looking forward to further discussion on this interesting topic..

[jacob]

One point which I considered important was that since the fraction of stupid people is everywhere the same (second law), the fall or decline of a nation/group was given by the degree to which stupidity (stupid people?) was allowed to occur. Eternal September is one example. Prior to that stupidity was discouraged by culture/etiquette. After Eternal September stupid people were added in so fast as to overwhelm the preexisting culture. And so now, large parts of the internet are dominated by stupidity.

I have yet to find a good answer as to whether stupidity is best fought or ignored. I think the biggest problem with stupidity is not the stupid themselves since they can not be changed but rather when normal human failings causes stupidity to be taken seriously. This suggests quenching stupidity fast and early. In a way, dealing with stupidity is then best dealt with similar to oral hygiene. Regular brushing to eliminate food particles before they turn into cavities if left alone. Conversely, acting on stupid sentiments might in itself be an act of stupidity. In that case, stupidity is best ignored. It seems that the answer depends on whether it is possible to isolate oneself completely from the specific stupidity.

[simplex]

I see one major difficult point in the stupidity issue:

On person can be highly intelligent, but still stupid in some areas. E.g. being an good at saving money, but being bad at relationships and alienating people. Or being a doctor and smoking. Or becoming obese and and eating only healthy foods (in unhealthy amounts).
The thing is there is no single rational intelligent way to act. What seems or is stupid from the outside may be viewed perfectly intelligent from the inside. I think everybody is in some way acting stupid in his life.

This doesn't preclude that large groups of stupid people exist.

[chenda]

This reminds me of the political ideas of Walter Lippmann:

''In his first book on the subject, Public Opinion (1922), Lippmann said mass man functioned as a "bewildered herd" who must be governed by "a specialized class whose interests reach beyond the locality." The elite class of intellectuals and experts were to be a machinery of knowledge to circumvent the primary defect of democracy, the impossible ideal of the "omnicompetent citizen". This attitude, while it could be considered elitist today, was held as liberal by the standards of the 1920s, endorsing the continuation of civil society rather than populist fascism.''

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lippmann

[Ego]

It was once true that the damage done by stupid people was limited to those in the immediate vicinity and mostly to those helpless people who placed themselves in the stupidity-bullseye by trying to help. Natural selection at work. One of the premises of the tech-singularity gang is that technology can remain ahead of that damage. Sadly, it seems that technology has had the opposite influence, to amplify the damage power of each stupid individual.

[Chad]

Along with the tech megaphone for everyone, including the stupid, there appears to be another cultural shift. The intelligent and the stupid seem to be self selecting themselves into groups that don't interact. Sure, this has always happened, but current tech (Ego noted) and cultural trends seem to be encouraging this division. What smart person stays in a situation (be it small town, dying town/Detroit, bad area of town, etc.) that provides less opportunity? Not many, I would bet, compared to just 30 years ago (my mother would have been a prime example). This means the stupid don't mingle with the intelligent as much as they used too. This creates a situation where stupid people don't have any real contact with intelligent people, which means no one is telling them their bad ideas don't hold water. It's much easier for a friend to tell someone they may not be right than a stranger.

I notice this a lot when I go back to my hometown. I also notice this is the only time I hang around with stupid people.

It was once true that the damage done by stupid people was limited to those in the immediate vicinity and mostly to those helpless people who placed themselves in the stupidity-bullseye by trying to help. Natural selection at work. One of the premises of the tech-singularity gang is that technology can remain ahead of that damage. Sadly, it seems that technology has had the opposite influence, to amplify the damage power of each stupid individual.

I wonder if the tech-singularity gang's idea of a truly open society (the one where everyone knows everything about everyone) would mute this more, as you would be able to see everything that person has done. This would enable you to put a value on the source. (Whether this type of society is possible or desirable is a completely different question.)

[jacob]

Youtube tried to make people comment under the real names to increase the quality of their comment space. Seeing the results (unchanged) it's clear that stupid people don't care about making stupid comments even when everybody (including themselves?) is aware that their stupidity is no longer done anonymously.

I wonder where Dunning-Kruger looked into whether the confidence that stems from ignorance can actually be destroyed in some way. Clearly overwhelming evidence works. However, stupid people are unlikely to even consider evidence in the first place.

[Chad]

If you are talking about the open society comment. I wasn't trying to suggest it would stop the stupid from saying stupid things. I was suggesting it would be easier to sort the stupid out, if you wanted. Of course, the want would probably imply intelligence, which then leaves us where we started...with the same result you noted YouTube had with their comments. I'm trying to find some hope here.

[jacob]

Long ago, the sorting was done by titles and degrees. Also there was a high degree of belief in the fact that expert opinion weighs higher than layman opinion. So, there was once such a system. There's no such system for the internet. Of course the old system had downsides when titles and access actually misrepresented intelligence. However, the new system or lack thereof has much bigger problems with stupidity than the old system.

I'm not sure whether this [old] system was thrashed by postmodernism, populism, the internet, or something else.

[stand@desk]

Has there been any ratios as the the % of each of the stupidity groups? I would Guess Intelligent 10%, Bandits, 10%, Naive 40%, Stupid 40%.. One factor about the stupid group I observe is how little research they do on their own..they rely on others for what they could just find on the internet.

[Chad]

Long ago, the sorting was done by titles and degrees. Also there was a high degree of belief in the fact that expert opinion weighs higher than layman opinion. So, there was once such a system. There's no such system for the internet. Of course the old system had downsides when titles and access actually misrepresented intelligence. However, the new system or lack thereof has much bigger problems with stupidity than the old system.

I'm not sure whether this [old] system was thrashed by postmodernism, populism, the internet, or something else.

Yeah, now having that title or degree is actually a negative in certain circles.

[EMJ]

What a sad, judgmental way of thinking about your friends, family and neighbors. As simplex hinted we can be both intelligent and stupid. No one is perfect.

stupid people (whose actions hurt themselves as well as others).

Where do people who are ill fall in this system - people whose actions hurt themselves as well as others, people who may be smart but not able to make good decisions?

[GandK]

I'm not sure this sorting technique is globally applicable either.

If we accept that there are different aptitudes, we accept that there are different weaknesses. Isn't everything of this sort (intelligence, reaction time, adaptability, levels of perseverance/gumption, "common sense," etc.) on a bell curve? High intelligence plus low reaction time could easily appear to be stupidity. And are we confining the definition of "stupidity" to actual lack of intelligence, or are we also talking ignorance and lack of education, the results of which look like stupidity but which can be remedied by education and application?

Also: the original definition of stupid is "in a stupor." Unresponsive, as opposed to unintelligent.

[jacob]

Ah no ... within the context of the "laws", stupidity exists in all groups. The focus is not postmodernistic but absolute. Also no attempts are made at political correctness. This is probably why nobody really studies the problem and why attempts to do so are generally have hopeful conclusions.

There are two questions to answer to determine whether something qualifies as stupid:

1) Does this choice hurt the person?
2) Does this choice hurt other persons?

Answer key:
yes/no: helpless
no/yes: bandit
no/no: intelligent
yes/yes: stupid

It is important that a choice is involved. Getting hit in the head by a meteorite is not an intelligent or a stupid choice. Also, here we are looking at the actual actions, not whether some person scores high on a standardized test. A high IQ person can certainly make stupid choices. In fact, stupid high IQ people are typically more destructive to themselves and others. Technology (e.g. the internet) only leverages this potential.

Now, the first question is answered by the person himself. For example, a person who smokes might do so in the full knowledge of the consequences to himself. This is a deliberate choice. This person does not hurt himself. However, if others are expected to treat the resulting cancer, the action does hurt them. This would make this person a bandit (B2 to be exact). Conversely, if the person does not know that he will get cancer and his smoking exposes others to passive smoking and/or expect others to treat the disease, then the person is stupid. Conversely, a person sitting in an outhouse smoking themselves to death in full knowledge of the consequences and not expecting anything from others is making an intelligent decision (presuming they enjoy a lifetime of tobacco more than they dislike dying of cancer).

In this optic there is a tremendous about of stupid choices being made. If stupidity didn't exist or was at least discouraged, a lot of harm would be avoided. For example, a lot of industries are essentially bandits taking advantage of helpless people.

I think it going too far in the other direction of political correctness and/or acceptance to assert that we should accept(*) harmful choices because nobody is perfect or because everybody makes them in some way or another.

(*) This can be a morally normative assertion ... that is, saying that stupidity is wrong and morally bad. It can also be a neutral statement in the sense that the theory simply allows us to understand stupidity better. For example, if it is possible to tell the helpless, the stupid, and the bandits apart, it becomes easier focus ones effort. For example, bandits should be thwarted; the helpless should be helped; and the stupid (people who knowingly destroy themselves and others) should be shunned.

[jacob]

Stupidity within the context of this thread/theory has a very exact non-vernacular meaning. See the OP link and google around.

[jacob]

One example where I found it useful ... like Ego and Chad pointed out above, there's now a tendency for the groups to try and segregate. Consequentially, the only place I now come into contact with stupidity (after I stopped blogging/started rejecting MSM interviews) is in book reviews.

I spend way too much time trying to understand negative reviews because I see (saw?) them as a defect in my writings...

However, if you'll permit some non-PC self-indulgence, I can also see them like this ...

1) People with insufficient reading comprehension. "I really wanted to like/read the book but I couldn't understand the words."
2) Self-styled critics who don't actually critique the book but goes off on a rant projecting all their psychological issues onto me personally.
3) People who haven't actually read it but who disagree with what they believe to be the premise of the book and proceed to offer a bunch of straw man arguments in defense of consumerism, e.g. if it isn't about consumerism, it must be about being homeless.

My sample size of negative reviews is big enough to observe that all reviews fall into one of these categories. Since I've thought a lot about this (why do we have exactly these three types of negative statements), I was delighted to see an actual "theory" that fit rather well.

(1) belong to the helpless category. They are well-intentioned but ended up hurting themselves because they truly couldn't understand. They help me with a dose of coffee money via the royalty but they don't hurt others since their reviews are not taken seriously by anyone.
2) belong to the bandit category. They want to show off their review skills and ability to write hatchet jobs without actually providing anything of value (offering suggestions for improvement). Mostly they concentrate on whatever faults they find in the author. In other words they seek to benefit personally at the expense of others.. me due to the libelous statements and those who wont read the book as a consequence.
3) belong to the stupid category. It's painfully obvious [to everybody] that they didn't read or understand the book, so they are just going to flaunt/reaffirm their prejudices thus in turn making other people dumber as well.

I've yet to see one intelligent negative review. That is, a negative review that makes the reviewer better off AND helps me write a better book AND helps others by making them smarter. I can now take that as a good sign

Oh well, that was a bit self-indulgent, but my point is that being able to understand the subgroups of stupidity (realizing that there are different kinds of stupidity, not just one) makes it a lot easier to understand. It's applicable to so many other fields. Politics. Tobacco smoking. Obesity. The climate change "debate". Financial mismanagement. Youtube comments. And so on.

[workathome]

The quadrant reminds me of this quote:

I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent — their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy — they make up 90 per cent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent — he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief.

[chenda]

I don't think the smoking analogy works Jacob as the smoker is always hurting him/herself, regardless of their knowledge of the health costs.

[jacob]

@chenda - It depends on how you define hurt. It's not just physiological but also psychological. And in other cases also religious, moral, etc.

I know a couple of smokers who full well know the risks of smoking and yet choose to smoke because they'd rather have a shorter happier life with tobacco than a longer unhappier life without it. If that is their deliberate choice they would hurt themselves by not smoking.