4 ms·

> Since [the bandit] is not intelligent enough to devise ways of obtaining the plus as well as providing you with a plus, he will produce his plus by causing a

> Since [the bandit] is not intelligent enough to devise ways of obtaining the plus as well as providing you with a plus, he will produce his plus by causing a minus to appear on your account. There are, I think, some people who probably could produce pluses all around but prefer to harm others. Alternatively, there might be some tradeoff between a lesser plus and a net gain for society vs. a greater plus and a net loss for somebody else. From an intelligent person's perspective, the latter might be preferable, depending on the gains and losses and the preferences of the person. For instance, I have no problem doing "harm" to other "bandits" (for instance, conking a thief on the head as he tries to rob me). Does that make me a bandit myself? According to the author, yes, because it's a net negative to the bandit, even though I'm doing it in order to put a plus on "society's" account. I think intelligence is more about capacity (whether for good or ill) than the actions of a person. Granted, we can't poke around in their head and measure it, like we can "add up" their actions, but I still find action accounting a false metric.

apotheon 17y ago
I think you and Cipolla are using these terms differently. He uses "intelligent" and "bandit" (and "stupid" and "helpless", as well) to refer to patterns of behavior, while you are using them to refer to the basic character of the individual. Consider, for instance, the fact that you say you have no trouble causing harm to bandits. Part of the reason for this is almost certainly an intelligent (in Cipolla's usage) lack of concern for the well-being of those who harm others, so long as you profit, because hurting them may actually cause a net gain to their would-be victims. It's easy to make the mistake of thinking that he uses the terms to refer to the basic character of an individual rather than to patterns of behavior, because of the way he talks about how stupid people are pretty much unwaveringly stupid, and they're born that way. This conflates the cause of stupidity with stupidity itself, however. What is inborn, and fundamental to the person's character, is something else that predisposes one to adopt a particular pattern of behavior -- not the pattern itself. Ultimately, according to Cipolla's theory, it seems that the fundamental character of a person predisposes that person to either "stupid" or "not stupid" behavior, overall -- with circumstances playing a significant role in determining whether a "not stupid" person's behavior will tend most toward "helpless", "bandit", or "intelligent" behavior. There are, of course, people who are fundamentally prone to "helpless" behavior (stubborn altruists), as well as those who are fundamentally prone to "bandit" behavior (sociopaths), but they are exceptions rather than the rule, I think. Rather, many "bandits" and "helpless" people are simply those prone to "intelligent" motivations whose failures ensure their behavior patterns are not strictly "intelligent". I guess the key is to simply recognize that he's using the terms "intelligent", "helpless", "bandit", and "stupid" in a formalized manner that does not strictly match the intuitive, colloquial understandings of those words we have when discussing other subjects.
- astine 17y ago
  I guess the key is to simply recognize that he's using the terms "intelligent", "helpless", "bandit", and "stupid" in a formalized manner that does not strictly match the correct understandings of those words we have when discussing other subjects. FTFY I hate it when people give new meanings to words that already have perfectly good and useful meanings. If you have new concept that requires a name, make up a new word. Don't take an old word and give it an analogous meaning. Doing so confuses language and creates an opportunity for equivocation. That is, when people start using conclusions based on the new meanings and applying them to condition based on the old meanings. Needlessly confusing language is stupid, in both senses of the term.
  - apotheon 17y ago
    The intuitive and colloquial uses of those terms tend to stray significantly from the "correct" denotative uses, too. That might be worth keeping in mind while you champion those uses of the term. My sympathies definitely lie with the prescriptive use of terms. I just think that, if strictly identified as existing within a limited framework for purposes of a particular discussion, jargon denotations are perfectly acceptable prescriptions for use.
AmericanOP 17y ago
If the bandit does something which causes you to harm him, he was a stupid bandit.
- antipaganda 17y ago
  No, he was helpless, and you were the bandit.

apotheon 17y ago

I think you and Cipolla are using these terms differently. He uses "intelligent" and "bandit" (and "stupid" and "helpless", as well) to refer to patterns of behavior, while you are using them to refer to the basic character of the individual. Consider, for instance, the fact that you say you have no trouble causing harm to bandits. Part of the reason for this is almost certainly an intelligent (in Cipolla's usage) lack of concern for the well-being of those who harm others, so long as you profit, because hurting them may actually cause a net gain to their would-be victims. It's easy to make the mistake of thinking that he uses the terms to refer to the basic character of an individual rather than to patterns of behavior, because of the way he talks about how stupid people are pretty much unwaveringly stupid, and they're born that way. This conflates the cause of stupidity with stupidity itself, however. What is inborn, and fundamental to the person's character, is something else that predisposes one to adopt a particular pattern of behavior -- not the pattern itself. Ultimately, according to Cipolla's theory, it seems that the fundamental character of a person predisposes that person to either "stupid" or "not stupid" behavior, overall -- with circumstances playing a significant role in determining whether a "not stupid" person's behavior will tend most toward "helpless", "bandit", or "intelligent" behavior. There are, of course, people who are fundamentally prone to "helpless" behavior (stubborn altruists), as well as those who are fundamentally prone to "bandit" behavior (sociopaths), but they are exceptions rather than the rule, I think. Rather, many "bandits" and "helpless" people are simply those prone to "intelligent" motivations whose failures ensure their behavior patterns are not strictly "intelligent". I guess the key is to simply recognize that he's using the terms "intelligent", "helpless", "bandit", and "stupid" in a formalized manner that does not strictly match the intuitive, colloquial understandings of those words we have when discussing other subjects.

astine 17y ago
I guess the key is to simply recognize that he's using the terms "intelligent", "helpless", "bandit", and "stupid" in a formalized manner that does not strictly match the correct understandings of those words we have when discussing other subjects. FTFY I hate it when people give new meanings to words that already have perfectly good and useful meanings. If you have new concept that requires a name, make up a new word. Don't take an old word and give it an analogous meaning. Doing so confuses language and creates an opportunity for equivocation. That is, when people start using conclusions based on the new meanings and applying them to condition based on the old meanings. Needlessly confusing language is stupid, in both senses of the term.
- apotheon 17y ago
  The intuitive and colloquial uses of those terms tend to stray significantly from the "correct" denotative uses, too. That might be worth keeping in mind while you champion those uses of the term. My sympathies definitely lie with the prescriptive use of terms. I just think that, if strictly identified as existing within a limited framework for purposes of a particular discussion, jargon denotations are perfectly acceptable prescriptions for use.

AmericanOP 17y ago

If the bandit does something which causes you to harm him, he was a stupid bandit.

antipaganda 17y ago
No, he was helpless, and you were the bandit.