
Smart people don't think others are stupid - cheeaun
http://sivers.org/ss
======
coffeemug
_There are no smart people or stupid people, just people being smart or being
stupid._

The same could be said about almost all behaviors, such as courage,
promiscuity, or whathaveyou. However, over time people tend to display
consistent patterns of behavior. As a consistent picture emerges, we tend to
switch from thinking of people as _acting_ a certain way, to thinking of
people as _being_ a certain way. Whether you want to say someone is acting
stupid all the time, or someone is being stupid is just semantics.

~~~
bitops
_> As a consistent picture emerges_

I've found that the length of time most people take to form a "consistent
picture" of someone else is very short. Generally, it is whatever is the
shortest length of time required to determine "are they acting in accordance
with my desires or not?".

If the person is generally helping to make things happen which you want to
have happen, you form a favorable impression of them quickly.

If they are unhelpful, you tend to think negatively of them. There is rarely a
deep consideration of who the person actually is, or what might motivate them
to behave the way they do.

Of course, if they are not only helpful, but are creating new opportunities,
we call them "visionary" or "leaders". Great people.

If their actions are opposed (directly or indirectly) but very obviously to
what we think our needs and desires are, we label them "enemy" and push them
into that definition.

I'm having a hard time articulating what I want to get across, but it boils
down to this: after a while, we stop acting on information that might change
our perception of who someone is. We just think of them as _"being a certain
way"_ and observe all behavior from there on out as solidifying that
definition in our minds.

I think a truly "smart person" is someone who is always staying open to the
possibility of people changing radically, however unlikely that may seem.

~~~
goblin89
> I've found that the length of time most people take to form a "consistent
> picture" of someone else is very short.

Indeed. I believe this is called the illusion of asymmetric insight:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:youaren...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:youarenotsosmart.com/2011/08/21/the-
illusion-of-asymmetric-insight/&strip=1) (cache since the site seems
inaccessible).

~~~
Killah911
Thanks, that was an awesome read. I'm going to get the book. While this post
was short & to the point, I felt there was a lot of generalizing going on... I
mean, what the heck is "smart" and "stupid" anyways? Don't we all define that
in our own minds? Asymmetric insight; now that's some serious stuff to reflect
on...

------
lotharbot
Smart people don't think others are stupid _merely because of the beliefs they
hold_. That is, being a [Southerner, Northerner, Republican, Democrat, Indian,
American, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Tauist, Piist, vi user, emacs user, ...]
does not mean a person is stupid. There are smart people who really have
thought things through and ended up at each of those positions for good
reasons.

But smart people might conclude some specific individual is stupid because of
_consistently erroneous patterns of thought and analysis which do not improve
with experience_. There are a few individuals who I've spoken to on a variety
of topics over the course of years who, as a rule, develop beliefs based on
sketchy evidence and then retain those beliefs even in the face of mountains
of contrary evidence. Even when they hold essentially the same views as I do,
it's often for bad reasons; there isn't really a coherent thought process or a
body of evidence that got them to that point. Such people really are stupid.

~~~
jseliger
_Even when they hold essentially the same views as I do, it's often for bad
reasons_

I noticed this too, and for a long time it bothered me. But I recently read
Jonathan Haidt's book _The Righteous Mind_ , and in it he points out that a
lot of people appear to hold believes about a wide array of issues (politics,
religion, consumer products, and so forth) that they don't really hold based
on logic and evidence, but to signal group identification and affiliation.

In addition, he points out that, on a wide array of issues, people tend to
have gut, intuition-based reactions first, _then look for evidence to support
their intuition_ , while a lot of us assume or want to assume that it works
the other way around.

I probably learned something from _The Righteous Mind_ on every page, and I
say this about very few books; I also wrote at more length about it here:
[http://jseliger.com/2012/03/25/jonathan-haidts-the-
righteous...](http://jseliger.com/2012/03/25/jonathan-haidts-the-righteous-
mind-and-what-were-really-arguing-about) .

(BTW, I agree with your basic point and think it's well put.)

~~~
hsshah
To your first point, some scientist believe it is hard wired in our DNA to
associate with any form of group (as this played a role in evolution). Here's
a related interesting talk on TED that I recently saw:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral...](http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html)

~~~
jseliger
. . . that scientist is Jonathan Haidt, who wrote _The Righteous Mind_.

------
Eliezer
Sometimes people appear to me unskilled, sometimes they appear
unknowledgeable, sometimes they're thinking in twisted ways that they picked
up from their environment, sometimes they're falling prey to cognitive biases,
sometimes they're making one of a hundred other mistakes I happen to
recognize.

And sometimes, so far as I can tell, they're stupid. Sorry.

Original article's error: The fact that a conclusion sounds nice does not save
it from being patently false.

~~~
jacquesm
As a rule people are a lot smarter than they may appear to be at first
contact. And people that think they are very smart are typically smart along
some fairly narrow field and then extrapolate their smartness in that one area
to all areas.

Thinking is interesting that way, if you're 'smart' it usually means that you
know a lot about some subject but that isn't actually being smart. Being smart
means that you can use the knowledge you've got in creative ways when
presented with unforeseen problems or situations.

And there are plenty of people that would not normally be called smart that
excel at that.

Being smart or not has nothing to do with making mistakes or falling prey to
cognitive biases. The first is typically evidence of people trying things a
little bit outside their envelope of experience, in turn they'll acquire new
knowledge because of this. Guilty as charged, I make mistakes _all the time_.
Your environment has nothing to do with you being smart or not either.
Otherwise, how would you ever be able to recognize someone from a society with
different levels of development as smart.

The fact that someone does not appear smart in a way that you recognize does
not mean they are not.

~~~
StavrosK
My favorite thing to learn is to recognize a cognitive bias in myself. I might
know one, theoretically, but if I recognize it consciously when I fall victim
to it, I feel like I've grown a bit.

~~~
sylvanaar
I have this link on my bookmark bar. I do the same thing.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases>

------
delinka
He's right - smart people _know_ others are stupid.

Seriously though, people do Stupid Things. And I call them stupid when they do
them. Change lanes without signaling, without looking - maybe you're not an
idiot all the time, but at that moment you're acting like an idiot and
endangering other people.

~~~
scottw
I think the point is that we vigilantly distinguish "that was stupid" from
"that was a stupid person". Judging someone as stupid means we've stopped
thinking about possibilities. Derek wisely says there's always more to the
story (reminded me of this: [http://garrysub.posterous.com/what-does-it-feel-
like-to-be-s...](http://garrysub.posterous.com/what-does-it-feel-like-to-be-
stupid-an-anonym))

Labeling people is nearly always a substitute for thinking and empathy (both
hard things).

~~~
delinka
Lest I forget, there is also ignorance-- willful cluelessness; can't be
bothered to learn something; won't have a reasoned discussion. I do label
these individuals "stupid." Don't get me wrong, it's not immediate prejudice,
but it doesn't take much time talking to some people to learn that they are
willful in their efforts to remain uninformed.

------
donaq
That's provably wrong. In the first place, both his definitions of "smart" and
"stupid" are wrong according to the dictionary. You can't just redefine words
so that they suit your argument. If that's an acceptable approach, I can just
as easily say all living humans are stupid by defining "stupid" as "not
Einstein".

Secondly, even if we allow that his private definitions be used for the
purposes of this argument, he's still wrong. People do exhibit consistent
behavioral tendencies, after all. Some people consistently think things
through, while others consistently jump to conclusions. So I think there is
pretty good justification in applying the heuristic of thinking a person is
stupid if he consistently jumps to conclusions.

I hate to say this, because I have much respect for Derek Sivers, but this
post was pretty stupid.

------
Swizec
I used to think people are stupid.

Then I stopped being a teenager and realized that, hey, most people are
actually pretty cool. When they're being stupid it's usually just a lack of
information and when you educate them a bit, they get better.

But then the internet reminded me that there are, in fact, stupid people all
over the place, they just don't live in my IRL filter bubble.

Evidence: <http://notalwaysright.com/> <http://clientsfromhell.net/>
<http://textsfromlastnight.com/>

------
mgkimsal
Perhaps OT because of the age involved, but... as a kid, I was 'gifted' (not
sure if that label is still used today or not). I would get people (adults or
other kids) saying "you're so smart", and I would naturally try to
deflect/downplay that - was never really told how to react to statements like
that as a 7 year old. "Thanks" just sounds so bland, but, I didn't even think
that far ahead.

Instead, I would usually protest some - "no, I'm not really". But eventually I
adopted the attitude that yes, there was a difference between me and many
other kids in my classes, but it wasn't that I was smart - it was that they
were dumb. Relative to me, most of them were. But it wasn't so much a 'dumb'
as in 'you're a lesser person', it was just hard for me to realize people
didn't retain as much info as I did, nor could they make mental connections
like I could, nor as fast.

I do remember having that line of thinking for a few years, and it wore off by
early high school age.

~~~
Inufu
This, except I'm in college now and it works that way. At times, I still have
to consciously remind myself that X is not completely obvious to everybody.

~~~
mgkimsal
It will probably go away in time. As I get older, it's more apparent to me how
much I don't know any more, and my expectations for others knowing things I
consider obvious has tempered some.

------
Jach
Indeed, for only a smart person can come up with a twisted and convoluted
rationalization that a person with an IQ of 75 is not stupid and a person with
an IQ of 125 is not smart. You'll find some of the most passionate arguments
about the problems of IQ testing from people with IQs over 115. If you really
think it doesn't matter, well, I'm sure there are some interesting ways to
knock down your IQ quite a bit that you might want to try as a personal
experiment. As a safer experiment, find someone with an IQ in the 90s or less
(do you know anyone with sub-100 IQ?) and try to teach them Haskell.

Of course, we're all _intelligent_ on a species-scale, but that's a separate
distinction.

~~~
kitsune_
I heard that learning to "game" IQ tests is a common exercise in psychology
classes. According to my friend it's fairly easy to get very high scores with
the appropriate preparation.

A very good old friend of mine is a professionally trained waiter and never
had "advanced" math classes. His knowledge of math was limited to the rule of
three.

One day I tried to teach him functions, quadratic equations, basic analysis
and other stuff. He grocked it immediately. Much much faster than most of my
class mates when we had to learn these topics back at school.

I think it is important to distinguish between "knowledge" and "intelligence".

A good life lesson was given to me by my English teacher in high school. He
always told us that when you notice that you have more knowledge in area than
the person you are talking to, then it is your job to adjust your way of
communication. Not the other way round. It's of no good to be smug. In fact if
you fail to communicate your ideas, you might not be as smart as you might
think.

~~~
qohen
Related: <http://xkcd.com/1053/>

------
speg
The dictionary defines stupid as: _Adjective: Lacking intelligence or common
sense._

and intelligence as _The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills._

Perhaps the author does not often meet people who lack _the ability to acquire
and apply knowledge and skills_ but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

------
enobrev
I can't imagine anything more apt than a conversation about this subject on a
forum made up of people who hold their own intelligence in a high regard.

I assure you that your definition of "stupid" is short-sighted. I've pre-
judged a good many of people in my life as such and have been proven wrong
almost every time, provided I'd spent enough time to try to understand what
makes that person think the way they do.

We all have our methods. You might call them madness - or stupidity - but the
moment you do, your ignorance becomes your bold weakness.

tl;dr: Get over yourself.

Downvotes... Let's continue the point...

"Sometimes, so far as I can tell, they're stupid. Sorry." [1]

"people do Stupid Things. And I call them stupid when they do them." [2]

"Smart people also triage their time so as to not waste it going down likely
unproductive avenues." [3]

"Maybe politically correct people don't think others are stupid, but smart or
not, there are definitely some morons out there." [4]

"Define usually. More often than not when I hear "I don't know" it is offered
as an excuse/explanation for laziness and shirking responsibility" [5]

"Odds are that the all of the people from the article, and the author, are
relatively stupid." [6]

"Smart people don't think others are stupid as the truely smart know that
others are stupid." [7]

"at LEAST 15% of the world is stupid. That's just getting started." [8]

1: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3985594>

2: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3985040>

3: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3985265>

4: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3985575>

5: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3985050>

6: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3985118>

7: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3984894>

8: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3985224>

------
lani
>So when someone says “They are so stupid!” - it means they’ve stopped
thinking.

Don't listen to this !!

If you don't stop thinking , pretty soon you'll be deconstructing socio-
economic behaviour of wage employees, thrashing between cultural/societal
programming and why that is so, then you will move on to swarms surviving and
problem-solving in groups and why programming is necessary for this, then you
will proceed on to variety in nature, and degrees of freedom and
'coincidental' interlocking of such degrees of freedom of various entities
leading to formation of stable ecosystems of assemblies of moving parts . By
this time your soup would've gone cold and the opportunity to tell the
establishment that this is not what you ordered would be far gone.

------
kappaknight
Maybe politically correct people don't think others are stupid, but smart or
not, there are definitely some morons out there.

I for one, do not need to be PC to be smart. I don't claim to know everything,
but that doesn't mean there aren't people who know less who also decided a
long time ago to stop learning/embracing new ideas.

------
ArcticCelt
Therefor, according to his own rules, the author of this a article is stupid.

Before someone concludes the obvious about my comment I'll point out that
those are not my rules.

------
reitzensteinm
Interesting choice including Republican and Democrat, there.

I don't think they're stupid, but if someone identifies themselves as "a
Republican" or "a Democrat", as opposed to "the Republican party best fits my
views", or "I'm a registered Democrat", I pretty much write off any chance of
having a decent political discussion with them.

A large segment of the population follows politics the way they follow
football, except without even watching the games, just the commentary and
opinion pieces afterwards.

Smart people also triage their time so as to not waste it going down likely
unproductive avenues.

But it's just a numbers game; there are invariably going to be people a level
above me intellectually who this will filter out. But I can live with that.

~~~
scarmig
Well, one argument is that politics _is_ essentially a football game. The
stakes are far, far higher, but fundamentally it comes down to all the
institutions of a society self-organizing themselves into coalitions for the
assumption or protection of power. "Reason" amounts to a way to mask
rhetorical flourishes to convince dupes that they're morally better or smarter
than the other side.

And if you're turning to the Wall Street Journal or New York Times to learn
about the finer points of Nozick's critique of Rawlsian liberalism... well,
then you're the dupe, even if it's of a "pox-on-both-your-houses" variety.
Thinking too hard about whatever outrage-of-the-day Mitt or Obama has done is
a similar waste of time--it's not that there isn't conceivably some correct
position about whether eating a dog or strapping them to your roof reflects
worse on your character, it's just that it's all a smokescreen.

Given that, I'd say you have to pick a side. If you end up rejecting politics
because it isn't the Oxford debating society, you've essentially let the other
side deprive your own side of a valuable resource. It might suck that you're
stuck in a game not of your own choosing, but if someone's kicking you on the
ground, you don't quietly accept it because they're not following Marquees of
Queensbury rules.

~~~
fusiongyro
I agree with your first two paragraphs. The position you advocate in the third
would make sense if political affiliation conferred a tangible benefit or our
participation in the process affected the outcomes. But neither of those is
true, and it undermines your case.

Affiliation is rife with intangible benefits of a vaguely religious character:
believing that you're right, believing that you're benefiting the righteous
and confounding evil, etc. But there is no 10% discount for Democrats at the
Toyota dealership, and Republicans don't get a $1500 tax deduction simply for
being Republicans. The only tangible benefit to affiliation is the ability to
vote in the primary—a benefit so dubious we all personally know people who
affiliated opposite their beliefs just to muck up the process.

~~~
daeken
> The only tangible benefit to affiliation is the ability to vote in the
> primary—a benefit so dubious we all personally know people who affiliated
> opposite their beliefs just to muck up the process.

OT: I don't know anyone who's done that, but I've long wondered if the most
effective way to get the result you want is to simply destroy everyone
opposing it, rather than promoting the result directly. It seems that it'd be
much easier to manipulate the system (and the people) using a negative
influence than positive. It's definitely not _right_ , but seems like it could
be _effective_. Then again, as I write this I realize that this is half of
what happens already.

------
hansef
In an ideal world with infinite time for arguing with... well, I'll avoid an
ad-hominem when responding to an argument about ad-hominem attacks, but... in
an ideal world it would be worthwhile to drill down through the onion layers
of rationality, irrationality and emotion which drive any argument we disagree
with, every time.

Sometimes this spelunking is both constructive and instructive.

Sometimes though, dismissing the assertion that the earth was created 6000
years ago or that the world will be ending next month with a quantitative
assessment of the intellectual capacity of the asserter is a completely
appropriate shorthand.

The key is judicious application. ;)

------
barbazfoo12
Isn't this the crux of infamous "ad hominem" argument: attacking the person
instead of their reasoning?

Even smart people sometimes make stupid arguments.

And good arguments can be made by anyone.

It's very difficult to be right 100% of the time.

It's also quite unusual to be wrong 100% of the time.

Evaluate the reasoning, not the author.

Stupid argument, not stupid person.

Look at what Alsup said to Boies.

Still, this is easier said than done.

------
blackhole
It is more accurate to say that the difference between stupid people and smart
people is that smart people can be proved wrong.

~~~
dave1619
you mean smart people are more open to be proven wrong?

~~~
blackhole
I am implying that stupid people don't listen to rational arguments.

------
alvarosm
Sorry but no. Most people are cattle. Utter retards. The only thing missing
them is drooling on the floor and making feces. They're little more than
animals that can speak. Anyone even remotely smart knows most people are
stupid compared to himself.

Of course, smart people don't go around whining about it. But they do KNOW
they're surrounded by retards.

~~~
jacquesm
> Of course, smart people don't go around whining about it. But they do KNOW
> they're surrounded by retards.

Indeed...

------
rizzom5000
I disagree. Labels are sometimes derived of prejudice and bigotry. But if
someone is obese, and I call them fat - it's not a label that I invented
because I'm "not thinking" and "I don't realize the possibilities". I am
thinking, and I do realize the possibilities, and the person is still fat and
the person might be me looking at the mirror. And if I don't _know_ I'm fat
because I'm afraid that by admitting it; I've jumped to a conclusion, which
would in turn mean that I've avoided thinking and have jumped to a conclusion
- wait, I mean stupid -- then how am I ever going to know that I can do
something about it? Bleh. Fallacious logic is not logic at all.

------
dfc
_"That’s why saying “I don’t know” is usually smart, because it’s refusing to
jump to a conclusion."_

Define usually. More often than not when I hear "I don't know" it is offered
as an excuse/explanation for laziness and shirking responsibility.

~~~
moistgorilla
When a smart person says "I don't know", It's usually followed with a "give me
a second to figure it out." or "let me look that up real quick.".

~~~
wccrawford
I've given up on 'I don't know'. I only say that when I'm at the end of the
line and there's nowhere to go.

Instead, I usually use anything else that indicates that I'm going to make
inquiries. "That's a good question. I'll have to look into that." comes out of
my mouth a lot now. Sometimes without "That's a good queston." at the start.

------
kulkarnic
In my experience, I think smart people often think others are smart. And
that's sometimes a problem-- because they believe that others are smart as
well, they should think everything through the way they do (Also, I'd really
like to say we here, but pride is never good karma :-))

Then you start wondering why they are doing something so obviously unwise, and
then tend to rationalize it with some enormously complicated theory. Perhaps,
this is the reason why Hanlon's razor is useful and recognized-- without it
smart people are kinda lost.

------
3pt14159
Generally I agree. But there is a huge weasel clause in this whole line of
thinking: Ultimately, I could always end up with "they haven't done the
research or connected the dots because [insert something reasonable that is
stopping them] so they are not stupid, just lesser informed or emotional" but
essentially there will always be reasons that people do hard drugs or get
involved in scams or get in fights at bars but "they are just so stupid" can
sometimes suffice.

------
andyjohnson0
The article should maybe have been titled "Smart people don't _assume_ others
are stupid". But even then the argument is wrong.

It seems to me that what this comes down to is: is it justifiable and
appropriate to categorise a person according to their behaviour (including the
holding of opinions)? The author doesn't seem to deny that people can exhibit
stupid _behaviour_ , but argues that its wrong to categorise a person who
exhibits such behaviour because you will (inevitably) never have enough
information about the person or situation to make a judgement about the
intrinsic qualities of the person. This might be true in some theoretical
sense, but it doesn't really sit well with human nature or needs. We all have
finite lives and stuff to be done in those lives. Making judgments about
people is necessary to avoid a frustrating life spent (as in 'used up')
dealing with people who behave stupidly.

And really, how long do you have to evaluate someone's behaviour before you
are no longer 'jumping to conclusions' about them? Strangely, the author
doesn't say. At some point you have use the history of a person's behaviour to
decide[1]. A purist might say that such a decision should always be tentative,
but in reality I think they soon become fixed. We are talking about people
here.

For what its worth, my approach is that if I decide to think of someone as
being stupid (or smart) then I try to be conscious and mindful of the
decision, allow myself the opportunity to change my mind (while recognising
that I probably won't), and always respect their dignity as a person.

[1] I suspect that how soon this happens will mainly depend on the social
relationship between the people involved.

~~~
brc
I would argue that personal effectiveness includes the life skill of being a
character judge, and then having the courage to take action based on those
judgements.

Ie, if you judge someone to be a dishonest time waster, then politely brush
them off and don't have anything to do with them. This is true whether in a
work situation or a social situation.

Taking it even further, it means leaving a job or an area if it dawns on you
that you're surrounded by people who are either stupid or lazy and going
nowhere.

As you say, life is short. Learning to sort the wheat from the chaff is a way
of spending better time with more interesting people.

------
aoiao
Nearly 15 percent of people worldwide believe the world will end during their
lifetime and 10 percent think the Mayan calendar could signify it will happen
in 2012, according to a new poll.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/01/us-
mayancalendar-p...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/01/us-
mayancalendar-poll-idUSBRE8400XH20120501)

^at LEAST 15% of the world is stupid. That's just getting started. That's one
poll, about one thing.

~~~
codeonfire
All evidence suggests that the universe/world will end upon my death in any
sense that matters to me. Once my brain has stopped functioning it will be
impossible to ever receive stimulus from pysical phenomenon again for all
eternity. So, if you can agree with that then you could agree that the world
will end sometime during most people's lifetimes assuming I don't outlive
them. So from my point of. View they are right, but for the wrong reasons.

------
chousho
The author makes an interesting point; however, he seems to make the same
assumptions that he is actively protesting. If smart people do X, then would
not doing X mean people are not smart?

This generalization that can be inferred from the article--as well as
demonstrated in this comment section--seems to fall into this same trap.

As a reader of "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People", I think there is
a better way to go about this. Rather than "smart people do X [therefore if
you do not do X, you are not smart]"; it should be: people do X, which is
smarter than doing Y.

People can change. If they have a consistent ability to do stupid things, it
just means they are acting in poor judgement and possibly could use help. If
they fail to accept help, or are too headstrong/temperamental/can-never-be-
wrong then it just means that their behavior and mindset should change [in
order to be more productive].

Although, I would sometimes choose a less-intelligent person that is of no
fault of their own, than a willingly ignorant person who should know better,
but does not act it.

------
bryze
Can we find better things to write about than this? It is getting really
boring reading about how other people think we should all behave.

~~~
Mz
Um, what kinds of things do you want to read about? (Completely serious
question. Honest.)

~~~
bryze
I like to read about new ideas, advances in science and technology, and
political developments, especially where the Internet is concerned. I accept
that people have different lifestyles and viewpoints, and if variations on
those sorts of things are presented as "hey, here's a different way to live",
then that's alright. On the other hand, if the message is "hey, do it this way
because I'm right" then I'm inclined to stop reading.

~~~
Mz
Thanks. I like to write about personal hacks -- debugging the wetware, fixing
health issues at their roots that doctors claim cannot be fixed, effective
parenting for challenging children. So you are probably not my target
audience. Trying to think such things through for myself, I guess. I agree
with your distaste for what amounts to lecturing. I have a half formed thought
for a piece about that which might get written, or at leasted started, today.

Thank you for the feedback.

------
pradocchia
Sivers has it right, and I'm disappointed by the reaction here. People are
smart. This should be your baseline. From there, people may do or say stupid
things. It may become pathological. But the person has not lost his capacity
to be smart (barring some physiological damage). It may have atrophied, like
an unused muscle, but the capacity is still there.

But even this is getting ahead of yourself--how would you know they _are_
stupid? _Acting_ stupid is at least multi-dimensional: the act+stupid. It's a
limited claim. To _be_ stupid, though, now that's a very broad claim, to
reduce things to a position on a single axis. And that is pure hubris, an
intellectually indefensible position, an argument from apathy: "well I don't
care about all those things, to me the guy's just dumb". Ah well thanks for
clearing that up!

And there's the inverse: you casually judge others as stupid, and you have
shown yourself to have poor judgment. You are _being stupid_ with judgment.

~~~
rickmb
I completely disagree with the conclusion.

If I go along with the premise that people are merely "acting" stupid, that is
all the more reason to casually dismiss them. I can have patience with people
that have limited capabilities, but people who _choose_ to act stupid?

Being semantically correct isn't particularly relevant. It's how you deal with
consistent stupidity (and I'm not talking about the occasional brainfart or
error of judgement).

Whether or not casually dismissing stupidity is the right thing to do depends
completely on the context, not on whether you use the correct semantics to do
so. I people are being viciously stupid (as in "gay people shouldn't have
equal rights"), I will dismiss them as stupid, and I don't give a flying fuck
if they are _acting_ or _being_ stupid.

And on the flip side there are also situations in which it is useful to figure
out why people do or say stupid things. It's context that determines if my
judgement is poor, not semantics.

~~~
pradocchia
_I can have patience with people that have limited capabilities, but people
who choose to act stupid?_

You assume it's a choice, as if at the brink of decision, someone says, "I'll
do the stupid thing." But in real life, you see people motivated by ambition,
pride, fear and desire. And if that drives you do stupid things, to argue for
stupid positions, does that make you stupid? Well, if limit ourselves to
"stupid" always being contextual, if we understand "is stupid" as "acts stupid
in a given context", then sure.

Likewise, if someone doesn't care about the things you care about, and
consequently doesn't focus their attention on them to the same degree you
might, does that make them stupid? Or just uninterested?

It's not a semantic issue. You are dismissing people outright, you are
creating an alternate universe in your mind that through hubris drifts further
and further from reality. Invariably, there's something else going on,
something more interesting and more true to reality than just "he's stupid",
and you miss that. I'm not arguing that you necessarily should _engage_ with
such people, but neither should you box them off with pat pronouncements on
intellectual capacity.

------
marcoi
Very good post. In fact, thinking in terms of smart / stupid is fairly
pointless. Firstly, there are numerous forms of intelligence (as the first
phrase of its wikipedia entry confirms). Secondly, sticking to the IQ kind of
intelligence, most tasks require only a sufficient amount of it (say, more
than 90 or so), more of it doesn't necessarily help. The guy with the highest
IQ I ever met (180 or something) had a junior job (at 40yo) as a statistical
analyst in a bank. This applies also to developers: for instance, getting
things done is more important than being IQ-smart. Thirdly, and I think this
is the poster's point, the form of intelligence I came to admire the most (and
I find most useful) is the one that makes you humble enough to know what you
don't know, and capable of listening to and appreciating people who think
differently from you. Hard to really learn anything new without that one.

------
asto
I think others are stupid. Oh noes, I guess I'm the stupid one then.

Jokes apart, there's a consistent pattern in how I judge intellect. The people
who I consider smart _get logic_. Some of them do it intuitively; Some of them
are familiar with formal theory. The most common logical error made by those I
consider stupid is a non-sequitur [1] Ex: "He doesn't use vim. He must be
stupid". The biggest mistake you can make is judge people by knowledge, rather
than intelligence. Ex: "A is really good at programming. He's definitely more
intelligent than B who's a singer"

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29>

------
rch
This is absolute BS. Odds are that the all of the people from the article, and
the author, are relatively stupid. Maybe one or more of them isn't, but the
odds are against them - that is just how it works.

~~~
rjd
I totally disagree. I get a lot of people saying crap to me about being smart
or intelligent, I even got bugged into joining MENSA by other members. I still
hold that I'm not really smarter than other people.

Most people are average, I get a lot of attention for things I do that people
don't understand. But I'm not really a smart person, I just like puzzles and I
do them quite often. There plenty of situations where I appear like a bumbling
idiot.

Heres how I see it. People who have an interest in something invest lots of
energy into understanding it. Judging someone by there ability not to
understand something that they have invested a lot of time into doesn't make
you smart, it makes that person a jerk.

And heres the reason. Calling someone stupid is an insult, a way of asserting
a dominant position i.e. "I am better than you because my understanding is
more advanced." Guess what, thats one hell of arrogant position to have.

As someone who usually runs teams I'd probably ask to someone who used
statements like that to be transferred. If said person held an attitude like
that, its not helpful to the team, potentially damaging to someone trying to
get up to speed, undermining confidence. And lastly it wrecks of someone who
would hold a something over someone else to look better rather than cooperate,
build needlessly complicated code that half the team couldn't work on at a
decent speed.

Anyway theres a quote attributed to Einstein I'm sure you've heard which sums
it up nicely for me "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its
ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is
stupid."

------
evilbit
Pedantic nonsense. What exactly is the difference between "he's stupid" and
"he's acting stupid"? The only one I can spot is the latter avoids labeling
the person while still condemning them for the act. PC nonsense without
substance, IMNSHO.

However, he does touch on something Dan Kahneman in his 'Thinking, Fast and
Slow' talks about: most people stop thinking at first intuitive answer (aka
System 1) and don't bother engaging in the tiring deep thought (aka System 2).

------
nyddle
Love the title of this post. Smartness and stupidity are a matter of
motivation and interest in the subject. Most times being stupid is doing what
you are not meant to do / reasoning about what doesn't truly interest you.

There are many activities that meant to be done by "smart" people like math or
high stakes poker or programming. But most people are just scared of these
things because they don't know they are smart enough to succeed.

------
gench
Calling others stupid is just a toxic thinking which tricks our brains to rely
on easy and quick-fix pseudo “feel-good" but it is an addictive dangerous
practice for our mental and general health in long term.

[http://blogs.psychcentral.com/relationships/2011/07/seven-
to...](http://blogs.psychcentral.com/relationships/2011/07/seven-toxic-
thinking-patterns-to-break-how-pseudo-feel-goods-trick-your-brain-2-of-3/)

------
es20641
I recently graduated from college and found a job. My manager is one of those
people who is a brilliant programmer but doesn't help the greenhorns like me
adapt to the working world.

I believe I have potential to be a great programmer, but it's difficult when
you're being told your code is "all sorts of wrong."

This was exactly what I needed to read right now. Thank you for posting it.

------
sev
Although not a fascinating topic nor anything new, I think the main point of
the article is a good one, and one that everyone should consider before name-
calling, yelling, or interrupting for that matter. Many use these _techniques_
to supposedly win arguments just because the other shuts up, or is offended.

------
davidcollantes
One doesn't need to be smart to find stupidity (in others or in our own).
"Stupid is as stupid does."

------
EricDeb
I don't know I like to think I'm of above average intelligence and I would
generalize and say that some religious groups are "just so stupid."

Then again, religion is a great way to cope with the paradoxical and
absolutely absurd reality we live in so maybe they aren't that stupid...

------
antihero
I agree on the most part, however there are certain situations where you just
get sick of explaining stuff (see: Feminism 101) to people who have done no
research or have ignored the research because they are so headstrong about
their issues.

------
mns2
This has quite a bit of information on the subject:
<http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Map_and_Territory_(sequence)>

------
bennesvig
Very few people act without good motivation to do so. So when most people see
someone engaging in an act that is "stupid" they are generally failing to see
their motivation for the act.

------
loceng
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a
tree,… it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." — Albert
Einstein

------
elchief
No.

<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/HighNotes.html>

------
rmATinnovafy
But insecure people do see others are stupid.

------
Zenst
Smart people don't think others are stupid as the truely smart know that
others are stupid.

Thinking is not 100% knowing. Think about that.

Also there are two types of stupid, those that are naturaly gifeted in such
arts and those that work at it. It is the later that are truely stupid and the
former who are just limited.

------
eyko
This article will resonate with stupid people's feelings.

------
its_so_on
You know, I've been teaching my dog a few tricks, and when I do I always think
about how smart EVERYONE IS. Man, humans are so smart. If this were a human -
really, practically any human that isn't currently comatose, even a baby, I
would be done by now.

Smart means smart compared to something. Everyone is very smart - compared to
a dog. But when you use the word smart about people, it means smarter than
other people. Does that make other people stupid? In actuality, it _has_ to.

When you say "smart people don't think others are stupid" either you are
really saying "smart people never know they're smart. They think everone is
just as smart as them". (This is a possibility.) Or, you are saying, "Smart
people never acknowledge the fact that they're smart. Even thought they know
others are not as smart, they never mention this fact."

This second possibility is probably closer to the truth. When I'm trying to
get my dog to realize it can step over its own leash when it's tangled in it,
it doesn't help me to think about how much smarter I am and how I never get
tangled in anything.

I think smart people know very well that they're smart. Sometimes they just
have better things to worry about than pointing this out. (Sometimes they
don't. Linus Torvalds was quoted here calling someone a moron a few days ago.
Obviusly, he's still a smart guy.)

------
adviceonly
A total opinion piece with nothing backing it up. You can just type some
things in bold letters and make it true. Show us the data.

~~~
sivers
:-)

~~~
ktizo
Was thinking that the smiley face was not much of an addition, but then
clocked that you are probably the author of the piece, in which case the
smiley face was probably fairly tactful.

~~~
mgkimsal
We certainly know he doesn't think adviceonly is stupid :)

------
georgieporgie
I think it's a good attitude to take, particularly when dealing with peers.
Giving others the benefit of the doubt and not assuming that everyone should
know everything you know goes a long way toward making the world a better and
more tolerable place. Also, when discussing matters of principle it's
extremely valuable to be able to understand and argue _for_ the opposition,
rather than merely dismissing opposing views as 'stupid'.

However, the author is fundamentally wrong. There _are_ stupid people. I
didn't believe it until I got out of my college/career track and met a few of
them.

------
adamsilver
Human brain capabilities differ, just like computer processors. Failing to
realize that is stupid.

~~~
snikolov
Right, but brain capability is not a one dimensional quantity, and
measurements of it are time-varying and noisy. This suggests that one
shouldn't jump to conclusions before careful measurement, and that it is not
trivial to compare measurements from different people along just one axis.

------
wissler
So according to him, if you think others are stupid, then you are stupid. What
irony.

~~~
natep
No, try reading it again. "So if you decide someone is stupid, it means you’re
not thinking, which is not being smart."

"Not being smart" != "is stupid" is exactly the distinction he is making.

~~~
wissler
I'm well aware of the words he chose. I am referring to his actual meaning.

The fact is that there are stupid people on this planet. The fact is that we
can know there are stupid people. The fact is that we can identify a stupid
person. And it is utterly stupid to pretend otherwise. He's made a very stupid
generalization based on the behavior of the masses -- yes, most people who
call others stupid are themselves stupid. But that doesn't mean we can't know
who is stupid nor does it mean that it's wrong to call someone stupid.

