I think if you read the definition if stupidity proposed by Cipolla and paraphrased by Atwood, it's more about how you act than how you think.
It's about acting in a manner that does harm or creates loss or problems for others, while failing to render any benefit to, or even harming, oneself.
I think that’s the challenge for me in this discussion: Cipolla seems to be using stupidity as a term of art in a way that doesn’t really align with my experience of real-life, day-to-day usage of the word. I get what Cipolla is describing, but calling what he’s describing stupidity doesn’t really make sense to me. It kind of gets in the way.
Given that stupidity here is a translation of his original Italian stupidità, I find myself wondering if contextually something is lost in translation.
That is very possible. I hadn't considered that.
If it's not stupidity as you understand it what would you call it? I mean cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, what would we call that?
AFF
I’m not sure what I’d call it, to be honest. I might call it stupidity, but I might not, depending on circumstances and specifics. I think that’s the problem here for me—stupidity seems to be being used too broadly, encompassing things that I think in everyday usage would be considered examples of stupidity, but also encompassing things that aren’t.
I’ll confess that in a similar way, the quadrant seems simplistic and superficial to me. I think life and people are more complicated and nuanced.
I'm wondering about the quadrant labeled "The abused". Where do you put people who act in such a way as to create a win for others, fully aware and accepting that they themselves will lose?
I think if you read the definition if stupidity proposed by Cipolla and paraphrased by Atwood, it's more about how you act than how you think.
It's about acting in a manner that does harm or creates loss or problems for others, while failing to render any benefit to, or even harming, oneself.
I think that’s the challenge for me in this discussion: Cipolla seems to be using stupidity as a term of art in a way that doesn’t really align with my experience of real-life, day-to-day usage of the word. I get what Cipolla is describing, but calling what he’s describing stupidity doesn’t really make sense to me. It kind of gets in the way.
Given that stupidity here is a translation of his original Italian stupidità, I find myself wondering if contextually something is lost in translation.
That is very possible. I hadn't considered that.
If it's not stupidity as you understand it what would you call it? I mean cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, what would we call that?
AFF
I’m not sure what I’d call it, to be honest. I might call it stupidity, but I might not, depending on circumstances and specifics. I think that’s the problem here for me—stupidity seems to be being used too broadly, encompassing things that I think in everyday usage would be considered examples of stupidity, but also encompassing things that aren’t.
I’ll confess that in a similar way, the quadrant seems simplistic and superficial to me. I think life and people are more complicated and nuanced.
I certainly think that the model oversimplifies a lot of things, such as, on any given day I could fall into any or all of the categories but I wouldn't say that I answer to any one of them, or all of them, as a conclusive descriptor of myself.
I think the matrix is meant to apply in certain realms of practical decision making. Like assembling macro data sets in order to predict behaviors.
I'm wondering about the quadrant labeled "The abused". Where do you put people who act in such a way as to create a win for others, fully aware and accepting that they themselves will lose?
I think that slavery still exists and is a big problem. There are a LOT of those people still among us and in the wider world.
I would put them in the "abused" category.
I think that children growing up in dysfunctional families and who are assigned certain roles by the family dynamic might also qualify. They play their part for survival, not for any additional benefit.
I think if you read the definition if stupidity proposed by Cipolla and paraphrased by Atwood, it's more about how you act than how you think.
It's about acting in a manner that does harm or creates loss or problems for others, while failing to render any benefit to, or even harming, oneself.
I think that’s the challenge for me in this discussion: Cipolla seems to be using stupidity as a term of art in a way that doesn’t really align with my experience of real-life, day-to-day usage of the word. I get what Cipolla is describing, but calling what he’s describing stupidity doesn’t really make sense to me. It kind of gets in the way.
Given that stupidity here is a translation of his original Italian stupidità, I find myself wondering if contextually something is lost in translation.
That is very possible. I hadn't considered that.
If it's not stupidity as you understand it what would you call it? I mean cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, what would we call that?
AFF
I’m not sure what I’d call it, to be honest. I might call it stupidity, but I might not, depending on circumstances and specifics. I think that’s the problem here for me—stupidity seems to be being used too broadly, encompassing things that I think in everyday usage would be considered examples of stupidity, but also encompassing things that aren’t.
I’ll confess that in a similar way, the quadrant seems simplistic and superficial to me. I think life and people are more complicated and nuanced.
I certainly think that the model oversimplifies a lot of things, such as, on any given day I could fall into any or all of the categories but I wouldn't say that I answer to any one of them, or all of them, as a conclusive descriptor of myself.
I think the matrix is meant to apply in certain realms of practical decision making. Like assembling macro data sets in order to predict behaviors.
AFF
So, kind of like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator? 😈
I'm wondering about the quadrant labeled "The abused". Where do you put people who act in such a way as to create a win for others, fully aware and accepting that they themselves will lose?
I think that slavery still exists and is a big problem. There are a LOT of those people still among us and in the wider world.
I would put them in the "abused" category.
I think that children growing up in dysfunctional families and who are assigned certain roles by the family dynamic might also qualify. They play their part for survival, not for any additional benefit.
But survival is a benefit to them, at least presumably, so that would seem to put the people you describe in the “intelligent” category. (Again, I think intelligent here is problematic.)
Meanwhile, the person who jumps in front of someone else to take a bullet for them would appear to fall in the “abused” category. The category doesn’t appear to distinguish between those whose choice to act in a way that creates a win for others but a loss for themselves is made under duress or force, out of a desire for survival (which arguably means that it’s a win for them), or out of love and care for others.
Meanwhile, the person who jumps in front of someone else to take a bullet for them would appear to fall in the “abused” category. The category doesn’t appear to distinguish between those whose choice to act in a way that creates a win for others but a loss for themselves is made under duress or force, out of a desire for survival (which arguably means that it’s a win for them), or out of love and care for others.
It's true the model doesn't account for altruism or martyrdom.
True--but any sensible person is going to try a given course of action at least twice (unless the results are overpoweringly negative the first time), because we need to rule out the possibility that the first result was an unrelated chance. So I'd argue that the label "stupid" doesn't apply until the third attempt.
True--but any sensible person is going to try a given course of action at least twice (unless the results are overpoweringly negative the first time), because we need to rule out the possibility that the first result was an unrelated chance. So I'd argue that the label "stupid" doesn't apply until the third attempt.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Then there is George Bush's version
“There’s an old saying in Tennessee—I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on… shame on you. Fool me… you can’t get fooled again."
So I'm living in Europe since 2020 and I have watched the European economy tank itself as it fell on the sword of "handing the Russians a Strategic Defeat". I don't intend to inflame a discussion here about the moral high ground , unprovoked yada yada yada that's a topic for the other discussion.
What I have observed is 18 or so rounds of economic sanctions against Russia, encompassing 19 thousand different individuals, industries and businesses. And what I've seen is a deterioration of the European standard of living even to the level of my own personal standard of living and no measurable effect on the battleground.
I feel like this conforms to both Gramps' definition and Cipolla's definition.
And as it applies to myself, I can't see how these outcomes differ from malice if they had been deliberately inflicted upon me by someone wishing to enrich themselves at my expense.
So regardless of the utility or inutility of the rest of the matrix, I'm inclined to agree with Atwood at least on this matter.
It's worth remembering that words do change their meanings over time. Not so long ago, people would have spoken of being 'stupid with sleep', or 'stupid with exhaustion', meaning that their usual mental acuity was diminished from tiredness, or having just awakened. The link to the idea of 'stupor' is clear.
I fancy, too, though I'm open to correction, that the word has slightly different usage depending which side of the Atlantic one stands - that in the US 'stupid' tends to be used of people, in the UK of actions. I myself would use 'stupid' usually to describe an action by someone (usually myself) who really should know better!
In terms of historical outcomes, the 'cock-up' theory of history would see many or even most undesired outcomes as due to stupidity, rather than conspiracy or deliberate decision. From his own point of view, David Cameron's promise to hold an election on withdrawing from the EU if he won the election, for example, was a stupid one - he did not think ahead to what might happen if he had to honour that promise - and the decision to allow the vote to swing on a simple majority (whereas such changes from the status quo customarily require a majority of, say, 20%) was an even bigger one. He ended up with an outcome he did not want.
The outcome of Hitler invading the territory of an ally (Russia) - was that Germany lost the war; but the decision to invade was not in itself stupid but consistent with a political view in which such a thing is not inherently wrong.
I do believe that stupid decisions (actions or words) are inseparable from the human condition. I have made many, some very stupid. But as Paul might have said, 'Christ Jesus came to save stupid people - of whom I am the chief'.
Not sure if this is a true story. A freshman got 49 out of 50 of his fellow 9th grade classmates to agree dihydroxide was hazardous to our health. Dihydroxide is another name for water. He presented his findings at a Science Fair under the title "How Gullible are We?"
lose/win actions are undertaken by people who negotiate for or expect a reciprocal benefit for themselves but who do not receive it and are classified in the model as "the abused".
I'm afraid I'm a bit dubious about the veracity of the text on the URL you provided. In the account on Cipolla's wikipedia page, the four quadrants are as follows, plus a fifth in the centre:
* benefits to themselves / benefits to others - intelligent people
* benefits to themselves / losses to others - bandits
* losses to themselves / losses to others - stupid people
* losses to themselves / benefits to others - helpless people
* centre of both axes - ineffectual people
And this corresponds with what appears to be a copy of the text of Cipolla's essay here. “The Third Basic Law assumes, although it does not state it explicitly, that human beings fall into four basic categories: the helpless, the intelligent, the bandit and the stupid.”
There's also a Guardian article. None of them use the word "abused".
Some people are more afraid of appearing stupid than appearing evil or bad.
Good point.
In respect to a number of posts here, I'm strongly reminded that in this country, at any rate, there are any number of people who grew up with (at least) one of their parents or guardians telling them they were stupid. I would call this a form of abuse, and never use the s word around them.
For me, this thread is more usefully about stupidity, being thoughtless acts, rather than stupid people.
As to language differences, from the Italian version of wikipedia on Stupidità. (via an online translation):
Stupidity is not to be considered as the opposite of intelligence, since even very intelligent people can and do commit stupid acts in life and this is also or above all because of the concept of limited rationality according to which, during the decision-making process, an individual's rationality is limited by various factors: by the information he possesses, the cognitive limitations of his mind, the finite amount of time he has to make a decision. Psychologist Walter B. Pitkin, author of the essay Introduction to the History of Human Stupidity, believed that the vast majority of people were stupid, probably underestimating the number of stupid acts carried out by those who are not stupid.
The English language page on Stupidity has this (regarding the reference to Pitkin):
In his book A Short Introduction to the History of Stupidity (1932), Walter B. Pitkin warns about the impact of stupid people:
Stupidity can easily be proved the supreme Social Evil. Three factors combine to establish it as such. First and foremost, the number of stupid people is legion. Secondly, most of the power in business, finance, diplomacy and politics is in the hands of more or less stupid individuals. Finally, high abilities are often linked with serious stupidity.
I fancy, too, though I'm open to correction, that the word has slightly different usage depending which side of the Atlantic one stands - that in the US 'stupid' tends to be used of people, in the UK of actions.
In my experience, stupid tends to be used of people and of actions or ideas more or less equally.
In respect to a number of posts here, I'm strongly reminded that in this country, at any rate, there are any number of people who grew up with (at least) one of their parents or guardians telling them they were stupid.
In respect to a number of posts here, I'm strongly reminded that in this country, at any rate, there are any number of people who grew up with (at least) one of their parents or guardians telling them they were stupid. I would call this a form of abuse, and never use the s word around them.
Never remember my parents calling me "stupid." Peers often did around Jr High School.
I remember when I took a class in parent education, the professor told us it usually takes five positive compliments to erase a negative epitaph
I think the epithet is one of the most harmful ones that can be assigned. One of the most shame-triggering.
And for this reason I believe it is the most strongly resisted. I can accept being wrong, being rude, being bad, being malicious or petty, but stupid is really hard to confront.
And I think the smarter and more successful one is, the more blindly resistant one is to one's capacity for stupidity.
It's very difficult to confront one's inner idiot. And for many I would say it's impossible.
So I'm living in Europe since 2020 and I have watched the European economy tank itself as it fell on the sword of "handing the Russians a Strategic Defeat". I don't intend to inflame a discussion here about the moral high ground , unprovoked yada yada yada that's a topic for the other discussion.
AFF
It does illustrate an issue with the definition. You see this is as pointless. But the argument can be made, that despite the objectives harms of this course of action - it is less harmful long term than appeasing an expansionist dictator who is then emboldened to attempt to seize more territory, So the people making the decision would see themselves as benefitting in the long term. It is likely the Europe is also likely to take the risk of opposing Trump for similar reasons.
The matrix can only be applied if you agree on the analysis of benefit and loss. As others have stated it also doesn’t account for altruism and doesn’t linguistically use “stupidity” in a conventional way.
Describing cutting off the nose to spite the face, I would describe as “self-defeating”, but it doesn’t quite capture what you mean as it doesn’t include harm to others.
I tend to think that there's a difference between two things that we've touched on already.
A thinking person can legitimately be said to be "being stupid" in the moment. For example someone was in a rush and ignored all the signs to the contrary and jumped on the wrong train. It wasn't even the right colour or on the right platform.
Stupidity/idiocy as a lifestyle is something else.
As an aside, I've been thinking about the reported phenomena of people not reading, or when they do reading very light and unchallenging books.
Maybe this is part of the explanation of an increase in idiocy? If one is comfortable to allow other people to do one's thinking for you, and it turns out that the person in the place of authority is not actually doing any real thinking either, then stupidity births stupidity. Simply breaking out of the cycle and beginning to read and think for yourself appears to be a step too far for many people.
All of that said, I've also been thinking about the luxury of hard thinking and how one really needs "leisure" time to grapple with them. Maybe the epidemic of stupidity is related to a reduction in that kind of time?
All of that said, I've also been thinking about the luxury of hard thinking and how one really needs "leisure" time to grapple with them. Maybe the epidemic of stupidity is related to a reduction in that kind of time?
I think you are onto something there.
I noticed years ago when I was in a high stress job that it was often difficult to think clearly.
I used to say that stress was making me stupid.
I had so many tasks that I was juggling at once that when I completed one, I immediately deleted it from my short term memory. Someone woud come to me and say "hey is this done?" and I would panic because I couldn't recall whether I had done it or not.
That and the stress would follow me home because I worked in the printing business and presses were running 24/7 and I could be called upon at any hour of the day or night to troubleshoot an issue. I wasn't getting rest and I was constantly having to stack my to do list.
I think about how people make "being busy" a sign of importance, commitment and virtue when really it's a form of stress.
There are certain sorts of stupidity of which only intelligent people are capable. (For example assuming that expertise on one area, often the natural sciences or finance, automatically transfers to other areas.)
"the engineer's disease"
'The engineer's disease" is a strange phrase in this context (to me). As a professional engineer, if not a highly intelligent one, I am acutely aware of my lack of knowledge and expertise in other, and even related fields, and don't assume that being an engineer gives me any right to pretend otherwise. Is awareness of a lack of knowledge wilful ignorance?
I certainly acknowledge "not all engineers". The phrase is an acknowledgement that, either because of a quirk of temperament that attracts some people to engineering or because of something about how engineering deals with problems, some engineers are particularly prone among STEM-qualified people to believing conspiracy theories and other anti-science nonsense (lists of claimed scientists who deny climate change tended to feature a lot of engineers alongside [oil industry] geologists).
It's certainly true that some engineers may feel they have to protect their jobs in the oil and other industries by staying silent when their employers make trump-like claims, but in the time I've worked in engineering, I've rarely encountered anything but respect for science, and sometimes humility in the face of it. There have been one or two religious zealots, and one highly respected civil engineer in the north who was a fervent believer in the Loch Ness monster, but he was a good engineer. You really can't function as an engineer without respect for science. Even now, the work of Galileo and Newton, to mention only the most obvious, is the basis of everything we do. Are there stupid engineers? Are there idiots practising as engineers? I'd be an idiot to say 'no', but stupidity and idiocy make it rather difficult to obtain professional qualifications.
My own life in engineering makes me want to agree with all of this. I've seen a few idiots acquire PhDs in Engineering, mind, and my own efforts were more 'pocket of adequacy' than 'centre of excellence' I'm reasonably sure that Marilynne Robinson says somewhere that wisdom is a synonym for humility; my experience of students and academics bears that out to a good degree, and also of course the implied opposite.
Edit-to-add: I very much enjoyed Rory Stewart's Radio 4 series on Ignorance, still available on BBC Sounds or whatever it is called at the moment. Rowan Williams appears and says a lot of sense; that was particularly nice as I find I am often not bright enough to understand much of what he has written!
I feel like stupid is more loosey goosey word, but implies a lack of capacity. Reminds me that "ineducable" is a dirty work in education, and "stupid" implies the same I think. Either someone is too mentally incompetent to learn, or the effort involved is too expensive for it to be worth the effort.
In a scarcity world, which politics includes, these are real choices. I know folks in West Virginia who complain that the democrats don't invest a lot of resources in getting West Virginians to vote democrat, and my sense is that the larger party looks at their resources, look at West Virginia, and says "that's too expensive for the return on investment." And they are saying, in a sense, that West Virginians are stupid. It's too much work to persuade that many reliably red voters to change their votes. It's a tough field to work, ornery.
Even if they're not tactically mistaken, one may see why even folks of good will over there might not appreciate that attitude very much! And if anyone wants to call me out for geography, I grew up in Western Maryland, just over the river from West Virginia, and I have very strong feelings about the place. I know some folks there whose feelings about politics are...shall we say, complicated.
But I think that's a sense of stupid. "Communicating with this person simply is not worth the effort involved in educating them." Doesn't necessarily mean they can't learn, just that teaching them is going to take a lot of resources that could be put to better use.
And yeah, I don't like that attitude, not one bit. But I do recognize it.
Ignorant just means someone isn't aware of something, and you can break that down in to "willfully ignorant" and "passively ignorant." Passively ignorant can be corrected with education. Willfully ignorant is harder, because then you have to get into why said person has chosen to be ignorant, and that's often a very thorny issue.
Sorry to double post. I enjoyed this post - having been involved in formal education, one does have to prioritise the use of resources just like that, and equality-of-outcome isn't a reasonable goal. (Unless one aims for a very low-and-equal outcome, which can certainly be (and is) monetised in the lower reaches of HE in which I work).
You mentioned family Trump enthusiasts. I have bigged-up Pat Kahnke's Youtube channel on here a number of times, a former-RC-former-evangelical-pastor in just this position who has been making a compelling appeal to Christians who might still be reached, in a thoughtful and biblical way. I thought perhaps this was an opportunity to mention him again.
The matrix can only be applied if you agree on the analysis of benefit and loss. As others have stated it also doesn’t account for altruism and doesn’t linguistically use “stupidity” in a conventional way.
I couldn’t help but think of this thread while listening to the sermon this morning. It’s the day before Martin Luther King, Jr. Day here in the US, and we had a guest preacher who pulled no punches in critiquing the current administration. (Guest preachers can get away with that, though I think it was clear few if any in the congregation disagreed with his critique.)
A fair bit of the sermon considered what the preacher referred to as “altruistic leadership”—leadership that consistently puts the welfare of others before personal benefit. Not surprisingly, MLK’s writings in which he talked about doing what is right and will help the most people and society as a whole, even at personal threat of jail or death. (And I’m sure it takes little imagination to imagine how that was contrasted with the style leadership we see from the White House.)
I’m afraid it really drove home for me what I see as the limitations of Cipolla’s matrix, limitations that make me question whether it really has any usefulness at all.
That's a very good point. Standing up against a bullying, oppressive power looks like stupidity. Particularly if the inevitable result of action is that the power turns their bullying on you personally.
Thank you for bigging-up Pat Kahnke's Youtube channel. I watched the last video. So pleased there is at least one person standing up for the truth.
Question: why hasn't he been silenced, or worse (crucified?) by Trump supporters?
In my circles it's the opposite. My friends often say "I'm so stupid"
I reply "Don't call yourself names, you may possibly have done a stupid thing, but you are by no means stupid!"
I remember one time doing an interview. I had a trainer with me. In the interview I caught myself saying some not so smart things. The trainer did not say a thing until we had left the meeting. Then he turned to me and asked, "What do you think went well?" That question surprised me, I was kicking myself for doing not so well, He was asking for something positive. Caused me to look for the positive rather than the negative.
@mark_in_manchester I think some of the hardest thing about those kinds of places is despair. And it's a timing thing. When people realize in a big way that this man is not going to bring them the good he has promised, that'll be a moment when if we can overcome natural cynicism, maybe there'll be a shot.
But there are some places in the USA where there are multi-generational ground-in reasons not to have much hope, and I think Trump-style corruption thrives in that world.
And sometimes it's "stupid," people just don't have access to knowledge, but sometimes there's other stuff throw into the mix, and that deserves addressing.
I think that's a closer look at what I was getting at. It's not just that people are individually incapable of "learning," that's a bloody patronizing attitude. It's that the effort of getting into that world and communicating effectively can be hard if you're not already there. And the democrats have lost that touch over a generation, I think. It's a shame. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people feel ignored. Voting for Trump, perhaps akin to voting for Reagan a generation ago, is as much about spite as it is about affection for Trump...I think.
Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people feel ignored. Voting for Trump, perhaps akin to voting for Reagan a generation ago, is as much about spite as it is about affection for Trump...I think.
There's some of that about the UK Reform vote ISTM - folks who feel belittled by the Guardian (to use a UK shorthand). There has been and is some patronising shite floating about from the left - as well as the pull of 'a permission to indulge one's inner bastard'* as invited from the far right. It is tragic how easily resentful feelings are turned actively rancid by people like Trump and Farage, in a great big festival of vanity / stupidity.
Having lived in what was the inner-city of the post-industrial North for a long time, I'm familiar with the despair you are talking about. It's been swept away from this geographical location by a tide of development which has helped some and pushed others of those who suffered...to somewhere else.
* That's a quote as far as I remember it from a member of the first postwar German government, given as a comment on the appeal of the Nazis who had interned him through the war. I wish I could find its source; it stuck in my mind.
@mark_in_manchester Yah. People talk in the USA like it's some kind of cultural affectation of particular regions or ethnicities, but I think it's a vibe and...I ain't that traveled but I've read pieces about various places in the world (including some parts of England) and felt it in my bones.
In the USA the common term is "rust belt." Folks, especially men and especially white men, just want a job that gives them a feeling of independence and dignity. Deny them that and they get really cranky and resentful. There's a lot going on, but on some level it's that simple. And the fascists give them the delusion that they can "turn back time" and make the "good ole days" come back before all that damned intersectionality showed up and made the world needlessly complicated and they'll snort it up like cocaine.
I hope they don't get too many of us killed this binge.
Sad thing is these folks are hardly the worst off in society, but they're in a weird sweet spot of marginally suffering while being marginally influential, which makes them very powerful in politics. It's truly frustrating.
I think stupidity can overlap with laziness; Mrs Vole took the trouble to really research the issues around Brexit and so we both voted remain when I had considered voting leave but hadn't bothered to really think it through.
I think stupidity can overlap with laziness; Mrs Vole took the trouble to really research the issues around Brexit and so we both voted remain when I had considered voting leave but hadn't bothered to really think it through.
I don't know about voters in the USA but it seems to me that Brexit was an emotion for many voters in the UK.
For some that was just "laziness", being swept up in what was essentially an impossible dream.
For others I think it was something much darker. The tendency to disbelieve the "official" narrative in favour of an alternative fact-free version, similar to those who disbelieve in the value of vaccinations.
For others I think it was a triumph of wishful thinking, that drawbacks which seemed obvious on paper could be overcome with British grit and gumption.
Mix in the way that many were relaxed about reading (and thinking) about the facts and deliberate manipulative use of social media, and I think you get something that is much deeper than stupidity.
I fancy, too, though I'm open to correction, that the word has slightly different usage depending which side of the Atlantic one stands - that in the US 'stupid' tends to be used of people, in the UK of actions.
In my experience, stupid tends to be used of people and of actions or ideas more or less equally.
In respect to a number of posts here, I'm strongly reminded that in this country, at any rate, there are any number of people who grew up with (at least) one of their parents or guardians telling them they were stupid.
…Given that stupidity here is a translation of his original Italian stupidità, I find myself wondering if contextually something is lost in translation.
He became a professor at the University of California, Berkeley in 1959.
Cipolla produced two non-technical, popular essays that circulated in English among friends in 1973 and 1976, and then were published in 1988, first in Italian …
I believe the text linked to above is from the original essay. In the Italian version, the word for helpless appears to be sprovveduti, which translates as naïve. The Bon Pote site, on the other hand, appears to be a French-language site with an English-language version.
I am quite comfortable with altruism appearing in the intelligence quadrant. The idea that an altruist contributes to society at loss to themselves depends on a rather specific understanding of loss. When I consider their altruististic acts, people I know do not generally behave as though they lose anything of value.
Seems to me that the motivations of a wildly altruistic person and the one about to do something horrendous are very similar. Both have decided that the thing they're doing is socially unacceptable but important/necessary for other reasons.
So the morality is not simply about the action or the motivations or even the results of the action.
We might say that the self-sacrificial person is only negatively impacting themselves, but that's rarely true. Many times the altruistic action has negative impacts on a lot of people before it begins to have positive ones.
Folks, especially men and especially white men, just want a job that gives them a feeling of independence and dignity. Deny them that and they get really cranky and resentful.
...
Sad thing is these folks are hardly the worst off in society
If they can't get jobs then they're pretty darn close to the bottom.
I am not sure you can describe altruism as socially unacceptable.
An example I can think of is the story of the Good Samaritan. The priest and the Levi passed by on the other side basically because society accepted that. Could not touch a bloodied man because 1) it would put them into danger, and 2) to touch blood would be considered unclean (unacceptable). But the Samaritan did not bother with Jewish conventions concerning blood, and he placed himself in danger.
Folks, especially men and especially white men, just want a job that gives them a feeling of independence and dignity. Deny them that and they get really cranky and resentful.
...
Sad thing is these folks are hardly the worst off in society
If they can't get jobs then they're pretty darn close to the bottom.
That's assuming they could not be retrained to new jobs, or did not have another source of income. Many white males define their masculinity by what they do--their occupation, though I am thinking younger generations are less inclined.
Folks, especially men and especially white men, just want a job that gives them a feeling of independence and dignity. Deny them that and they get really cranky and resentful.
...
Sad thing is these folks are hardly the worst off in society
If they can't get jobs then they're pretty darn close to the bottom.
With sympathy, I will observe that the world of people who are in need is a long way down.
And having to join those ranks is something people fight like hell to avoid.
One of the older etymological associations of the word 'stupidity' from the Latin stupere, has to do with being stupefied, knocked senseless or numbed by grief. I've often wondered if that numbed stupor might have to do with finding oneself in a social situation or tragedy that makes no sense and leaves one helpless and incapable of response. Do violent crazy societies make people stupid?
I am not sure you can describe altruism as socially unacceptable.
An example I can think of is the story of the Good Samaritan. The priest and the Levi passed by on the other side basically because society accepted that. Could not touch a bloodied man because 1) it would put them into danger, and 2) to touch blood would be considered unclean (unacceptable). But the Samaritan did not bother with Jewish conventions concerning blood, and he placed himself in danger.
Citing a specific example of altruism being socially unacceptable is not the same thing as describing altruism as socially unacceptable. As long as examples can be cited of altruism that is socially acceptable, then altruism cannot reasonably be described as socially unacceptable. The most that can be said, and unquestionably the more accurate thing to say, is that some acts of altruism will be viewed by some people as socially unacceptable.
Is zero imagination the same as stupidity? I saw a car this morning with about four inches of snow on the roof and a hole in the snow on the windscreen for the driver to peer through. Was the driver's brain unable to process the possible consequences of this?
Is zero imagination the same as stupidity? I saw a car this morning with about four inches of snow on the roof and a hole in the snow on the windscreen for the driver to peer through. Was the driver's brain unable to process the possible consequences of this?
Now, that is stupid. Will definitely get him/her a ticket. That is if the cops/troopers have enough time to give out tickets these days.
One of the older etymological associations of the word 'stupidity' from the Latin stupere, has to do with being stupefied, knocked senseless or numbed by grief. I've often wondered if that numbed stupor might have to do with finding oneself in a social situation or tragedy that makes no sense and leaves one helpless and incapable of response. Do violent crazy societies make people stupid?
That does fit my experience.
@Stercus Tauri : If I had to guess, driver was in desperate hury and rationalized that they weren't driving very far and figured they'd make it and deal with the mess later. People who drink and drive may follow similar patterns. "I have to get somewhere..." To hell with the details. And people get very casual about driving. It's one of those things we don't think about it even though it's actually very dangerous.
And I have also known some folks IRL who - while otherwise intelligent - are absolutely terrible and thinking in terms of physical objects. I can easily see the kind of person who'd make that error and would be flabbergasted and deeply ashamed if you told them what they were doing in your eyes.
@Stercus Tauri : If I had to guess, driver was in desperate hury and rationalized that they weren't driving very far and figured they'd make it and deal with the mess later. People who drink and drive may follow similar patterns. "I have to get somewhere..."
And they're not exactly wrong.
If you drive a relatively short distance whilst only mildly impaired, on roads you are familiar with and with little traffic, the risks are small.
NHTSA says that crash risks are increased by a factor of 4 at a BAC of 0.08%, and by a factor of 15 or more at 0.15%. We all agree that risk-taking behavior is increased with even a modest amount of alcohol in the system. (For reference, driving with a 0.08% BAC and driving whilst tired present a similar increase in risk.)
But a factor of 4 or 15 increased risk on a very small risk is still a very small risk, and the drunk driver who rationalizes that they're not going far, that the roads are quiet, and that they'll be OK - is probably right. If the probability of crashing is increased by a factor of 4 when mildly impaired, then driving 10 miles in that state poses the same risk as driving 40 miles awake and sober.
You still shouldn't do it, of course. But the rationalization isn't exactly wrong.
I think there's potentially a similar calculus at play with the guy driving a snowball. How risky is is depends on the details of the roads you're driving on. Are you going somewhere where there are (or might be) pedestrians, in which case your limited visibility is a big problem? Are you going somewhere with busy, chaotic traffic patterns? Ditto.
But there are other roads where a lack of peripheral vision matters much less.
Also this seems a little beside the point. If you have an accident because you have bald tyres, your car is poorly maintained and you are momentarily distracted by something at the edge of your vision, it is unlikely that the judge is going to ignore those factors if you have an accident.
It's more likely they'd punish you more because you failed to do more things than simply got distracted.
In ice and snow? That seems unlikely. One is already impaired by the weather, further restricting your ability can only make it worse
Well, yes, of course, but the question is "by how much?"
And yes, if you do crash your car, or you are pulled over by the police for DUI, then they're not going to take "but I wasn't going very far" as an excuse.
Comments
I’ll confess that in a similar way, the quadrant seems simplistic and superficial to me. I think life and people are more complicated and nuanced.
I certainly think that the model oversimplifies a lot of things, such as, on any given day I could fall into any or all of the categories but I wouldn't say that I answer to any one of them, or all of them, as a conclusive descriptor of myself.
I think the matrix is meant to apply in certain realms of practical decision making. Like assembling macro data sets in order to predict behaviors.
AFF
I think that slavery still exists and is a big problem. There are a LOT of those people still among us and in the wider world.
I would put them in the "abused" category.
I think that children growing up in dysfunctional families and who are assigned certain roles by the family dynamic might also qualify. They play their part for survival, not for any additional benefit.
AFF
But survival is a benefit to them, at least presumably, so that would seem to put the people you describe in the “intelligent” category. (Again, I think intelligent here is problematic.)
Meanwhile, the person who jumps in front of someone else to take a bullet for them would appear to fall in the “abused” category. The category doesn’t appear to distinguish between those whose choice to act in a way that creates a win for others but a loss for themselves is made under duress or force, out of a desire for survival (which arguably means that it’s a win for them), or out of love and care for others.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Substitute Stupidity for Insanity. Seems to work for me.
LOL I see what you did there.
It's true the model doesn't account for altruism or martyrdom.
AFF
It's a very efficient definition, I agree.
AFF
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Then there is George Bush's version
“There’s an old saying in Tennessee—I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on… shame on you. Fool me… you can’t get fooled again."
What I have observed is 18 or so rounds of economic sanctions against Russia, encompassing 19 thousand different individuals, industries and businesses. And what I've seen is a deterioration of the European standard of living even to the level of my own personal standard of living and no measurable effect on the battleground.
I feel like this conforms to both Gramps' definition and Cipolla's definition.
And as it applies to myself, I can't see how these outcomes differ from malice if they had been deliberately inflicted upon me by someone wishing to enrich themselves at my expense.
So regardless of the utility or inutility of the rest of the matrix, I'm inclined to agree with Atwood at least on this matter.
AFF
I fancy, too, though I'm open to correction, that the word has slightly different usage depending which side of the Atlantic one stands - that in the US 'stupid' tends to be used of people, in the UK of actions. I myself would use 'stupid' usually to describe an action by someone (usually myself) who really should know better!
In terms of historical outcomes, the 'cock-up' theory of history would see many or even most undesired outcomes as due to stupidity, rather than conspiracy or deliberate decision. From his own point of view, David Cameron's promise to hold an election on withdrawing from the EU if he won the election, for example, was a stupid one - he did not think ahead to what might happen if he had to honour that promise - and the decision to allow the vote to swing on a simple majority (whereas such changes from the status quo customarily require a majority of, say, 20%) was an even bigger one. He ended up with an outcome he did not want.
The outcome of Hitler invading the territory of an ally (Russia) - was that Germany lost the war; but the decision to invade was not in itself stupid but consistent with a political view in which such a thing is not inherently wrong.
I do believe that stupid decisions (actions or words) are inseparable from the human condition. I have made many, some very stupid. But as Paul might have said, 'Christ Jesus came to save stupid people - of whom I am the chief'.
* benefits to themselves / benefits to others - intelligent people
* benefits to themselves / losses to others - bandits
* losses to themselves / losses to others - stupid people
* losses to themselves / benefits to others - helpless people
* centre of both axes - ineffectual people
And this corresponds with what appears to be a copy of the text of Cipolla's essay here. “The Third Basic Law assumes, although it does not state it explicitly, that human beings fall into four basic categories: the helpless, the intelligent, the bandit and the stupid.”
There's also a Guardian article. None of them use the word "abused".
Good point.
In respect to a number of posts here, I'm strongly reminded that in this country, at any rate, there are any number of people who grew up with (at least) one of their parents or guardians telling them they were stupid. I would call this a form of abuse, and never use the s word around them.
For me, this thread is more usefully about stupidity, being thoughtless acts, rather than stupid people.
As to language differences, from the Italian version of wikipedia on Stupidità. (via an online translation):
The English language page on Stupidity has this (regarding the reference to Pitkin):
What country is “this country”?
Never remember my parents calling me "stupid." Peers often did around Jr High School.
I remember when I took a class in parent education, the professor told us it usually takes five positive compliments to erase a negative epitaph
And for this reason I believe it is the most strongly resisted. I can accept being wrong, being rude, being bad, being malicious or petty, but stupid is really hard to confront.
And I think the smarter and more successful one is, the more blindly resistant one is to one's capacity for stupidity.
It's very difficult to confront one's inner idiot. And for many I would say it's impossible.
AFF
It does illustrate an issue with the definition. You see this is as pointless. But the argument can be made, that despite the objectives harms of this course of action - it is less harmful long term than appeasing an expansionist dictator who is then emboldened to attempt to seize more territory, So the people making the decision would see themselves as benefitting in the long term. It is likely the Europe is also likely to take the risk of opposing Trump for similar reasons.
The matrix can only be applied if you agree on the analysis of benefit and loss. As others have stated it also doesn’t account for altruism and doesn’t linguistically use “stupidity” in a conventional way.
Describing cutting off the nose to spite the face, I would describe as “self-defeating”, but it doesn’t quite capture what you mean as it doesn’t include harm to others.
I reply "Don't call yourself names, you may possibly have done a stupid thing, but you are by no means stupid!"
A thinking person can legitimately be said to be "being stupid" in the moment. For example someone was in a rush and ignored all the signs to the contrary and jumped on the wrong train. It wasn't even the right colour or on the right platform.
Stupidity/idiocy as a lifestyle is something else.
As an aside, I've been thinking about the reported phenomena of people not reading, or when they do reading very light and unchallenging books.
Maybe this is part of the explanation of an increase in idiocy? If one is comfortable to allow other people to do one's thinking for you, and it turns out that the person in the place of authority is not actually doing any real thinking either, then stupidity births stupidity. Simply breaking out of the cycle and beginning to read and think for yourself appears to be a step too far for many people.
All of that said, I've also been thinking about the luxury of hard thinking and how one really needs "leisure" time to grapple with them. Maybe the epidemic of stupidity is related to a reduction in that kind of time?
I think you are onto something there.
I noticed years ago when I was in a high stress job that it was often difficult to think clearly.
I used to say that stress was making me stupid.
I had so many tasks that I was juggling at once that when I completed one, I immediately deleted it from my short term memory. Someone woud come to me and say "hey is this done?" and I would panic because I couldn't recall whether I had done it or not.
That and the stress would follow me home because I worked in the printing business and presses were running 24/7 and I could be called upon at any hour of the day or night to troubleshoot an issue. I wasn't getting rest and I was constantly having to stack my to do list.
I think about how people make "being busy" a sign of importance, commitment and virtue when really it's a form of stress.
AFF
My own life in engineering makes me want to agree with all of this. I've seen a few idiots acquire PhDs in Engineering, mind, and my own efforts were more 'pocket of adequacy' than 'centre of excellence'
Edit-to-add: I very much enjoyed Rory Stewart's Radio 4 series on Ignorance, still available on BBC Sounds or whatever it is called at the moment. Rowan Williams appears and says a lot of sense; that was particularly nice as I find I am often not bright enough to understand much of what he has written!
Sorry to double post. I enjoyed this post - having been involved in formal education, one does have to prioritise the use of resources just like that, and equality-of-outcome isn't a reasonable goal. (Unless one aims for a very low-and-equal outcome, which can certainly be (and is) monetised in the lower reaches of HE in which I work).
You mentioned family Trump enthusiasts. I have bigged-up Pat Kahnke's Youtube channel on here a number of times, a former-RC-former-evangelical-pastor in just this position who has been making a compelling appeal to Christians who might still be reached, in a thoughtful and biblical way. I thought perhaps this was an opportunity to mention him again.
A fair bit of the sermon considered what the preacher referred to as “altruistic leadership”—leadership that consistently puts the welfare of others before personal benefit. Not surprisingly, MLK’s writings in which he talked about doing what is right and will help the most people and society as a whole, even at personal threat of jail or death. (And I’m sure it takes little imagination to imagine how that was contrasted with the style leadership we see from the White House.)
I’m afraid it really drove home for me what I see as the limitations of Cipolla’s matrix, limitations that make me question whether it really has any usefulness at all.
Question: why hasn't he been silenced, or worse (crucified?) by Trump supporters?
To my prayers.
I remember one time doing an interview. I had a trainer with me. In the interview I caught myself saying some not so smart things. The trainer did not say a thing until we had left the meeting. Then he turned to me and asked, "What do you think went well?" That question surprised me, I was kicking myself for doing not so well, He was asking for something positive. Caused me to look for the positive rather than the negative.
But there are some places in the USA where there are multi-generational ground-in reasons not to have much hope, and I think Trump-style corruption thrives in that world.
And sometimes it's "stupid," people just don't have access to knowledge, but sometimes there's other stuff throw into the mix, and that deserves addressing.
I think that's a closer look at what I was getting at. It's not just that people are individually incapable of "learning," that's a bloody patronizing attitude. It's that the effort of getting into that world and communicating effectively can be hard if you're not already there. And the democrats have lost that touch over a generation, I think. It's a shame. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people feel ignored. Voting for Trump, perhaps akin to voting for Reagan a generation ago, is as much about spite as it is about affection for Trump...I think.
There's some of that about the UK Reform vote ISTM - folks who feel belittled by the Guardian (to use a UK shorthand). There has been and is some patronising shite floating about from the left - as well as the pull of 'a permission to indulge one's inner bastard'* as invited from the far right. It is tragic how easily resentful feelings are turned actively rancid by people like Trump and Farage, in a great big festival of vanity / stupidity.
Having lived in what was the inner-city of the post-industrial North for a long time, I'm familiar with the despair you are talking about. It's been swept away from this geographical location by a tide of development which has helped some and pushed others of those who suffered...to somewhere else.
* That's a quote as far as I remember it from a member of the first postwar German government, given as a comment on the appeal of the Nazis who had interned him through the war. I wish I could find its source; it stuck in my mind.
In the USA the common term is "rust belt." Folks, especially men and especially white men, just want a job that gives them a feeling of independence and dignity. Deny them that and they get really cranky and resentful. There's a lot going on, but on some level it's that simple. And the fascists give them the delusion that they can "turn back time" and make the "good ole days" come back before all that damned intersectionality showed up and made the world needlessly complicated and they'll snort it up like cocaine.
I hope they don't get too many of us killed this binge.
Sad thing is these folks are hardly the worst off in society, but they're in a weird sweet spot of marginally suffering while being marginally influential, which makes them very powerful in politics. It's truly frustrating.
I don't know about voters in the USA but it seems to me that Brexit was an emotion for many voters in the UK.
For some that was just "laziness", being swept up in what was essentially an impossible dream.
For others I think it was something much darker. The tendency to disbelieve the "official" narrative in favour of an alternative fact-free version, similar to those who disbelieve in the value of vaccinations.
For others I think it was a triumph of wishful thinking, that drawbacks which seemed obvious on paper could be overcome with British grit and gumption.
Mix in the way that many were relaxed about reading (and thinking) about the facts and deliberate manipulative use of social media, and I think you get something that is much deeper than stupidity.
Thanks.
Whoops. England (UK).
He became a professor at the University of California, Berkeley in 1959. I believe the text linked to above is from the original essay. In the Italian version, the word for helpless appears to be sprovveduti, which translates as naïve. The Bon Pote site, on the other hand, appears to be a French-language site with an English-language version.
I am quite comfortable with altruism appearing in the intelligence quadrant. The idea that an altruist contributes to society at loss to themselves depends on a rather specific understanding of loss. When I consider their altruististic acts, people I know do not generally behave as though they lose anything of value.
So the morality is not simply about the action or the motivations or even the results of the action.
We might say that the self-sacrificial person is only negatively impacting themselves, but that's rarely true. Many times the altruistic action has negative impacts on a lot of people before it begins to have positive ones.
If they can't get jobs then they're pretty darn close to the bottom.
An example I can think of is the story of the Good Samaritan. The priest and the Levi passed by on the other side basically because society accepted that. Could not touch a bloodied man because 1) it would put them into danger, and 2) to touch blood would be considered unclean (unacceptable). But the Samaritan did not bother with Jewish conventions concerning blood, and he placed himself in danger.
That's assuming they could not be retrained to new jobs, or did not have another source of income. Many white males define their masculinity by what they do--their occupation, though I am thinking younger generations are less inclined.
With sympathy, I will observe that the world of people who are in need is a long way down.
And having to join those ranks is something people fight like hell to avoid.
Now, that is stupid. Will definitely get him/her a ticket. That is if the cops/troopers have enough time to give out tickets these days.
That does fit my experience.
@Stercus Tauri : If I had to guess, driver was in desperate hury and rationalized that they weren't driving very far and figured they'd make it and deal with the mess later. People who drink and drive may follow similar patterns. "I have to get somewhere..." To hell with the details. And people get very casual about driving. It's one of those things we don't think about it even though it's actually very dangerous.
And I have also known some folks IRL who - while otherwise intelligent - are absolutely terrible and thinking in terms of physical objects. I can easily see the kind of person who'd make that error and would be flabbergasted and deeply ashamed if you told them what they were doing in your eyes.
And they're not exactly wrong.
If you drive a relatively short distance whilst only mildly impaired, on roads you are familiar with and with little traffic, the risks are small.
NHTSA says that crash risks are increased by a factor of 4 at a BAC of 0.08%, and by a factor of 15 or more at 0.15%. We all agree that risk-taking behavior is increased with even a modest amount of alcohol in the system. (For reference, driving with a 0.08% BAC and driving whilst tired present a similar increase in risk.)
But a factor of 4 or 15 increased risk on a very small risk is still a very small risk, and the drunk driver who rationalizes that they're not going far, that the roads are quiet, and that they'll be OK - is probably right. If the probability of crashing is increased by a factor of 4 when mildly impaired, then driving 10 miles in that state poses the same risk as driving 40 miles awake and sober.
You still shouldn't do it, of course. But the rationalization isn't exactly wrong.
I think there's potentially a similar calculus at play with the guy driving a snowball. How risky is is depends on the details of the roads you're driving on. Are you going somewhere where there are (or might be) pedestrians, in which case your limited visibility is a big problem? Are you going somewhere with busy, chaotic traffic patterns? Ditto.
But there are other roads where a lack of peripheral vision matters much less.
It's more likely they'd punish you more because you failed to do more things than simply got distracted.
Well, yes, of course, but the question is "by how much?"
And yes, if you do crash your car, or you are pulled over by the police for DUI, then they're not going to take "but I wasn't going very far" as an excuse.