
Survival Of The Stupidest - pathik
http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/survival_stupidest-77846
======
jerf
(Bear in mind that for the duration of this post, I am adopting the definition
of stupid as given in "The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity." It is not quite the
same as "unintelligent", and it is sufficiently well-defined that it is no
longer merely an insult, either.)

Amusing, but less insightful than "The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity". While
it is true that you can construct cases where two stupid people may ruin one
smart one's day while coming out with a net win for one or both of them, you
have to go farther and show that this case _dominates_. I would submit that it
in fact does not, and stupid people will still tend to harm themselves more
than anyone around them, if for no other reason than that is the easiest
outcome for them to obtain. I do not thing there is a great benefit in running
in a great herd of people who are constantly causing the herd a net harm (by
definition of stupid), and the herds in this case would tend to eliminate
themselves.

I think it is sufficient to observe merely that being smart is _hard_. In the
great space of all actions one may take, the vast bulk of them are bad actions
that will cause harm. Rather than complicated and IMHO probably false theories
about how stupid people can win in herds, somehow converting their huge set of
transactions each of which is a net harm into some sort of benefit, one need
merely point out that as more people become intelligent, it actually raises
the bar for _further_ intelligent actions. The low-hanging fruit has been
plucked. For example, some people who were very well adapted for producing net
value in the 20th century find it much more difficult in the 21st because
we've successfully captured so much value already.

(Also the article falls prey a bit to the idea that a carefully constructed
game play strategy can fall to a player who acts stupidly. While, again, you
can construct scenarios in which this is true as was done in the article, it
is the exception. In general good gameplay strategies do not fall apart when
presented with a stupid opponent, they win swiftly. If you really believe this
is a general property of game strategies, I invite you to download any
competent chess playing program and attack it with a "random" move strategy.
It is true that you may force it off the opening book relatively early, but it
will still efficiently tear you apart, not react with the AI-equivalent of
stunned confusion. This is a sort of low-grade AI/game theory urban legend.)

~~~
arethuza
Some of the stupidest things I have ever seen were done by people who, by any
reasonable measure, are extremely smart. I've never personally met anyone who
was "smart" in every possible area of their lives - its not just "work/tech"
smarts that count if you insist on making this evaluation.

------
hermannj314
I told my daughter to bring her umbrella to school today because the weather
report called for rain. But it didn't rain. I am, by definition, stupid
because I caused a loss for another person and derived no gain.

So it seems odd to have an outcome-based definition of stupidity and not a
decision-based definition. Stupidity can't be attributed to a person if it is
defined by the random forces existing outside of them.

I, for one, believe stupidity has degrees of intensity and is context-
sensitive. I find it shallow when people are labeled as stupid simply because
they failed to make an optimal decision in one of thousands of decisions they
make everyday, possibly in an area for which they have no concern or for which
the cost of finding the optimal decision far outweighed even difference in
benefits between the worst and best outcome.

~~~
arethuza
"labeled as stupid"

I strongly dislike the idea of labelling _people_ as stupid, or for that
matter smart, as it then implies that everything they do is then destined to
be "stupid" or "smart". I am, more than happy to label individual _decisions_
as stupid or smart.

~~~
wturner
There's no such thing as a stupid person, just people who are intuitively
"smart" in their own interest based on time, place and circumstance. Which is
what I think the underline point of the article was, albeit written in a
manner with empirical examples to demonstrate. So, Yippy! Let's get
stupid..er, I mean smart!

------
aaronmorey
I'm not convinced that there are really two distinct sets of people in the
world: stupid and not stupid. In my experience, most people are pretty good at
some things and stupid with other things. I notice that in myself to a certain
extent, and forces like the Dunning-Kruger effect probably prevent me from
noticing more.

In terms of the original article, I think that answers the question of why
stupidity continues to exist. Most people (even ones who appear to me to be
stupid) are smart enough at enough things that they continue to live and
procreate.

The game theory examples the author gives in the second half of the article
over-simplify the issue by assuming stupid is a binary on/off attribute.
Within a game, you can assume that's true by assuming the people make stupid
decisions within the rules of the game. But in real life, there isn't one
single set of rules that determines whether we or not we live and procreate.

~~~
wazoox
> _I'm not convinced that there are really two distinct sets of people in the
> world: stupid and not stupid. In my experience, most people are pretty good
> at some things and stupid with other things._

I've read a quite thorough explanation similar to this in one of Scott Adams'
books : most people are somewhat intelligent, but behave stupidly at times -
In fact, we may assume most people behave stupidly most of the time. Maybe he
called that the "Dogbert principle" or something similar.

------
verisimilitude
I was hoping this article would address the dysgenics-based[1] theory in the
film Idiocracy: fertility decreases with rising intelligence[2], resulting in
a severe "brain drain" and producing a profoundly stupid, simple society.

Regardless, I appreciated the extension of Cipolla's ideas into game theory --
stupid people can do everything from take your money to kill you.

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenic#Intelligence_dysgenics> [2]:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence>

~~~
tokenadult
Alas, the Wikipedia article you kindly linked to is an example of the point-
of-view pushing that goes on too much on Wikipedia in relation to the topic of
human intelligence.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Case_amendments)

It's going to be a long, long, LONG time before Wikipedia will come close to
correctly representing what the most reliable sources say about time trends in
IQ in national populations, about the relationship of genetic factors to the
development of human intelligence, or about most related subjects.

For a reliable source on the subject you are curious about, see Intelligence,
Genes, and Success: Scientists Respond to THE BELL CURVE

[http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Genes-Success-
Scientists-...](http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Genes-Success-Scientists-
Statistics/dp/0387949860/)

with articles by several expert statisticians, geneticists, and psychologists.

~~~
verisimilitude
Thank you for the extra information! I'll add that to my reading list.

To clarify: I've always taken the plot of "Idiocracy" to be fictional fantasy,
and I simply used Wikipedia articles as a short-hand to summarize the ideas
advanced by the movie. I realized that such a plot is so charged with the
potential to offend people, I've never had a conversation with anyone about it
(after all, we all think we're on the 'sweet' side of the curve, right?).
Personally, I don't think such a brain drain could occur, but I'm always
interested in research about such topics.

Also: thanks for pointing out the importance of the IQ/intelligence debate.
From what I've seen in my reading, IQ is really a proxy for a few things:
quality of education, social advantages, etc. I agree 100% that
IQ≠intelligence; the Wikipedia articles in question should be rewritten to
reflect this fact.

However, while IQ does not represent intellectual horsepower, it has been
shown to be that aforementioned _proxy_ for other sociological and other
factors -- in that sense, it is still useful to compare IQ with fertility. I
do understand your concern that the consensus regarding such studies is poorly
represented on Wikipedia.

------
muhfuhkuh
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
stupidity"

My pet theory corollary to this (and one that I think has become increasingly
prevalent in the age of anti-elitism and -intellectualism) can be described as
"never attribute to human achievement that which can be explained by religious
miracle".

It's gotten so prevalent, in fact, that Apple uses it in it's modern marketing
campaigns. The idea that a consumer electronic device can be "magical" is a
nauseating reminder once again that, because of globalization and layers of
both self-imposed and corporate-sponsored abstraction/obfuscation, we no
longer know how even the most basic concepts operate or what things we consume
are made of.

It's gotten to the point where we openly _discourage_ tinkering. For example:
What once was a proud young hacker's rite of passage going to Radio Shack and
buying a breadboard to make LEDs shine and motors whir, is nowadays seen with
derision or as malicious alchemy ("he's a terrorist building some kinda bomb
or sumthin'", et al.).

And, it's not even about education, though in many cases you'd think it were.
When a doctor has slaved away for years in academia, plied his trade in
residency, done fellowships and participated in research for novel procedures
and drug discoveries, their saving of a patient's life is more likely than not
attributed by the patient to God than their exhaustive efforts. Ditto, any
economic downturn/upturn, droughts _and_ bumper crop seasons, etc.

Most people don't know who Norman Borlaug is, but they sure know who made
their drought- and pest-resistant, season and climate-independent, abundant
and hearty sandwich bread be so cheap and taste so good: God.

In politics, one need not look further than the Tea Party to see that this
"magical" thinking is rife in political discourse, with so many clinging on to
America's "manifest destiny" and "American exceptionalism" as the answer to
both why we got to where we are and where we need to go. Nevermind that most
of our "exceptionalism" stemmed from the fact that we were the only
industrialized country left standing after WWII and had factories ready to
serve the world. Now that we have no war? It's the illegal invader's from
Mexico's fault we're going downhill, which isn't even Occam's razor "a => b"
thinking, just simpleminded bigotry.

~~~
kiba
Maybe it's just you cherrypicking examples. Just as you think we are
discourage tinkering, I can point to the DIY and Maker movement, the
proliberation of Hackerspaces, and so much more.

In any case, humans do not build a civilization by having really smart men who
know everything, but having specialists in all area of life.

The scientists would do well not to express their disgust and disdain for the
lowly plumbers or the trashmen,

Yes, we are stupid, but so are you. Just pick an area that you know nothing
about.

------
mml
The author neglects an obvious point: stupid people can be very useful, in
that you can get them to do harm to others, while you benefit, and they get
nothing.

~~~
bluedanieru
Well he does quote the third law of stupidity:

"Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid
individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all
times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with
stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake."

------
mechnik
Stupid quote: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/quotes?qt=qt0427901>

------
EGreg
I found this article to be very informative actually.

I also would like to point out that it's not possible to be smart in every
area. As Mark Twain said, "we are all stupid, just on different subjects".

------
angkec
so this can probably explain why randomly selecting stocks turn out to make a
profit than professionals: in a game of stupid(irrational), randomly select
(being the most stupid) turn out to win.

------
donnaware
this explains the "tea party"

------
merraksh
I guess one of the strengths of the population of stupid people is being
oblivious of belonging to them -- a membership that even rational people
cannot avoid. Stupidity manifesting in the most unexpected ways and occasions
is a proof of its ubiquity, and implies that it is difficult to find not even
a vaccine but a simple method of diagnosis.

