> "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.
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.
I think "cooperative" might be a little closer to the idea than "generous" - has more of a sense of both parties coming out ahead. Good observations and analysis.
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.
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?
An idea for a superhero: she can deftly and permanently reform any particular low-level stupidity using in-person persuasion, but can't impart a truly general lesson (so the villains can offer many episodes of mayhem). Our hero can't fully impart her persuasive ability to her sidekick, even though to all appearances it's her insightful arguments that do the trick, not any magical charismatic force.
You're right. I might buy it if they inserted the word 'genetic,' but clearly, the social traits of a stupid person are largely the product of their stupidity.
Nonetheless it's a useful law - it helps to overcome bias toward believing other people are non-stupid by emphasizing that stupidity could be lurking anywhere.
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.