8 ms·

This is a terrible view of humankind, society and the people around you. What is "stupidity" other than a concept vague enough that you can just throw it at an

This is a terrible view of humankind, society and the people around you. What is "stupidity" other than a concept vague enough that you can just throw it at anybody to, in part, immediately raise yourself to some level of superiority, and essentially defame without actually having to argue anything? Obviously they are stupid, and since you realize that, you are obviously not, so what's there to argue, right? Human intelligence, if that's what "stupidity" is supposed to be about, is many-dimensional. Even within a single dimension, most actions, opinions or expressions of such are not clear-cut more or less intelligent. Often you just happen to agree with one or see problems with another one. But it doesn't immediately mean somebody is "stupid". And it also ignores the "why". Maybe somebody is lacking education in a certain field, perhaps because of a lack of funds or opportunity because they grew up in a disadvantaged neighborhood. Or because of a medical condition. Or maybe they are just tired. Who knows. Oh right, they are "stupid", that's what they are. And finally, even if somebody does something "stupid" .. don't put yourself on such a high horse. You likely also do "stupid" things. All the time. You don't realize it though, you'd otherwise stop doing that thing. So, if the conclusion is that we are all "stupid" in some way, they yeah, we can claim that there are "stupid" people all around us, but that's not a particularly meaningful statement. Honestly, this was a very sad read.

goatcode 4y ago
I would refer you to the first basic law, dear sir or madam.
elihu 4y ago
The article defines stupidity in a very precise way: for the purposes of this essay, it's someone who causes harm to other people without any benefit or causing harm to themselves. It has nothing to do with cognitive ability, knowledge, or education -- it's a behavioral pattern. Maybe "stupid" as a label is not great because it already has an established meaning different than the one being used here, but I find the basic observations contained in the essay to be useful.
- brazzy 4y ago
  The definition is not precise at all, because "harm" and "benefit" cannot be precisely defined and can in fact be very subjective.
  - wvenable 4y ago
    Turtles all the way down? I don't think you need precise definitions of "harm" and "benefit" to understand the point. The subjectiveness of these terms don't not undermine the definition.
    - brazzy 4y ago
      I really think it does. Case in point: what about emotional benefits? A whole lot of things humans do has no material benefits yet come at considerable cost: vacations, concerts, hobbies. Are those "stupid"? Presumably not. But if you allow for such non-material benfit, then what if your "stupid" people who are causing harm to others are actually deriving emotional benefits from it? What it "stickin' it to the libs" makes them happy or feels to them like bringing a little bit of justice to the world? How about someone who quits his job (losing money) at just the right time to cause his shitty boss huge problems (and a lot more money loss)? Is that different? Do you really want to judge which emotional benefits are valid and which are not (and thus "stupid")? And call that a "precise definition"?
      - wvenable 4y ago
        > What it "stickin' it to the libs" makes them happy or feels to them like bringing a little bit of justice to the world? If that's entirely all of it then it's clearly a benefit. But conversely if "stickin' it to the libs" makes them lose their family, their job, or something else then the harm might outweigh the benefit and that would be stupid. Seems straight forward to me.
- spicymaki 4y ago
  > someone who causes harm to other people without any benefit or causing harm to themselves. Everyone is guilty of doing this from time to time. Collectively we are doing plenty of harm to the environment and we lack the will or the wherewithal to stop. It is a pretty universal behavioral pattern.
Calavar 4y ago
I feel like we must have read two entirely different articles. The author has a very precise definition of stupidity. He very explicitly states that level of knowledge/education is completely orthogonal to being stupid. (As prevalent among Nobel laureates as it is among blue collar workers.) Stupidity, in his definition, appears to be an attitude more than anything else.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mcguire 4y ago
  The third 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." Are you a stupid person if you do this once? Twice? Frequently? (Does anyone do it frequently?) Are any of us not stupid? And what does this have to do with the normal meaning of "stupid"?
  - kelseydh 4y ago
    I like this way of seeing it. All of us, at some point in our lives, have acted Helpless, Intelligent, Stupid, and as Bandits. Life and growth is learning from the past and improving where the balance of your behaviour lands in each respective quadrant.
andrejandre 4y ago
If we assume something like Einstein's popular idea of a "frame of reference"... well, then I think this entire article can be valid. Emphasis on the word can. If I assume my frame of reference to be one where attitudes toward meat-eating is desired, then I am going to assume people who are vegan are stupid. Vegans will detract from my meat-eating ways, and the meat-eating ways of my friends and tribe. If we can apply a frame of reference, then these laws of stupidity can be (comically) useful in the sense that "stupid" people will detract from your quality of life. "Stupid" people, per this article, seem to misalign with the views and desires of the "superior" (per your comment) person and thus cause friction in the life of the "superior". In a weird way, I see this article as a funny way to remind us to be cautious with our time & energy. To be conscious about who we spend our time with, who to expose our ideas to, and who to ask for help. It might be an extremely satirical reference guide to make sure you catch yourself before you go too deep into relying on the wrong person for your job or favor, for example. I wouldn't take it too seriously, because, well, that might be stupid.
r_hoods_ghost 4y ago
From TFA the definition of a stupid person is "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."
swatcoder 4y ago
I completely agree with you when reading this at face value as a contemporary, serious essay. But it’s not quite that. It’s a long form semi-comic screed from a time when it wasn’t especially controversial to put plain words to one’s frustrations. I don’t share these particular frustrations. I don’t resonate with what’s being said. I think it comes from a pretty alienated experience where you’re convinced that there’s a lot of bad in the world and that it can be attributed to a few conceptual scapegoats that are simple and identifiable and that things would be so much better if not for this one (or two or ten) darn things. But a lot of people do feel that way, and I’m not ready to hold my different experience over theirs. It would probably be stupid of me to do so.
- wildmanx 4y ago
  Well said, thank you.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  His observations resonate with me but his model sucks. In particular, his 3rd law / definition > 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. contradicts his 2nd law > The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person. because if you select for accomplishment (or serial accomplishment) the definition implies that you had better start seeing fewer stupid people, but his 2nd law says you shouldn't. This isn't a nit, it strikes at the very core of why his model doesn't fit reality. Here's a model that better fits reality: our assumptions about what "everybody knows" tend to be bad, both in an absolute sense and when conditioned on some particular level of education / accomplishment. Knowledge silos run deep, their shapes are strange, and people are really good at accommodating gaps in their knowledge. Clever people even moreso. So it's easy to underestimate the gaps, watch otherwise respectable people stumble over them, and think "how in the hell did that happen?" If you attribute these gaps to an innate quality like stupidity, you will be unable to help people fill the gaps. Not because the people cannot be taught, but because your misunderstanding precludes you from being a good teacher. This makes his model damaging in addition to being incorrect and uncharitable. Those may sound like harsh words, but they are not nearly as harsh as the mistake that eventually shook me out of a similar set of beliefs. Someone went from "stupidest person I know" to "smartest person I know," and that was a big hint that my model was wrong. We are a decade distant from that event, I've had the chance to run a lot of evidence past these two models, and "weird knowledge gaps" so thoroughly whips "innate stupidity" that I am slightly embarrassed I ever considered it true. Live and learn.
throwyawayyyy 4y ago
> "b) day after day, with unceasing monotony, one is harassed in one's activities by stupid individuals who appear suddenly and unexpectedly in the most inconvenient places and at the most improbable moments." After reading this profoundly ungenerous article, I am inclined to be ungenerous here and assume that the "activities" the author refers to would be, by most of us, considered anti-social. "I'm just playing my music, why is everyone on my case? I'm a better driver when driving fast..."

goatcode 4y ago

I would refer you to the first basic law, dear sir or madam.

elihu 4y ago

The article defines stupidity in a very precise way: for the purposes of this essay, it's someone who causes harm to other people without any benefit or causing harm to themselves. It has nothing to do with cognitive ability, knowledge, or education -- it's a behavioral pattern. Maybe "stupid" as a label is not great because it already has an established meaning different than the one being used here, but I find the basic observations contained in the essay to be useful.

brazzy 4y ago
The definition is not precise at all, because "harm" and "benefit" cannot be precisely defined and can in fact be very subjective.
- wvenable 4y ago
  Turtles all the way down? I don't think you need precise definitions of "harm" and "benefit" to understand the point. The subjectiveness of these terms don't not undermine the definition.
  - brazzy 4y ago
    I really think it does. Case in point: what about emotional benefits? A whole lot of things humans do has no material benefits yet come at considerable cost: vacations, concerts, hobbies. Are those "stupid"? Presumably not. But if you allow for such non-material benfit, then what if your "stupid" people who are causing harm to others are actually deriving emotional benefits from it? What it "stickin' it to the libs" makes them happy or feels to them like bringing a little bit of justice to the world? How about someone who quits his job (losing money) at just the right time to cause his shitty boss huge problems (and a lot more money loss)? Is that different? Do you really want to judge which emotional benefits are valid and which are not (and thus "stupid")? And call that a "precise definition"?
    - wvenable 4y ago
      > What it "stickin' it to the libs" makes them happy or feels to them like bringing a little bit of justice to the world? If that's entirely all of it then it's clearly a benefit. But conversely if "stickin' it to the libs" makes them lose their family, their job, or something else then the harm might outweigh the benefit and that would be stupid. Seems straight forward to me.
spicymaki 4y ago
> someone who causes harm to other people without any benefit or causing harm to themselves. Everyone is guilty of doing this from time to time. Collectively we are doing plenty of harm to the environment and we lack the will or the wherewithal to stop. It is a pretty universal behavioral pattern.

Calavar 4y ago

I feel like we must have read two entirely different articles. The author has a very precise definition of stupidity. He very explicitly states that level of knowledge/education is completely orthogonal to being stupid. (As prevalent among Nobel laureates as it is among blue collar workers.) Stupidity, in his definition, appears to be an attitude more than anything else.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mcguire 4y ago
The third 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." Are you a stupid person if you do this once? Twice? Frequently? (Does anyone do it frequently?) Are any of us not stupid? And what does this have to do with the normal meaning of "stupid"?
- kelseydh 4y ago
  I like this way of seeing it. All of us, at some point in our lives, have acted Helpless, Intelligent, Stupid, and as Bandits. Life and growth is learning from the past and improving where the balance of your behaviour lands in each respective quadrant.

andrejandre 4y ago

If we assume something like Einstein's popular idea of a "frame of reference"... well, then I think this entire article can be valid. Emphasis on the word can. If I assume my frame of reference to be one where attitudes toward meat-eating is desired, then I am going to assume people who are vegan are stupid. Vegans will detract from my meat-eating ways, and the meat-eating ways of my friends and tribe. If we can apply a frame of reference, then these laws of stupidity can be (comically) useful in the sense that "stupid" people will detract from your quality of life. "Stupid" people, per this article, seem to misalign with the views and desires of the "superior" (per your comment) person and thus cause friction in the life of the "superior". In a weird way, I see this article as a funny way to remind us to be cautious with our time & energy. To be conscious about who we spend our time with, who to expose our ideas to, and who to ask for help. It might be an extremely satirical reference guide to make sure you catch yourself before you go too deep into relying on the wrong person for your job or favor, for example. I wouldn't take it too seriously, because, well, that might be stupid.

r_hoods_ghost 4y ago

From TFA the definition of a stupid person is "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."

swatcoder 4y ago

I completely agree with you when reading this at face value as a contemporary, serious essay. But it’s not quite that. It’s a long form semi-comic screed from a time when it wasn’t especially controversial to put plain words to one’s frustrations. I don’t share these particular frustrations. I don’t resonate with what’s being said. I think it comes from a pretty alienated experience where you’re convinced that there’s a lot of bad in the world and that it can be attributed to a few conceptual scapegoats that are simple and identifiable and that things would be so much better if not for this one (or two or ten) darn things. But a lot of people do feel that way, and I’m not ready to hold my different experience over theirs. It would probably be stupid of me to do so.

wildmanx 4y ago
Well said, thank you.
jjoonathan 4y ago
His observations resonate with me but his model sucks. In particular, his 3rd law / definition > 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. contradicts his 2nd law > The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person. because if you select for accomplishment (or serial accomplishment) the definition implies that you had better start seeing fewer stupid people, but his 2nd law says you shouldn't. This isn't a nit, it strikes at the very core of why his model doesn't fit reality. Here's a model that better fits reality: our assumptions about what "everybody knows" tend to be bad, both in an absolute sense and when conditioned on some particular level of education / accomplishment. Knowledge silos run deep, their shapes are strange, and people are really good at accommodating gaps in their knowledge. Clever people even moreso. So it's easy to underestimate the gaps, watch otherwise respectable people stumble over them, and think "how in the hell did that happen?" If you attribute these gaps to an innate quality like stupidity, you will be unable to help people fill the gaps. Not because the people cannot be taught, but because your misunderstanding precludes you from being a good teacher. This makes his model damaging in addition to being incorrect and uncharitable. Those may sound like harsh words, but they are not nearly as harsh as the mistake that eventually shook me out of a similar set of beliefs. Someone went from "stupidest person I know" to "smartest person I know," and that was a big hint that my model was wrong. We are a decade distant from that event, I've had the chance to run a lot of evidence past these two models, and "weird knowledge gaps" so thoroughly whips "innate stupidity" that I am slightly embarrassed I ever considered it true. Live and learn.

throwyawayyyy 4y ago

> "b) day after day, with unceasing monotony, one is harassed in one's activities by stupid individuals who appear suddenly and unexpectedly in the most inconvenient places and at the most improbable moments." After reading this profoundly ungenerous article, I am inclined to be ungenerous here and assume that the "activities" the author refers to would be, by most of us, considered anti-social. "I'm just playing my music, why is everyone on my case? I'm a better driver when driving fast..."