10 ms·

Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

166 points by soldeace 9y ago

mikenew 9y ago
> I made a special point to extend my research to a specially selected group... The result confirmed Nature's supreme powers: σ fraction of the Nobel laureates are stupid. I mean... okay. I would like to know both what the definition of "stupid" is here and what this study actually consists of. Also I'm pretty sure using "We all recollect occasions..." as your main supporting evidence is several logical fallacies rolled into one. Is this satire? Am I missing the joke? If the main point is that stupidity is a product of nature and can't be changed by experience there needs to be a lot more evidence to back it up.
- bfung 9y ago
  As defined by "The third (and golden) basic law": "A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses." These are absolute laws, no need to see the studies =P
  - hulistinist 9y ago
    Not sure if I should take these laws seriously, but the difficulty is in defining a loss versus a gain. For example, the old "I'm taking you down with me" is often driven out of spite or vindictiveness. Maybe it's stupid, but maybe not? If you get pleasure out of it, is it a loss?
    - setr 9y ago
      I'td be in the lower bandit category (the personal gain is significantly less than loss to the other person). The definition of loss is intuitively simple I think: you would have preferred that nothing had happened instead. Vice versa for gains, and then its matter of degrees. With total gain/loss to society scaling the intelligence axis The stupid man would take down the other without meaning to; he gets nothing out of the event, and he brought significant loss upon his neighbors. The key being that this was without intention; that is, he poses a threat to himself, and everyone around him, by virtue of his normal character.
alexpetralia 9y ago
Unfortunately this is a taboo subject so no one can talk about it candidly (hence: satire).
- B1FF_PSUVM 9y ago
  That's because intelligence is way overvalued. With very little scientific proof. Shh. (Amusingly clever essay, though.)
cko 9y ago
Speaking of intelligence, from my brief thirty-year existence, I've observed that self-reflection and creativity are positively correlated with intelligence. I haven't tested out this theory, but I believe r = 0.75.
- pizza 9y ago
  fwiw, pearson coefficients completely ignore non-linear effects.. make of that what thou wilt, regarding intelligence, self-reflection (irrelevant but it would be nice if we called self-reflection reflexivity, imo) and creativity :P
ian0 9y ago
There are lots of strategies which are rational, non-stupid, in a specific context but irrational & stupid if context is expanded. Eg. Paying it forward by advising a sociopath, working on something interesting despite it being damaging, not being religious because its illogical even if being religious makes you feel/act better. A better general definition of stupidity as a non-rational strategy would be "taking an action in deliberate ignorance of context". Not "taking a non-rational action". Root contexts are pretty simple and almost universally agreed "don't be an ass to others", "aim for happiness". If you don't ensure your action within context is rational, your being stupid. Obviously its difficult in many scenarios to grasp the larger context, but if we promoted this definition we would as a society optimise for core ethics and be less apt to being manipulated by a minority. Rationalism, about as useful as a piece of string is long :P
- sbuttgereit 9y ago
  "Obviously its difficult in many scenarios to grasp the larger context, but if we promoted this definition we would as a society optimise for core ethics and be less apt to being manipulated by a minority." Doesn't this mean that you already believe that we need to be first manipulated by the minority that holds the definition you advocate, since that definition is not already generally held? And if your definition is generally held you lose your complaint, don't you? To be fair, I think your point about the importance of correct context is completely valid. I just don't think minority vs. majority is a factor. Failing to think, or not knowing how to think, rationally and independently puts you at the mercy of wrong minority, or majority, opinion.
  - ian0 9y ago
    Good point.
- red75prime 9y ago
  > not being religious because its illogical even if being religious makes you feel/act better. It's not exactly a choice. I for the life of me just can't start believing one or another unfounded story, because there's no basis to choose which story to believe. Even taking into account prevalent beliefs of the society as a basis, I can't imagine what kind of mental stunt I need to perform to promote probability of the hypothesis to one. Deep brain stimulation could probably work, but it's too risky.
yosito 9y ago
It's not that a certain percentage of people are stupid. It's that no matter how intelligent people are, they are very inconsistent about what they apply their intelligence to and there's always going to be some super intelligent idiot who doesn't have his head in the game and fucks shit up for everyone else because he wasn't paying attention to the right things.
dang 9y ago
Does anybody have a year for it? I went with 2009 via https://web.archive.org/web/20090601000000*/http://www.zoon.cc/stupid/ https://web.archive.org/web/20090601000000*/http://www.zoon.... but it feels like it might be older, especially as the author had been dead for 9 years. Edit: a comment (now deleted) helpfully pointed out the Whole Earth Review, Spring 1987 reference at the bottom. Thanks! Previously: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Basic%20Laws%20of%20Human%20Stupidity%20points%3E3&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Basic%20Laws%20of%20Human%20St.... Interesting annotation by pg at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=817703 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=817703. Url changed from http://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basic-laws-of-human-stupidity/ http://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basic-laws-of-human-stupidit..., which points to this.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- IndrekR 9y ago
  Wikipedia page of the author [1] claims it was circulated among the friends in 1976 (English) and published in 1988 (Italian). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M._Cipolla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M._Cipolla
  - jaclaz 9y ago
    Yes, it is a "classic", and actually the linked to online version (with the illustrations) is (besides being not complete) somehow much worse (IMHO) than the original, which is a very plain booklet where the cartesian diagrams are less distracting, here it is (from archive.org), the PDF is an actual scan of the booklet: https://archive.org/details/The_Basic_Laws_of_Human_Stupidity_by_Carlo_M._Cipolla https://archive.org/details/The_Basic_Laws_of_Human_Stupidit... More history about the Author and the book is here: http://gandalf.it/stupid/cipoleng.htm http://gandalf.it/stupid/cipoleng.htm
    - dang 9y ago
      You're probably right about that; such framing has a huge effect on how a text is perceived. But I think in this case having a normal web page might be more important.
warent 9y ago
Is this thesis intentionally ironic? What exactly is the utility? On a human level, loss and gain are subjective. The definition of a "stupid" person therefore requires complete context and access to their subjective state. Therefore this doesn't provide any gain to the "intelligent" person to help resolve the situation. However, from the perspective of a potential stupid person who is by definition self-destructive, when they read this thesis, their reaction at best will be neutral, and at worst cause them to become destructive. So, to recap, this essay provides no gain, but does create potential loss. In which category would that place this essay? Q.E.D.
- RikNieu 9y ago
  The category you're looking for is 'humour'. You may not find it funny, but that was it's intent.
l0b0 9y ago
If you like this, try http://www.thedevilsdictionary.com/ http://www.thedevilsdictionary.com/. Less PC, but also hilarious in places.
kdamken 9y ago
What makes a person stupid? If I have a friend who squanders their money while I save and build up wealth, are they stupid? What if they have a much happier and more fulfilling life than I do? If you have a difficult job (like brain surgeon), but are terrible at most of the other parts of your life, does that make you stupid? Are slow readers stupid? What if they invent a product or start a business that makes them a lot of money? “Smart” and “stupid” are such harsh, black and white terms. They leave no room for the many shades of gray in between. We all think we’re smart, even if we say we don’t. No one wants to be the dumb kid. I feel like being “smart” usually just means you can think and process information a little bit faster than others. But like having a super fast cpu installed, it’s really a matter of what you do with it. You could write a bestselling novel on a slower computer. You could have a super computer and just go on Facebook all day. It seems like every time I feel like I’m smart, I see someone who I thought was dumber who is more successful or happier than me, and I wonder if I was that much smarter in the first place.
- warent 9y ago
  Well said!
- alain_gilbert 9y ago
  From the text: "A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses." I think all of your examples give the person some gain, or causes good to others.
  - worldsayshi 9y ago
    I find it very difficult to buy the idea that a person is characteristically stupid. People does things like described by the definition all the time. It's called mistakes. Some people are ignorant sure. But my guess is that even the most ignorant person is not an idiot most of the time.
    - yetihehe 9y ago
srrge 9y ago
I feel this is one thing that differentiate the European political cultures and the US political culture. In Europe I feel we do better understand that people are stupid (in general). They won't insure their health, they'll kill you for $50, they won't pay the price for an education. That's why we don't have guns, we have mostly free healthcare and universities. In the US, I feel you guys hope or would like that people would NOT be stupid and do smart things on a general basis. But that's not the case. What if all side of the US political system could agree on this? People are fucking stupid, let's make more rules and put more systems and programs in place that take this into account.
- leaveyou 9y ago
  I see your point but it also implies that Europe breeds the stupid while US allows them to extract themselves from the gene pool.. not a very nice perspective for me (as an European)
  - srrge 9y ago
    Yes good point. Now, in the US, some of the stupids seem to extract a lot of other/innocent people from the gene pool with them...
  - hectorlorenzo 9y ago
    According to the article, extracting stupid people from the gene pool won't affect the ratio of stupid people present in society. σ remains constant no matter what.
- Sniffnoy 9y ago
  I'll let Sarah Constantin make this argument for me: https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2017/06/27/in-defense-of-individualist-culture/ https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2017/06/27/in-defense-of-... :)
  - srrge 9y ago
    I think individualism is a respectable philosophy. Thank you for sharing this article. I think however that a reasonable person would also consider that social policies may have great benefits for herself as an individual. For example: - If stupids don't have access to war weapons, maybe it will be more difficult for them to mass murder ME. - If the stupids have to vaccinate and can get healthcare, maybe they won't spread viruses and diseases to ME. - If the stupids have a degree maybe they can create value instead of ruining ME through welfare taxes.
yodsanklai 9y ago
> Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation. I think it's very arrogant and pretentious to call other people 'stupid' and I try to refrain from doing it. We all know people who are much smarter than us, surely we must sound stupid to them. Besides, one can be stupid for one thing (say mathematics) and shine for something else (raising kids or playing the trumpet). That being said, I can't help thinking a lot of people are stupid, especially when I read news or youtube comments. It's amazing how so many people can be dumb, mean, uneducated and bitter.
- ckastner 9y ago
  > We all know people who are much smarter than us, surely we must sound stupid to them [...] I believe you misunderstood the article, because the "stupid" it discusses isn't relative. Quite the contrary: the third (and golden) basic law states that A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
- nanomoose 9y ago
  While that's very kind of you, I don't know how you've come to think that life is devoid of the unfortunate - some people are simply stupid.
r0fls 9y ago
I know the OP is not the author, and this edit is about 30 years late. However, the quote "With stupidity and sound digestion, man may front much" should apparently be attributed to Thomas Carlyle, not Dickens: https://quotefancy.com/quote/917262/Thomas-Carlyle-With-stupidity-and-sound-digestion-man-may-front-much https://quotefancy.com/quote/917262/Thomas-Carlyle-With-stup...
mannanali413 9y ago
This manual, as I may call it, is hilarious. But its usefulness cannot be discounted. The first rule while dealing with people is "Individuals are who they are." And if in the past you had an encounter with someone who fits the label of "stupid", as described by these laws, then there is a high chance that the person is going to display stupidity even in the foreseeing future. As a friend of mine once remarked in Hindi-- "Once a chutiya, always a chutiya." (Translation ) "Once a stupid, always a stupid"
scandox 9y ago
I have never met a stupid person. Unwise, thoughtless, ignorant, uncouth, vain, angry - yes. Stupid no. I have never met someone I believed I could not make understand something, if I articulated it in the right way. I never met someone who, if confronted with a wrong action was intellectually incapable of understanding what was wrong: emotionally yes, but not intellectually. I think stupid is just an inaccurate term and being pejorative brings little to any understanding of a situation or a person.
- kierenj 9y ago
  Really, truly? The interesting question to me is then: why not? Or how? There are many individuals on the planet who, through no fault of their own, have severely limited mental capacity. You've never met one?
  - scandox 9y ago
    I have met people with mental disability, who would have had significant limits on their intellectual capabilities, but I didn't consider them stupid. If it helps to clarify: I can't explain relational databases to someone who doesn't have basic numeracy and you can't explain (say) quantum mechanics to me and the hyper-intelligent aliens can't explain ?$%>$£DDDD to you...but none of us in that chain are stupid. And all of us with sufficient power of articulation can convey the elements of those things to each other that matter to the person within their context.
    - arithma 9y ago
      But that's quite circular. I have never found a cup that would overspill, if not poured to beyond its capacity. I think I understand the sympathy you're trying to convey, and the insight that you should try to explain things to the capacity of the other people. It's a mine field of perceived ability and all, but yeah.
      - scandox 9y ago
        Well then the other way to look at it is that we are all stupid. The point I'm making is that the term itself does not mean what its users intend it to mean. It is actually a way of excusing our own lack of ability to communicate in a meaningful way.
nebelwerfer2k 9y ago
THIS is the shit. Very hilarious and weirdly very relatable to my life ??
quantum_state 9y ago
Not much of a reasonable writing ... what would it help????
rurban 9y ago
original url: http://web.archive.org/web/20130216132858/http://www.cantrip.org/stupidity.html http://web.archive.org/web/20130216132858/http://www.cantrip... with a bit more background and drama
runald 9y ago
Rather than asserting that the laws of stupidity are an inherent characteristic of people, I think it would be more useful or productive to apply the laws to human actions instead. So the third law would be something like: A stupid action is anything that causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while the executor of action derives no gain and even possibly incurring losses. The laws could serve as a heuristic for people who consistently perform stupid actions, and reconsider their position from being a plague to something (better?) like a bloodsucking parasite. Admittedly, the laws of stupidity seem to be in conflict with the laws of conservation. Then again, This comment probably qualifies as an act of stupidity.
- MaysonL 9y ago
  One might also usefully characterise social institutions thus. Also technologies. (For instance tetra-ethyl lead in gasoline is in the bandit quadrant, as are cigarettes).
mino 9y ago
Worth remembering that Carlo M. Cipolla made up his middle name :) What is the M. of Carlo M. Cipolla (1922-2000)? No, it's not for Maria, as everyone believes and as Wikipedia also reports. So is it for Mario? Do not be bothered. It just stands for nothing at all. Or, better, it stands for itself. "M." is the initial that the author (...) made up just to fill the "middle name" box on the modules at the University of Berkeley where he moved in the 1950s. (quick translation from http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/cultura/2011-10-21/irresistibile-spirito-cipolla-182530.shtml http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/cultura/2011-10-21/irresistib...)
MaysonL 9y ago
The author, Carlo M. Cipolla, was an Italian economic historian, a professor at U.C. Berkeley. The article is from a small (71 page) book, available in paperback and Kindle.

166 points by soldeace 9y ago

> I made a special point to extend my research to a specially selected group... The result confirmed Nature's supreme powers: σ fraction of the Nobel laureates are stupid. I mean... okay. I would like to know both what the definition of "stupid" is here and what this study actually consists of. Also I'm pretty sure using "We all recollect occasions..." as your main supporting evidence is several logical fallacies rolled into one. Is this satire? Am I missing the joke? If the main point is that stupidity is a product of nature and can't be changed by experience there needs to be a lot more evidence to back it up.

bfung 9y ago
As defined by "The third (and golden) basic law": "A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses." These are absolute laws, no need to see the studies =P
- hulistinist 9y ago
  Not sure if I should take these laws seriously, but the difficulty is in defining a loss versus a gain. For example, the old "I'm taking you down with me" is often driven out of spite or vindictiveness. Maybe it's stupid, but maybe not? If you get pleasure out of it, is it a loss?
  - setr 9y ago
    I'td be in the lower bandit category (the personal gain is significantly less than loss to the other person). The definition of loss is intuitively simple I think: you would have preferred that nothing had happened instead. Vice versa for gains, and then its matter of degrees. With total gain/loss to society scaling the intelligence axis The stupid man would take down the other without meaning to; he gets nothing out of the event, and he brought significant loss upon his neighbors. The key being that this was without intention; that is, he poses a threat to himself, and everyone around him, by virtue of his normal character.

alexpetralia 9y ago

Unfortunately this is a taboo subject so no one can talk about it candidly (hence: satire).

B1FF_PSUVM 9y ago
That's because intelligence is way overvalued. With very little scientific proof. Shh. (Amusingly clever essay, though.)

cko 9y ago

Speaking of intelligence, from my brief thirty-year existence, I've observed that self-reflection and creativity are positively correlated with intelligence. I haven't tested out this theory, but I believe r = 0.75.

pizza 9y ago
fwiw, pearson coefficients completely ignore non-linear effects.. make of that what thou wilt, regarding intelligence, self-reflection (irrelevant but it would be nice if we called self-reflection reflexivity, imo) and creativity :P

ian0 9y ago

There are lots of strategies which are rational, non-stupid, in a specific context but irrational & stupid if context is expanded. Eg. Paying it forward by advising a sociopath, working on something interesting despite it being damaging, not being religious because its illogical even if being religious makes you feel/act better. A better general definition of stupidity as a non-rational strategy would be "taking an action in deliberate ignorance of context". Not "taking a non-rational action". Root contexts are pretty simple and almost universally agreed "don't be an ass to others", "aim for happiness". If you don't ensure your action within context is rational, your being stupid. Obviously its difficult in many scenarios to grasp the larger context, but if we promoted this definition we would as a society optimise for core ethics and be less apt to being manipulated by a minority. Rationalism, about as useful as a piece of string is long :P

sbuttgereit 9y ago
"Obviously its difficult in many scenarios to grasp the larger context, but if we promoted this definition we would as a society optimise for core ethics and be less apt to being manipulated by a minority." Doesn't this mean that you already believe that we need to be first manipulated by the minority that holds the definition you advocate, since that definition is not already generally held? And if your definition is generally held you lose your complaint, don't you? To be fair, I think your point about the importance of correct context is completely valid. I just don't think minority vs. majority is a factor. Failing to think, or not knowing how to think, rationally and independently puts you at the mercy of wrong minority, or majority, opinion.
- ian0 9y ago
  Good point.
red75prime 9y ago
> not being religious because its illogical even if being religious makes you feel/act better. It's not exactly a choice. I for the life of me just can't start believing one or another unfounded story, because there's no basis to choose which story to believe. Even taking into account prevalent beliefs of the society as a basis, I can't imagine what kind of mental stunt I need to perform to promote probability of the hypothesis to one. Deep brain stimulation could probably work, but it's too risky.

yosito 9y ago

It's not that a certain percentage of people are stupid. It's that no matter how intelligent people are, they are very inconsistent about what they apply their intelligence to and there's always going to be some super intelligent idiot who doesn't have his head in the game and fucks shit up for everyone else because he wasn't paying attention to the right things.

dang 9y ago

Does anybody have a year for it? I went with 2009 via https://web.archive.org/web/20090601000000*/http://www.zoon.cc/stupid/ https://web.archive.org/web/20090601000000*/http://www.zoon.... but it feels like it might be older, especially as the author had been dead for 9 years. Edit: a comment (now deleted) helpfully pointed out the Whole Earth Review, Spring 1987 reference at the bottom. Thanks! Previously: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Basic%20Laws%20of%20Human%20Stupidity%20points%3E3&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Basic%20Laws%20of%20Human%20St.... Interesting annotation by pg at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=817703 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=817703. Url changed from http://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basic-laws-of-human-stupidity/ http://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basic-laws-of-human-stupidit..., which points to this.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
IndrekR 9y ago
Wikipedia page of the author [1] claims it was circulated among the friends in 1976 (English) and published in 1988 (Italian). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M._Cipolla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M._Cipolla
- jaclaz 9y ago
  Yes, it is a "classic", and actually the linked to online version (with the illustrations) is (besides being not complete) somehow much worse (IMHO) than the original, which is a very plain booklet where the cartesian diagrams are less distracting, here it is (from archive.org), the PDF is an actual scan of the booklet: https://archive.org/details/The_Basic_Laws_of_Human_Stupidity_by_Carlo_M._Cipolla https://archive.org/details/The_Basic_Laws_of_Human_Stupidit... More history about the Author and the book is here: http://gandalf.it/stupid/cipoleng.htm http://gandalf.it/stupid/cipoleng.htm
  - dang 9y ago
    You're probably right about that; such framing has a huge effect on how a text is perceived. But I think in this case having a normal web page might be more important.

warent 9y ago

Is this thesis intentionally ironic? What exactly is the utility? On a human level, loss and gain are subjective. The definition of a "stupid" person therefore requires complete context and access to their subjective state. Therefore this doesn't provide any gain to the "intelligent" person to help resolve the situation. However, from the perspective of a potential stupid person who is by definition self-destructive, when they read this thesis, their reaction at best will be neutral, and at worst cause them to become destructive. So, to recap, this essay provides no gain, but does create potential loss. In which category would that place this essay? Q.E.D.

RikNieu 9y ago
The category you're looking for is 'humour'. You may not find it funny, but that was it's intent.

l0b0 9y ago

If you like this, try http://www.thedevilsdictionary.com/ http://www.thedevilsdictionary.com/. Less PC, but also hilarious in places.

kdamken 9y ago

What makes a person stupid? If I have a friend who squanders their money while I save and build up wealth, are they stupid? What if they have a much happier and more fulfilling life than I do? If you have a difficult job (like brain surgeon), but are terrible at most of the other parts of your life, does that make you stupid? Are slow readers stupid? What if they invent a product or start a business that makes them a lot of money? “Smart” and “stupid” are such harsh, black and white terms. They leave no room for the many shades of gray in between. We all think we’re smart, even if we say we don’t. No one wants to be the dumb kid. I feel like being “smart” usually just means you can think and process information a little bit faster than others. But like having a super fast cpu installed, it’s really a matter of what you do with it. You could write a bestselling novel on a slower computer. You could have a super computer and just go on Facebook all day. It seems like every time I feel like I’m smart, I see someone who I thought was dumber who is more successful or happier than me, and I wonder if I was that much smarter in the first place.

warent 9y ago
Well said!
alain_gilbert 9y ago
From the text: "A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses." I think all of your examples give the person some gain, or causes good to others.
- worldsayshi 9y ago
  I find it very difficult to buy the idea that a person is characteristically stupid. People does things like described by the definition all the time. It's called mistakes. Some people are ignorant sure. But my guess is that even the most ignorant person is not an idiot most of the time.
  - yetihehe 9y ago

srrge 9y ago

I feel this is one thing that differentiate the European political cultures and the US political culture. In Europe I feel we do better understand that people are stupid (in general). They won't insure their health, they'll kill you for $50, they won't pay the price for an education. That's why we don't have guns, we have mostly free healthcare and universities. In the US, I feel you guys hope or would like that people would NOT be stupid and do smart things on a general basis. But that's not the case. What if all side of the US political system could agree on this? People are fucking stupid, let's make more rules and put more systems and programs in place that take this into account.

leaveyou 9y ago
I see your point but it also implies that Europe breeds the stupid while US allows them to extract themselves from the gene pool.. not a very nice perspective for me (as an European)
- srrge 9y ago
  Yes good point. Now, in the US, some of the stupids seem to extract a lot of other/innocent people from the gene pool with them...
- hectorlorenzo 9y ago
  According to the article, extracting stupid people from the gene pool won't affect the ratio of stupid people present in society. σ remains constant no matter what.
Sniffnoy 9y ago
I'll let Sarah Constantin make this argument for me: https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2017/06/27/in-defense-of-individualist-culture/ https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2017/06/27/in-defense-of-... :)
- srrge 9y ago
  I think individualism is a respectable philosophy. Thank you for sharing this article. I think however that a reasonable person would also consider that social policies may have great benefits for herself as an individual. For example: - If stupids don't have access to war weapons, maybe it will be more difficult for them to mass murder ME. - If the stupids have to vaccinate and can get healthcare, maybe they won't spread viruses and diseases to ME. - If the stupids have a degree maybe they can create value instead of ruining ME through welfare taxes.

yodsanklai 9y ago

> Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation. I think it's very arrogant and pretentious to call other people 'stupid' and I try to refrain from doing it. We all know people who are much smarter than us, surely we must sound stupid to them. Besides, one can be stupid for one thing (say mathematics) and shine for something else (raising kids or playing the trumpet). That being said, I can't help thinking a lot of people are stupid, especially when I read news or youtube comments. It's amazing how so many people can be dumb, mean, uneducated and bitter.

ckastner 9y ago
> We all know people who are much smarter than us, surely we must sound stupid to them [...] I believe you misunderstood the article, because the "stupid" it discusses isn't relative. Quite the contrary: the third (and golden) basic law states that A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
nanomoose 9y ago
While that's very kind of you, I don't know how you've come to think that life is devoid of the unfortunate - some people are simply stupid.

r0fls 9y ago

I know the OP is not the author, and this edit is about 30 years late. However, the quote "With stupidity and sound digestion, man may front much" should apparently be attributed to Thomas Carlyle, not Dickens: https://quotefancy.com/quote/917262/Thomas-Carlyle-With-stupidity-and-sound-digestion-man-may-front-much https://quotefancy.com/quote/917262/Thomas-Carlyle-With-stup...

mannanali413 9y ago

This manual, as I may call it, is hilarious. But its usefulness cannot be discounted. The first rule while dealing with people is "Individuals are who they are." And if in the past you had an encounter with someone who fits the label of "stupid", as described by these laws, then there is a high chance that the person is going to display stupidity even in the foreseeing future. As a friend of mine once remarked in Hindi-- "Once a chutiya, always a chutiya." (Translation ) "Once a stupid, always a stupid"

scandox 9y ago

I have never met a stupid person. Unwise, thoughtless, ignorant, uncouth, vain, angry - yes. Stupid no. I have never met someone I believed I could not make understand something, if I articulated it in the right way. I never met someone who, if confronted with a wrong action was intellectually incapable of understanding what was wrong: emotionally yes, but not intellectually. I think stupid is just an inaccurate term and being pejorative brings little to any understanding of a situation or a person.

kierenj 9y ago
Really, truly? The interesting question to me is then: why not? Or how? There are many individuals on the planet who, through no fault of their own, have severely limited mental capacity. You've never met one?
- scandox 9y ago
  I have met people with mental disability, who would have had significant limits on their intellectual capabilities, but I didn't consider them stupid. If it helps to clarify: I can't explain relational databases to someone who doesn't have basic numeracy and you can't explain (say) quantum mechanics to me and the hyper-intelligent aliens can't explain ?$%>$£DDDD to you...but none of us in that chain are stupid. And all of us with sufficient power of articulation can convey the elements of those things to each other that matter to the person within their context.
  - arithma 9y ago
    But that's quite circular. I have never found a cup that would overspill, if not poured to beyond its capacity. I think I understand the sympathy you're trying to convey, and the insight that you should try to explain things to the capacity of the other people. It's a mine field of perceived ability and all, but yeah.
    - scandox 9y ago
      Well then the other way to look at it is that we are all stupid. The point I'm making is that the term itself does not mean what its users intend it to mean. It is actually a way of excusing our own lack of ability to communicate in a meaningful way.

nebelwerfer2k 9y ago

THIS is the shit. Very hilarious and weirdly very relatable to my life ??

quantum_state 9y ago

Not much of a reasonable writing ... what would it help????

rurban 9y ago

original url: http://web.archive.org/web/20130216132858/http://www.cantrip.org/stupidity.html http://web.archive.org/web/20130216132858/http://www.cantrip... with a bit more background and drama

runald 9y ago

Rather than asserting that the laws of stupidity are an inherent characteristic of people, I think it would be more useful or productive to apply the laws to human actions instead. So the third law would be something like: A stupid action is anything that causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while the executor of action derives no gain and even possibly incurring losses. The laws could serve as a heuristic for people who consistently perform stupid actions, and reconsider their position from being a plague to something (better?) like a bloodsucking parasite. Admittedly, the laws of stupidity seem to be in conflict with the laws of conservation. Then again, This comment probably qualifies as an act of stupidity.

MaysonL 9y ago
One might also usefully characterise social institutions thus. Also technologies. (For instance tetra-ethyl lead in gasoline is in the bandit quadrant, as are cigarettes).

mino 9y ago

Worth remembering that Carlo M. Cipolla made up his middle name :) What is the M. of Carlo M. Cipolla (1922-2000)? No, it's not for Maria, as everyone believes and as Wikipedia also reports. So is it for Mario? Do not be bothered. It just stands for nothing at all. Or, better, it stands for itself. "M." is the initial that the author (...) made up just to fill the "middle name" box on the modules at the University of Berkeley where he moved in the 1950s. (quick translation from http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/cultura/2011-10-21/irresistibile-spirito-cipolla-182530.shtml http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/cultura/2011-10-21/irresistib...)

MaysonL 9y ago

The author, Carlo M. Cipolla, was an Italian economic historian, a professor at U.C. Berkeley. The article is from a small (71 page) book, available in paperback and Kindle.