3 ms·
> But everybody is relatively stupid compared against others, if multiple dimensions of intelligence are measured. Absolutely true. And, to go further, "inte
by 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 agoThanks. 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.