4 ms·

Sadly, there is no "told you so". The kind of people who are impervious to reason before they create a catastrophe are equally impervious in its wake. They're e

Sadly, there is no "told you so". The kind of people who are impervious to reason before they create a catastrophe are equally impervious in its wake. They're either dead, along with all the other people they got killed, or intransigent to the last. Carlo Cipolla developed the "Basic Laws of Human Stupidity" as a quadrant model, positing Intelligence, Helplessness, Predation and Stupidity as four individual types [1]. Of all dark human qualities, including malicious psychopathy Cipolla thought that "the stupid person is the most dangerous person that exists". [1] This paper offers an insightful analysis: https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=81337 https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=...

doublerabbit 4y ago
OT, your comment was intellectual pleasing, that I read it twice.
jvanderbot 4y ago
Oh man that is a fun read: > A large class of stupid agents are those who act only “on principle”, thereby frustrating the work of others without gaining any personal benefits, as often occurs in board meetings, on faculty or departmental committees, in political parties, assemblies with unanimous voting regulations, even in international associations of nations when a nation vetoes a proposition “based on principle”.
robocat 4y ago
> the stupid person is the most dangerous person that exists But everybody is relatively stupid compared against others, if multiple dimensions of intelligence are measured. Or use an absolute scale, and I think we can round everybody’s intelligence down to zero. Humans are surely not that smart - certainly in my experience.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > But everybody is relatively stupid compared against others, if multiple dimensions of intelligence are measured. Absolutely true. And, to go further, "intelligence" is almost impossible to measure. Look more closely at Cipolla's theory though, and you'll see it is not about *measurement". He doesn't set up a (diametric) scale of intelligent <---> stupid. It's about behaviour between people who transact. He labels the behaviours (results of transaction) as one of four types. The one labelled "stupidity" is the lose-lose quadrant, where the parties act in such a way as to destroy value for them both! So, I guess in theory two rather low IQ people (measured intelligence) could interact in a way that is "intelligent" behaviour. Does that help explain it in a useful way?
  - robocat 4y ago
    Thanks. The “theory” would perhaps be better served by using clearer, less inflammatory, terms from transactional games like the prisoner’s dilemma, or from evolutionary strategies. “Intelligence” just mean “cooperate” in a win-win situation (non-zero sum game)? “1) Intelligent people, 2) Helpless/Naive people, 3) the Bandit and 4) the Stupid person” seem like terrible categorisations to me, because they imply fairly unchangeable attributes. Who wants to live in a world of being labelled? Defecting can be intelligent. Learning how to play tit-for-tat is worthwhile. Edit: disclaimer: I didn’t read much of the link, because the little I saw triggered my bogus limit. And I hope Cipolla isn’t Spanish - they would get a lot of ribbing.

doublerabbit 4y ago

OT, your comment was intellectual pleasing, that I read it twice.

jvanderbot 4y ago

Oh man that is a fun read: > A large class of stupid agents are those who act only “on principle”, thereby frustrating the work of others without gaining any personal benefits, as often occurs in board meetings, on faculty or departmental committees, in political parties, assemblies with unanimous voting regulations, even in international associations of nations when a nation vetoes a proposition “based on principle”.

robocat 4y ago

> the stupid person is the most dangerous person that exists But everybody is relatively stupid compared against others, if multiple dimensions of intelligence are measured. Or use an absolute scale, and I think we can round everybody’s intelligence down to zero. Humans are surely not that smart - certainly in my experience.

nonrandomstring 4y ago
> But everybody is relatively stupid compared against others, if multiple dimensions of intelligence are measured. Absolutely true. And, to go further, "intelligence" is almost impossible to measure. Look more closely at Cipolla's theory though, and you'll see it is not about *measurement". He doesn't set up a (diametric) scale of intelligent <---> stupid. It's about behaviour between people who transact. He labels the behaviours (results of transaction) as one of four types. The one labelled "stupidity" is the lose-lose quadrant, where the parties act in such a way as to destroy value for them both! So, I guess in theory two rather low IQ people (measured intelligence) could interact in a way that is "intelligent" behaviour. Does that help explain it in a useful way?
- robocat 4y ago
  Thanks. The “theory” would perhaps be better served by using clearer, less inflammatory, terms from transactional games like the prisoner’s dilemma, or from evolutionary strategies. “Intelligence” just mean “cooperate” in a win-win situation (non-zero sum game)? “1) Intelligent people, 2) Helpless/Naive people, 3) the Bandit and 4) the Stupid person” seem like terrible categorisations to me, because they imply fairly unchangeable attributes. Who wants to live in a world of being labelled? Defecting can be intelligent. Learning how to play tit-for-tat is worthwhile. Edit: disclaimer: I didn’t read much of the link, because the little I saw triggered my bogus limit. And I hope Cipolla isn’t Spanish - they would get a lot of ribbing.