People can seem to be stupid if their reasons for action are not known.
People can't help but be stupid if deprived of factual information or if presented with false or confusing information.
Finally, all people are not trained to avail of the mental tools that civilization has honed over millennia to fight stupidity.
In the end "stupidity" is a social phenomenon, deeply connected to the nature of information exchange between individuals in society.
Transparency about the state of the world and the internal mental states of people and education (information processing capacity) can reduce what we commonly call stupidity.
But its a relative game. Full transparency and infinite processing capacity is not possible for human brains.
I'd argue that the universal quantifier "all people are not trained" should be changed. Surely we can say that some people are trained in at least some of the tools to fight stupidity we, humanity as a whole, developed over the millennia. So a phrase like "not all people are trained" seems to be more on the mark to me.
Beyond that I have little to say of substance, but I am curious. How do you fit "stupid actions", like putting your cat into a microwave oven, racing downhill on a gravel road in a shopping cart, or not running away from a blazing fire, into this framework? Is this a failure of reasoning, and therefore lack of training? (Training understood as guided or unguided learning) Is all stupidity avoidance empirical or are there stupidities (as an ontological object, LOL) that could be avoided on first principles?
This is better, thank you "not all people are trained" - agree, it is a generalization , we are trained to an extent - I guess a curriculum on stupidity would raise the bar of awareness.
Ha - stupid actions were in the dumb and dumber category which I avoided, but would be fun on a course in Stupidity
Recklessness seems like a good case study of misunderstood "stupidity".
The fact that younger people tend to be more prone to it is already an important clue. On the one hand their need to stand out in a competitive society creates an internal state that outsiders may not be able to appreciate. On the other hand their ability to assess the actual risk (take a calculated risk) may not be fully developed. E.g. unless trained formally (mock circumstances, games, history lessons, whatever), people will "train" simply through their own lived experience which in most cases is woefully inadequate for the range of situations they might face.
Sorry, I do not get one expression: what do you mean with «all people are not trained to avail of the mental tools»? Because some (many) people do train themselves and are trained on the mental tools etc. The expression as I read it seems to counter that.
"All people are not trained" can either mean "no people are trained" or, less commonly, "it's not true that all people are trained." Using it the second way can be confusing because it doesn't really mean what it actually says, but I think that's what they're doing.
"He considered the lack of inner independance not a matter of IQ or innate cleverness, but rather a failure of character"
"For Bonhoeffer, this concept was deeply rooted in his theological beliefs"
I will make a Christian commentary on ignorance. Here by "ignorance" I refer to the deliberate act of not wanting to know (something close to the author's definition of stupidity, but within the Christian perspective the concept I explained is more commonly used).
Spiritually speaking, ignorance is a kind of arrogance. If reason reveals to us the order of reality as created by God, the ignorant person harms themselves and others, dragging them into darkness through their refusal to know. They act as if they have the right to harm others for the sake of their own desires; that is arrogance. As stated above, it is a failure of character.
Timely essay. "Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice." I was thinking the other day that the real problem with people who have autocratic tendencies is not that they are bad people (although they may be) but that the systems they set up end up being so incompetent. The article is probably correct when it points out lack of humility as the root cause - Lack of humility being one of the defining characteristics of the autocratic type.
It also explains why intelligent people do stupid things. Just because they are a bit smarter than someone else doesn't mean anything relative to the complexity of reality. They still need to be humble but being told they are smart doesn't help.
No example given about what stupidity is.
Then how can you tell the diff stupidity vs intelligence since there is not a point refence my friend?
Should i take your word for it?
"According to Cipolla’s "Basic Laws of Human Stupidity," a stupid person is one whose actions result in negative consequences for both themselves and those around them, irrespective of intent"
Fair comment -- As I say at the start of the essay - it is not easy to define or measure stupidity and sought to show how researchers have attempted to define stupidity in different domains - hence my definition. I can certainly provide many examples from my own life of stupid choices that have impacted others and me!
Theory of Bounded Rationality tells use we are all stupid given the right problem. It reminds us that problems exist which will cause us to hit limits not just in intelligence but in time, resources, skill, communication, attention, energy, info etc etc etc
It also recommends what to do in such cases. You either pick a simpler prob where the limits matter less or Accept your solution for complex problems will have issues.
> Theory of Bounded Rationality tells use we are all stupid given the right problem.
I’d say one of OP’s main messages is that this is a misunderstanding or misuse of the word. We’re not stupid when we are aware of our limitations. Stupidity is more of a character flaw than a lack of intelligence. Perhaps you could say it’s a failure to even try to be rational.
IMO no one is born stupid, at least by the definition given in the article. One doesn't become "unwilling to change their views on a subject, no matter what" without external pressure.
Just look at qanon or proud boys for example, people in distress get radicalized by finding community in the worst places. They get pushed away by friends and family as they get more radicalized. They are then trapped, unwilling/unable to change their views as it would mean being rejected by their now only community. They develop cognitive dissonance and lead generally miserable lives.
You can find similar but less extreme cases in religion, politics, etc.
I spent 7 years in the public sector in Denmark and one of the things I experienced there was that people who question the stupidity of MBA type systems are very valuable. We have a lot of good intentions which get ground into these spreadsheet analytics and checklists which can inhibit smart solutions in our social policies and systems. I think this article touches on this sort of "systemic stupidity" that is rarely performed by stupid and was typically created with the best intentions.
I know the article has a much broader scope, but I really do think that when we set up too rigid systems with too much auditing and too many "best practices" we also create systems where a lot of people within them won't think. Especially when we manage to extinguish the will of people who might question parts of our systems which are so obviously terrible that they simply stop trying to create change. I never thought of it as collective stupidity before, but I think that it's the perfect description.
Its more like a dance that goes back and forth over time. Rules get proposed to solve one problem and create another down the road.
That's the nature of dealing with complex ever changing systems. There is no free lunch unfortunately. Unless AI comes up with something that our own cognitive limitations individually or as a group block out.
Exactly, "collective stupidity" is a good way to define the institutional stupidity... I will write more about the functional stupidity in organizations - thank you for the example.
The problem is not "stupidity" per se. As in, behaviour that leads to unfavourable outcomes due to faulty intelligence detection senses of the individual. We can work with that and work around that at constant costs via companies and states - meta-organisms.
The real flaws shine, when the stupidity is load bearing. As in, if you try to repair it, society falls apart. You cant repair it, you must life with it, it produces constant failed attempts and it severely limits societal ability to act/steer and move to survive problematic events.
You could make a Big(O) table of stupidity and there is of course the whole variants of levels.
Detectable: by Individual / Organization / Undetectable / Unknowables
Patchable: by Individual / Organization / Unpatchable Big(O)
Dependencies: Stupidity is Standalone / Affects Organizations / isDependentForFixOnOthers/ Loadbearing for Society / Not fixable without patching biology
The thing I've noted is just how much we stigmatize the idea of being stupid in society. No one wants to be stupid, no one wants to be wrong, and it's gotten so bad that if people are wrong they are worried they will be seen as stupid.
This is proportional to how often people are wrong, or at least how frequently worried they are that they will be wrong, and not surprisingly this is more common in people that didn't have the chance to gain a proper education.
It's gotten so bad now though, this not wanting to be considered stupid at any cost, that we have entire swaths of people dedicated to 'alternative facts' because they're not wrong, they just have 'different interpretations of different evidence' or whatever.
That's what we need to fight as a society, because that leads to the crazy divide that exists in the US and to a lesser extent in other countries,and IMO it's what holds or disrupts progress and potentially even ends up being a contributor in setting up a civil war.
I've played intelligent stupidness for decades - especially when it comes to ridiculous rules and regulations... stupidity at the right moment is a very strong tool - more than one can imagine.
On this note - I'm mostly interested in validation deficit that has strong prevalence in recent years - now that would be a great article.
in the real world, this word is mostly used to attack others who disagree with you. "He is so stupid" can usually be interpreted as "he disagrees with me/he can't see things my way". It is true especially in politics 99% of the time. Eg, just google how many times Elon musk is called stupid by people who disagree with him. Trust me, Elon is not stupid.
Why should we trust you that Elon, who acts stupidly and gets away with it because he's rich, is in fact not stupid?
I don't know anything about running a car company, but I do know enough about poker to know that "Just buy more chips and bet again" is not in fact a winning strategy.
Agree. As I write it can be 'derogatory' which is why I sought to explain institutional stupidity rather than focus on purely individual stupidity... trying to avoid the judgment and show what the literature says (and does not say) about stupidity
You are right, especially because politics is the most visible example of people being called "stupid" where they should be instead called "arrogant" or "assholes" or anything like that.
People can pretend to be stupid if it suits them.
People can seem to be stupid if their reasons for action are not known.
People can't help but be stupid if deprived of factual information or if presented with false or confusing information.
Finally, all people are not trained to avail of the mental tools that civilization has honed over millennia to fight stupidity.
In the end "stupidity" is a social phenomenon, deeply connected to the nature of information exchange between individuals in society.
Transparency about the state of the world and the internal mental states of people and education (information processing capacity) can reduce what we commonly call stupidity.
But its a relative game. Full transparency and infinite processing capacity is not possible for human brains.
> People can pretend to be stupid if it suits them.
> People can seem to be stupid if their reasons for action are not known.
> People can't help but be stupid if deprived of factual information or if presented with false or confusing information.
I put this in my fortune file and in the current signature. It explains so succinctly why we are so often frustrated in the workspace.
A very humane post, thank you.
I'd argue that the universal quantifier "all people are not trained" should be changed. Surely we can say that some people are trained in at least some of the tools to fight stupidity we, humanity as a whole, developed over the millennia. So a phrase like "not all people are trained" seems to be more on the mark to me.
Beyond that I have little to say of substance, but I am curious. How do you fit "stupid actions", like putting your cat into a microwave oven, racing downhill on a gravel road in a shopping cart, or not running away from a blazing fire, into this framework? Is this a failure of reasoning, and therefore lack of training? (Training understood as guided or unguided learning) Is all stupidity avoidance empirical or are there stupidities (as an ontological object, LOL) that could be avoided on first principles?
This is better, thank you "not all people are trained" - agree, it is a generalization , we are trained to an extent - I guess a curriculum on stupidity would raise the bar of awareness.
Ha - stupid actions were in the dumb and dumber category which I avoided, but would be fun on a course in Stupidity
Recklessness seems like a good case study of misunderstood "stupidity".
The fact that younger people tend to be more prone to it is already an important clue. On the one hand their need to stand out in a competitive society creates an internal state that outsiders may not be able to appreciate. On the other hand their ability to assess the actual risk (take a calculated risk) may not be fully developed. E.g. unless trained formally (mock circumstances, games, history lessons, whatever), people will "train" simply through their own lived experience which in most cases is woefully inadequate for the range of situations they might face.
In addition, everyone is stupid sometimes, especially me.
Sorry, I do not get one expression: what do you mean with «all people are not trained to avail of the mental tools»? Because some (many) people do train themselves and are trained on the mental tools etc. The expression as I read it seems to counter that.
"All people are not trained" can either mean "no people are trained" or, less commonly, "it's not true that all people are trained." Using it the second way can be confusing because it doesn't really mean what it actually says, but I think that's what they're doing.
Very well said - "all people are not trained to avail of the mental tools that civilization has honed over millennia to fight stupidity."
"He considered the lack of inner independance not a matter of IQ or innate cleverness, but rather a failure of character"
"For Bonhoeffer, this concept was deeply rooted in his theological beliefs"
I will make a Christian commentary on ignorance. Here by "ignorance" I refer to the deliberate act of not wanting to know (something close to the author's definition of stupidity, but within the Christian perspective the concept I explained is more commonly used).
Spiritually speaking, ignorance is a kind of arrogance. If reason reveals to us the order of reality as created by God, the ignorant person harms themselves and others, dragging them into darkness through their refusal to know. They act as if they have the right to harm others for the sake of their own desires; that is arrogance. As stated above, it is a failure of character.
Timely essay. "Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice." I was thinking the other day that the real problem with people who have autocratic tendencies is not that they are bad people (although they may be) but that the systems they set up end up being so incompetent. The article is probably correct when it points out lack of humility as the root cause - Lack of humility being one of the defining characteristics of the autocratic type.
It also explains why intelligent people do stupid things. Just because they are a bit smarter than someone else doesn't mean anything relative to the complexity of reality. They still need to be humble but being told they are smart doesn't help.
No example given about what stupidity is. Then how can you tell the diff stupidity vs intelligence since there is not a point refence my friend? Should i take your word for it?
"According to Cipolla’s "Basic Laws of Human Stupidity," a stupid person is one whose actions result in negative consequences for both themselves and those around them, irrespective of intent"
Whould strongly argue against this.
Fair comment -- As I say at the start of the essay - it is not easy to define or measure stupidity and sought to show how researchers have attempted to define stupidity in different domains - hence my definition. I can certainly provide many examples from my own life of stupid choices that have impacted others and me!
Theory of Bounded Rationality tells use we are all stupid given the right problem. It reminds us that problems exist which will cause us to hit limits not just in intelligence but in time, resources, skill, communication, attention, energy, info etc etc etc
It also recommends what to do in such cases. You either pick a simpler prob where the limits matter less or Accept your solution for complex problems will have issues.
> Theory of Bounded Rationality tells use we are all stupid given the right problem.
I’d say one of OP’s main messages is that this is a misunderstanding or misuse of the word. We’re not stupid when we are aware of our limitations. Stupidity is more of a character flaw than a lack of intelligence. Perhaps you could say it’s a failure to even try to be rational.
IMO no one is born stupid, at least by the definition given in the article. One doesn't become "unwilling to change their views on a subject, no matter what" without external pressure.
Just look at qanon or proud boys for example, people in distress get radicalized by finding community in the worst places. They get pushed away by friends and family as they get more radicalized. They are then trapped, unwilling/unable to change their views as it would mean being rejected by their now only community. They develop cognitive dissonance and lead generally miserable lives.
You can find similar but less extreme cases in religion, politics, etc.
I spent 7 years in the public sector in Denmark and one of the things I experienced there was that people who question the stupidity of MBA type systems are very valuable. We have a lot of good intentions which get ground into these spreadsheet analytics and checklists which can inhibit smart solutions in our social policies and systems. I think this article touches on this sort of "systemic stupidity" that is rarely performed by stupid and was typically created with the best intentions.
I know the article has a much broader scope, but I really do think that when we set up too rigid systems with too much auditing and too many "best practices" we also create systems where a lot of people within them won't think. Especially when we manage to extinguish the will of people who might question parts of our systems which are so obviously terrible that they simply stop trying to create change. I never thought of it as collective stupidity before, but I think that it's the perfect description.
Its more like a dance that goes back and forth over time. Rules get proposed to solve one problem and create another down the road.
That's the nature of dealing with complex ever changing systems. There is no free lunch unfortunately. Unless AI comes up with something that our own cognitive limitations individually or as a group block out.
Exactly, "collective stupidity" is a good way to define the institutional stupidity... I will write more about the functional stupidity in organizations - thank you for the example.
The problem is not "stupidity" per se. As in, behaviour that leads to unfavourable outcomes due to faulty intelligence detection senses of the individual. We can work with that and work around that at constant costs via companies and states - meta-organisms.
The real flaws shine, when the stupidity is load bearing. As in, if you try to repair it, society falls apart. You cant repair it, you must life with it, it produces constant failed attempts and it severely limits societal ability to act/steer and move to survive problematic events.
You could make a Big(O) table of stupidity and there is of course the whole variants of levels.
Detectable: by Individual / Organization / Undetectable / Unknowables
Patchable: by Individual / Organization / Unpatchable Big(O)
Dependencies: Stupidity is Standalone / Affects Organizations / isDependentForFixOnOthers/ Loadbearing for Society / Not fixable without patching biology
The thing I've noted is just how much we stigmatize the idea of being stupid in society. No one wants to be stupid, no one wants to be wrong, and it's gotten so bad that if people are wrong they are worried they will be seen as stupid.
This is proportional to how often people are wrong, or at least how frequently worried they are that they will be wrong, and not surprisingly this is more common in people that didn't have the chance to gain a proper education.
It's gotten so bad now though, this not wanting to be considered stupid at any cost, that we have entire swaths of people dedicated to 'alternative facts' because they're not wrong, they just have 'different interpretations of different evidence' or whatever.
That's what we need to fight as a society, because that leads to the crazy divide that exists in the US and to a lesser extent in other countries,and IMO it's what holds or disrupts progress and potentially even ends up being a contributor in setting up a civil war.
I've been trying to get people to view this for sometime
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O9FFrLpinQ
(Carlo M. Cipolla - 5 laws of stupidity)
That’s why we have concepts like “the 10th man”
I like how Cipolla's 4th Law, coupled with laws 1–3, mean even the non-stupid are stupid.
Hahha - very good observation
I've played intelligent stupidness for decades - especially when it comes to ridiculous rules and regulations... stupidity at the right moment is a very strong tool - more than one can imagine.
On this note - I'm mostly interested in validation deficit that has strong prevalence in recent years - now that would be a great article.
in the real world, this word is mostly used to attack others who disagree with you. "He is so stupid" can usually be interpreted as "he disagrees with me/he can't see things my way". It is true especially in politics 99% of the time. Eg, just google how many times Elon musk is called stupid by people who disagree with him. Trust me, Elon is not stupid.
Why should we trust you that Elon, who acts stupidly and gets away with it because he's rich, is in fact not stupid?
I don't know anything about running a car company, but I do know enough about poker to know that "Just buy more chips and bet again" is not in fact a winning strategy.
Agree. As I write it can be 'derogatory' which is why I sought to explain institutional stupidity rather than focus on purely individual stupidity... trying to avoid the judgment and show what the literature says (and does not say) about stupidity
No doubt he is intelligent but intelligent people can still behave stupidly, a "wise fool" to quote Gandalf.
You are right, especially because politics is the most visible example of people being called "stupid" where they should be instead called "arrogant" or "assholes" or anything like that.