
Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976) - soldeace
http://www.zoon.cc/stupid/
======
kdamken
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.

~~~
alain_gilbert
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.

~~~
nine_k
This looks like a hint on a whole possible matrix:

\- Personal gain, others' gain: "good businessman".

\- Personal gain, others' loss: "evil".

\- Personal loss, others' gain: "benefactor" / "saint".

\- Personal loss, others' loss: "stupid".

~~~
AstralStorm
Number 3 is called helpless for a reason. Even saints typically attempt to
maximize gain, helpless do not - they tend to minimize loss instead.

In fact I would say many if not most people are helpless. This is part H1.
Part H2 is the benefactor.

Likewise part I1 which is upper left triangle of I would be the inventor,
scientist or good reformer. (They benefit but society benefits more). Bottom
right of I would be good businessman. (Their own benefit is higher than
society.) Top right B2 would be exploitative businessman. (Society loses a bit
but the businessman gains a lot.)

As per political systems, capitalism attempts to promote rightmost two
quadrants. Socialism (not Stalinism) attempts to penalize bottom half.

Essentially the full graph would be a square with a 45º rotated square inside.
The stupid have two categories too - unnecessary cutting corners and messing
up for minimal immediate gain with net loss (shortsighted) - top right of
stupid quadrant - and plain old danger to society.

------
ian0
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

~~~
red75prime
> 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.

~~~
ian0
I guess it doesn't make you feel better then :) Its subjective, but some can
take comfort in rituals and beliefs that rely on a certain amount of
doublethink.

PS I don't think you need to compare and contrast, just go with say an
interesting one like Jedi (lots in England according to the census) and see
how it goes!

------
runald
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
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).

------
yodsanklai
> 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
> 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._

------
mannanali413
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
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
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
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
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
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.

------
yosito
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.

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

~~~
B1FF_PSUVM
That's because intelligence is way overvalued.

With very little scientific proof.

Shh.

(Amusingly clever essay, though.)

------
mino
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/irresistib...](http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/cultura/2011-10-21/irresistibile-
spirito-cipolla-182530.shtml))

------
srrge
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
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)

~~~
hectorlorenzo
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.

------
r0fls
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-
stup...](https://quotefancy.com/quote/917262/Thomas-Carlyle-With-stupidity-
and-sound-digestion-man-may-front-much)

------
dang
Does anybody have a year for it? I went with 2009 via
[https://web.archive.org/web/20090601000000*/http://www.zoon....](https://web.archive.org/web/20090601000000*/http://www.zoon.cc/stupid/)
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%20St...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Basic%20Laws%20of%20Human%20Stupidity%20points%3E3&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0).
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-
stupidit...](http://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basic-laws-of-human-stupidity/),
which points to this.

~~~
IndrekR
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
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_Stupidit...](https://archive.org/details/The_Basic_Laws_of_Human_Stupidity_by_Carlo_M._Cipolla)

More history about the Author and the book is here:
[http://gandalf.it/stupid/cipoleng.htm](http://gandalf.it/stupid/cipoleng.htm)

~~~
dang
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.

------
mikenew
> 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
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
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
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.

------
cko
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
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

------
l0b0
If you like this, try
[http://www.thedevilsdictionary.com/](http://www.thedevilsdictionary.com/).
Less PC, but also hilarious in places.

------
MaysonL
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.

------
warent
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
The category you're looking for is 'humour'.

You may not find it funny, but that was it's intent.

------
rurban
original url:
[http://web.archive.org/web/20130216132858/http://www.cantrip...](http://web.archive.org/web/20130216132858/http://www.cantrip.org/stupidity.html)

with a bit more background and drama

------
nebelwerfer2k
THIS is the shit. Very hilarious and weirdly very relatable to my life ??

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

