The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity

[SD45T-2]

In the early 1600s, pioneering astronomer Johannes Kepler put forth his three laws of planetary motion, which, for the first time, provided an accurate and evidence-based description of the movement of the Solar System's planets around the Sun. By the end of the century, Isaac Newton followed Kepler's example with three laws of his own, describing the relationship between an object and the forces acting on it, thus laying the foundations for classical mechanics. Almost exactly three hundred years later, Carlo M. Cipolla, a professor of economic history at the University of California - Berkeley, introduced a set of laws no less revelatory than those of Kepler or Newton: The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity.

While these laws are not taught in grade school, they do hold lessons worthy of reflection in this modern era. Stupidity today is on display more than ever before -- on TV, YouTube, and the city streets you frequent each and every day. To better react to and avoid such dimwitted behavior, one must first understand it. Cipolla's insightful set of five laws is a helpful guide.

His first law sets the stage.

Continue here ...

 

[uumlau]

What was it Einstein said? Something like, "There are only two infinite things: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe."

That said, I tend to not put much stock in labeling people as stupid, any more than I do in labeling people as evil. "Stupid" and "evil" are intellectually lazy labels WE put on things that WE do not understand. Note that in all these "laws" of stupidity, stupidity is not explained even once.

 

[Evo]

What was it Einstein said? Something like, "There are only two infinite things: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe."

That said, I tend to not put much stock in labeling people as stupid, any more than I do in labeling people as evil. "Stupid" and "evil" are intellectually lazy labels WE put on things that WE do not understand. Note that in all these "laws" of stupidity, stupidity is not explained even once.

yea but dat guitar....

 

[SD45T-2]

Note that in all these "laws" of stupidity, stupidity is not explained even once.

Explained it what sense? The causes of it or the definition? The definition given is "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." Cipolla theorizes about why some people would be more like that than others.

Anyway, arrangement of the graph is somewhat different than my way of thinking. Intelligence seems more or less amoral to me.

 

[SpankyMcFly]

What was it Einstein said? Something like, "There are only two infinite things: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe."

That said, I tend to not put much stock in labeling people as stupid, any more than I do in labeling people as evil. "Stupid" and "evil" are intellectually lazy labels WE put on things that WE do not understand. Note that in all these "laws" of stupidity, stupidity is not explained even once.

I had a weird *twilight zone music in the background* moment when I saw and read this thread. Just 2 days ago me and my... cohorts online touched on this very topic indirectly. The greater context was a discussion on the distribution of wealth and IQ around the world. ANYWAYS... In law 3 Cippola says that there are 4 types of humans and uses a quadrant to deliniate and label these different groups of people: the helpless, the intelligent, the bandit and the stupid. The dertermining factors, measured on 2 axis, are smart/stupid and benefit/loss.

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.

Being an economics historian it's easy to see why he used the language of loss/gain. Humans are inconsistent and Cippola goes on to talk about frequency distribution. Sometimes smart people do stupid things and vice versa. Wether someone is stupid (or smart) then is the net result of their cumulative experience and outcomes.

edit: I see the OP already pointed out the definition, eehh, I'll let it stand.

 

[Lark]

Interesting, as interesting as Dunning-Kruger, most interesting still is that this is derivative of economic thinking, like Freud's idea that psychic energy was governed by the same rules of scarcity that money is governed by ("spend" it and its gone), which I've heard ably criticised before now.

What does anyone think about the dominance of "economic" thinking?

 

[Lark]

What was it Einstein said? Something like, "There are only two infinite things: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe."

That said, I tend to not put much stock in labeling people as stupid, any more than I do in labeling people as evil. "Stupid" and "evil" are intellectually lazy labels WE put on things that WE do not understand. Note that in all these "laws" of stupidity, stupidity is not explained even once.

The can be lazy labels, evil and stupid, but just as I think labels have their place, all things being equal and for the purposes of clear conceptualisation and communication, I think they can be something other than that too.

Labelling people as stupid is often dismissive, behaviour is more often stupid than people are, I see it often as arising from context and circumstances rather than being intrinsic, Einstein also said that if you assess a goldfish by its ability to climb a tree it would appear stupid.

Although evil is different, I'm more sure that it does exist, its not circumstance, context or other "accident", its not even opportunity, though most evil people are opportunistic.

 

[SpankyMcFly]

What does anyone think about the dominance of "economic" thinking?

I think it's an effort to turn/talk about human decision making into a 'more' objective process. Lol as if...

 

[SpankyMcFly]

Labelling people as stupid is often dismissive...

I've noticed a consistent negative response to the process of labeling. We all do it, its adaptive and the result of a brain that has evolved to solve problems and make PREDICTIONS (based on labels/stereotypes). Therefore labeling is inherent or 'natural' and subconscious. One could even argue that the resulting behaviors and actions we engage in are at the end of a chain of events that started on the unconscious & subconsciouss level, using... you guessed it, hard wiring that involves making/using 'labels' or schematics. I'd usually link research & articles, but I 'know' you won't bother so I won't either. Amirite?

Modern humans are pattern recognition machines.

 

[nonsequitur]

Since I got tagged here I can only assume that OP thinks I have a problem with being stupid.

On a more serious note, I think the article over-emphasizes individual choice and doesn't consider the fact that people act more "stupidly" in groups, depending on the group dynamic and how much conformity is valued.

Additionally, profit/loss is a judgment that's made in the moment - it could very well be that something incredibly stupid/dangerous in the moment could lead to large benefit for others. Human history is littered with examples of this; I often relate the story of Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis who invented the polymerase chain reaction (standard for DNA work and the basis of sequencing) while tripping on LSD and driving down the Californian highway thinking about how to impress girls.

For the record, Kary Mullis also doesn't believe that HIV causes AIDS and believes in astrology. So yeah.

 

[Virtual ghost]

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.

In my book that is more of a psychopathy than stupidity.

 

[prplchknz]

it's easy to dismiss people as stupid and sometimes they are, but often times they're not and we're missing the full picture

i also find people who are labeled lazy often have something else going on such as anxiety or depression or other things. but no one wants to deal with that shit, so it's just all like well that person is stupid and lazy.

 

[Lark]

Explained it what sense? The causes of it or the definition? The definition given is "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." Cipolla theorizes about why some people would be more like that than others.

Anyway, arrangement of the graph is somewhat different than my way of thinking. Intelligence seems more or less amoral to me.

I didnt see him theorising as to why some people would be more like that than others, not in the linked article.

This is a pretty good definition of stupidity, from a rational utilitarian maximiser stand point, which is the version of the individual in classical economics.

Behavioural economics has changed that a little but by and large that is the definition of "economic man".

The linked article does not explain why there are stupid people, just that people underestimate the number of the stupid and/or the extent of their stupidity, it doesnt even really say much about what people should do about it or whether or not its inevitable that there are stupid people.

 

[Lark]

In my book that is more of a psychopathy than stupidity.

Not so sure about that given that psychopaths are calculating and self-serving.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Not so sure about that given that psychopaths are calculating and self-serving.

That is why I said "in my book" since this could be a language barrier. What you are describing are Sociopaths, in my opinion.

To me psychopaths are people like Joker while sociopaths are more like a typical mafia boss. (the difference is in calmness and calculation)

 

[Lark]

That is why I said "in my book" since this could be a language barrier. What you are describing are Sociopaths, in my opinion.

To me psychopaths are people like Joker while sociopaths are more like a typical mafia boss. (the difference is in calmness and calculation)

There's a particular type of psychopath that the Joker type is related to, perhaps its the more prevalent type, I dont know enough about these things to comment, anyway, that's a pretty chaotic, self-destructive type, the other variety would be Hannibal Lector.

In fiction, the author of the Lector series, tried to portray two or three varieties of psychopathy in Red Dragon, a chaotic type (The tooth fairy), a more controlled type (Lector himsself) and finally an adjusted type (the profiler himself), there's a good wiki about it but so far as I know its all psychopathy as opposed to sociopathy, the main difference between which I believe is whether or not it is intrinsic, organic or a consequence of socialisation and environment.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The main difference between which I believe is whether or not it is intrinsic, organic or a consequence of socialisation and environment.

I am not expert either but this is the definition with I am "working. Your definition is also reasobable one.

The main problem is that these are only definitions, while reality is much more complex and it may be hard to determine where one starts and other things stops. Especially since there is always observable overlap in such individuals, when one leads to another.

 

[SpankyMcFly]

In my book that is more of a psychopathy than stupidity.

In Chippola's quadrant model psychopaths fall under the 'bandit' category. In other words they consistently achieve 'gain' or self interest is served, but in so doing, to the detriment of others or society.

 

[Lark]

I am not expert either but this is the definition with I am "working. Your definition is also reasobable one.

The main problem is that these are only definitions, while reality is much more complex and it may be hard to determine where one starts and other things stops. Especially since there is always observable overlap in such individuals, when one leads to another.

I dont think they are as prevalent as movies or other media would make out, people seem to have forgotten the whole huge gamut of maladaptive or dysfunctional adaptations such as sadism, masochism, authoritarianism, automation conformity, marketing types etc.

That's before you consider necrophiles as a psychological type, not the sexual perversion but the character structure.

 

[nonsequitur]

As a sociopath, I'd say that the arguments above are overly complicated.

Basically, if a psychopath derives joy from destruction, it's not "stupidity", even if it causes harm to his/herself. The evaluation of "gain/loss" is necessarily from a utilitarian point of view, not a subjective, emotional one.

A sociopath simply can't feel what others feel. Whether they are aware of and/or act in consideration of others' feelings or not is independent of this. This is also separate from whether they direct their decisions to others' benefit or loss.