
Basic Laws of Human Stupidity - jodrellblank
http://www.searchlores.org/realicra/basiclawsofhumanstupidity.htm
======
pg
Carlo Cipolla was a great historian.

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

I particularly recommend _Guns, Sails, and Empires_ and _Clocks and Culture_.

------
marze
The best bit is at the end, where it is pointed out that Cipolla's descendants
are trying to prove the point of the essay thinking if they restrict the
publication of the essay on the web they will somehow profit.

------
Eliezer
> "The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other
> characteristic of that person."

I don't buy it.

There are people who are stupid in spite of characteristics that one would
ordinarily expect to be associated with reduced stupidity. But I'm betting
that any statistics package would show a substantial if not perfect
correlation.

And I'm still looking for that technique, or that piece of knowledge, which
finally cuts off the lower levels of stupidity.

~~~
m104
I think you're not using the author's definition of "stupid" (an aggregate
behavioral mode) but instead the more commonly understood meaning (lacking in
intelligence or knowledge). I really don't want to be misquoted with an
article of this nature, so I'm going to replace some terms in my response:
"stupid" is now "destructive" and "intelligent" is now "generous."

The author's boldest thesis is that there are no common "destructive"
characteristics outside of aggregate behavior. Only by looking at the net
effect of an individual in question can you truly determine if their behavior
is, to some degree, destructive. Or helpless. Or "bandit." Or generous. By the
author's reasoning, "destructive" people cannot help but hurt others and to
some extent themselves, regardless of all other factors except influence.

Mr. Cipolla's definition is firm, but adaptable enough to allow for all sorts
of situations. What other social model is going to tell you up front that some
Nobel laureates behave in destructive ways? That's not supposed to be allowed
by the common metrics and understandings of the characteristic/success
correlation model.

How many articles have you run across is the last, oh I don't know... year or
so that can't seem to penetrate the "mystery" of why the best, brightest, most
highly paid group of individuals in the world can't manage the very financial
system that keeps them in business and the rest of us employed. Or why members
of congress, with assured lives, cannot agree to measures which would enhance
the well-being of themselves and their constituents. Or why unhappy, desperate
people actively protest measures that would ease their suffering.

In each case you can point to specific reasons for these types of situations
(incentives, irrationality, ignorance), but you haven't really said _why_
these types of situations exist and continue to exist despite all of our other
advancements. The author simply says that a group of people will experience
decline as the balance of power shifts to the "destructive" members of that
group, whoever they may be. The effects of this (in the author's mind) are
clearly seen throughout history as a regular feature of humans, much as the
male/female birth ratio has been unwavering.

What's fascinating about this essay is that it has to be the purest form of
"don't judge a book by its cover" that I've ever read. It also agrees quite
nicely (unless I'm mistaken) with the spirit of the Nash Equilibrium, which
says that the best thing that you can do is take into account the other
players' (members of society) potential actions and plan for the best outcome
for yourself _and_ all other players. According to Mr. Cipolla's model, the
best thing you can do is elevate the generous (those who will help all) and
mitigate the destructive (those who will hurt all), not just for yourself or
in spite of them but for all of us.

I'm having a hard time disagreeing with that sentiment.

~~~
onreact-com
"I think you're not using the author's definition of "stupid" "

The author does not offer one.

~~~
maggit
Hmm... Did you consider the one featured rather prominently in a box under the
heading "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.

~~~
onreact-com
I haven't read that philosophical masterpiece that far. This is indeed a very
innovative definition this guy has devised. So a person who causes losses to
others while her or himself gaining, like a criminal for instance, is not
stupid by definition?

Sadly most other common definitions are a little different:
<http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=stupid>

------
drewcrawford
> 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
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
_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
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.

------
billswift
One of the few magazines I have held on to over the decades is the issue of
Whole Earth Review from Spring 1987 that has this essay in it. Also of
interest to hackers in that one issue is a good early summary of
nanotechnology by Drexler, an interview on the Connection Machine with Danny
Hillis, and one of Stephen Roberts's articles about his computerized bicycle.
In some ways Whole Earth Quarterly was like an early version of HN, but with a
somewhat different emphasis.

------
jsz0
I'm sorry but smart people don't make wild generalizations because they
understand it's impossible to easily categorize almost 7 billion unique
people. So far in life I've personally encountered people who could be defined
as stupid but they are quite clever. This makes them appear to be far smarter
than they probably are. I've encountered lots of very smart people who seem to
spend a significant amount of their life complaining about stupid people
instead of using their intelligence for something more constructive. I've
encountered ignorant people who are willing to learn if you give them a
chance. I've encountered smart people who are close minded and stubborn to a
fault. I suppose this article is a joke and I'm taking it too seriously. I
can't stand intelligent people who feel the need to put down other people.
Always makes me wonder who's really the smart one. The ignorant person who is
happy with themselves or the intelligent person who needs to belittle others
to achieve the same thing?

~~~
jwhite
> I'm sorry but smart people don't make wild generalizations because they
> understand it's impossible to easily categorize almost 7 billion unique
> people.

I think you're confusing categorizing people with pronouncing value judgments
on them. Moreover, your first sentence makes a demonstrably false claim. It is
trivially easy to categorize people (e.g. male/female/transgender, people-I-
like/people-I-don't-like, etc.). The interesting question is how to categorize
people in useful ways that can help you understand how society functions, and
I think the article gives a really interesting analysis of one chosen
categorization.

I agree that it isn't healthy to base one's self esteem on negative value
judgments of others, just as it is always better to look at what positive
contributions a person has to offer society, no matter how small.

------
TrevorJ
I think stupid behavior is exhibited by everyone from time to time depending
on the particular gifts and knowledge of the individual.

Most of us a smart in some way, and stupidly incompetent in another.

~~~
nate_meurer
This article is talking about a specific brand of stupidity, and Carlo
carefully lays out his definition of "stupid people". It has nothing to do
with competence or knowledge.

~~~
TrevorJ
"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."

-That's the definition I'm using. Lack of competence or knowledge can both be causes of stupidity, but that's not really the point I'm making.

My point is that _whatever_ the cause, stupidity is not a constant. It is
situational and also varies over time. Smart people act stupidly from time to
time as well. Additionally, when you take an action that is a gamble,
sometimes you lose out even if the odds where in your favor. That's not
stupidity, even though by this strict definition of the term it could be
defined as such since loss has occurred with no benefit.

~~~
apotheon
One cannot be purely stupid or purely intelligent all the time. There are
times when someone is simply standing around in the restroom brushing his
teeth, for instance. This doesn't change anything about the accuracy of the
core thesis as applied to life in general.

Mostly, what I've seen of "stupid" behavior (in Cipolla's use of the term
"stupid") is the result of such motivations as _spite_. Spite appears to be
one of the strongest motivators in human nature, and is purely destructive. It
is, at its _best_ , designed to not do the spiteful party any harm -- but no
thought is put into doing oneself any good. It is often veiled in
justifications related to evening some imaginary scales between a "bandit" and
a "helpless" victim, but all too often it is simply spite beneath the surface
-- in short, it is a special case of stupidity (and my own least favorite form
of stupidity, because of its petty malevolence).

This has little or nothing to do with IQ and other conventional definitions of
"intelligence" and "stupidity". It is, as I've said above, about patterns of
behavior (and, to an extent, the motivations that produce those patterns).

~~~
scott_s
At the risk of being recursive, I'm going to invoke Heinlen's Razor: "Never
attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

In that context, "stupidity" also means ignorance, which should avoid actual
recursion.

That is, I don't think most stupid behavior is caused by spite (malice) but
rather obliviousness (ignorance).

~~~
TrevorJ
I think indifference factors in a lot as well. A lot of times people aren't
actively wishing harm on others, but by the same token they won't change there
own behavior to mediate harm that may be done to others because of their
actions.

~~~
scott_s
Yes, that's a word I was looking for but couldn't come up with.

------
dkokelley
I propose Law 1a) _Always and inevitably everyone underestimates their own
propensity to stupidity_

Very good read. Great points about people's categorical actions either
benefiting or detracting from society as a whole.

------
deyan
thanks for the link - Fravia's site offers a wealth of knowledge.

RIP to a great teacher, from reverse engineering to searching.

~~~
mpk
RIP Fravia.

Good guy, engaging speaker, great friend.

Always good to see a searchlores link.

------
dhughes
The picture reminds me of an accident last year, the operator of a sidewalk
snow blower had his hand cut off while trying to clear the snow from the
auger. He was only using one hand trying to clear it because he only had one
hand, and now he has no hands.

It doesn't say it in the article but his other hand was deformed at birth and
he was unable to use it.

[http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=222859&sc=98](http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=222859&sc=98)

------
RevRal
So HN, LW, and OB aren't the havens that I thought.... Just fucking great.

Or did I miss something and σ is actually relative to the average intelligence
of a group? Does stupid = not intelligent? I'm going to have to re-read this
and scan these comments better.

------
tybris
I know only one law: He who thinks that everyone is stupid, probably is.

~~~
willchang
If literally everyone were stupid in the sense of the essay, society would
crumble very quickly. It is doubtful that anyone sophisticated enough to
understand such a definition of stupidity would fail to understand this
implication.

On the other hand, I have many friends who see stupidity everywhere, and who
recognize it as an inveterate condition of our species. They are not openly
contemptuous of everything (for that would serve no one) but they are sober,
sensible, and harmless. They are not stupid.

------
njharman
author's definition of stupid people has nothing to do with stupidity and I
find using the word stupid highly misleading.

------
rwolf
"...that some are stupid and others are not, and that the difference is
determined by nature and not by cultural forces or factors..."

Classy.

------
onreact-com
This piece has been written by an incredibly arrogant misanthrope maybe even a
fascist. It has no substance, just opinion. It does not even define what
"stupid" means. Low IQ? Ignorance? Lack of understanding of human relations
(like in "saying stupid things")? This guy just denounces one of the main
pillars of modern democracy - "all men are created equal" - and you applaud.

Next thing he'll tell us that we have to exterminate "stupid" people in the
best case before they have been born because it's all nature and not nurture.

------
DanielStraight
I think someone needs a therapist.

