Hacker News Reader

The article defines stupidity in a very precise way: for the purposes of this essay, it's someone who causes harm to other people without any benefit or causing harm to themselves. It has nothing to do with cognitive ability, knowledge, or education -- it's a behavioral pattern.

Maybe "stupid" as a label is not great because it already has an established meaning different than the one being used here, but I find the basic observations contained in the essay to be useful.

The definition is not precise at all, because "harm" and "benefit" cannot be precisely defined and can in fact be very subjective.

Turtles all the way down? I don't think you need precise definitions of "harm" and "benefit" to understand the point. The subjectiveness of these terms don't not undermine the definition.

I really think it does. Case in point: what about emotional benefits? A whole lot of things humans do has no material benefits yet come at considerable cost: vacations, concerts, hobbies.

Are those "stupid"? Presumably not. But if you allow for such non-material benfit, then what if your "stupid" people who are causing harm to others are actually deriving emotional benefits from it?

What it "stickin' it to the libs" makes them happy or feels to them like bringing a little bit of justice to the world?

How about someone who quits his job (losing money) at just the right time to cause his shitty boss huge problems (and a lot more money loss)?

Is that different? Do you really want to judge which emotional benefits are valid and which are not (and thus "stupid")? And call that a "precise definition"?

> What it "stickin' it to the libs" makes them happy or feels to them like bringing a little bit of justice to the world?

If that's entirely all of it then it's clearly a benefit. But conversely if "stickin' it to the libs" makes them lose their family, their job, or something else then the harm might outweigh the benefit and that would be stupid.

Seems straight forward to me.

> someone who causes harm to other people without any benefit or causing harm to themselves. Everyone is guilty of doing this from time to time. Collectively we are doing plenty of harm to the environment and we lack the will or the wherewithal to stop. It is a pretty universal behavioral pattern.

That's an interesting point. This was written before climate change was a major concern, and maybe in the mean time it's become harder to engage in "intelligent behavior" (i.e. actions which benefit ourselves and others).

I would say, though, that in almost all cases, emitting CO2 is more like bandit behavior than stupid behavior. If I drive 100 miles in my car, I probably benefit from that a lot more than the harm I cause directly to myself by emitting that CO2, which is almost certainly negligible.

You could make the case that it's B2 Bandit behavior (harm caused to everyone collectively is greater than the benefit to myself), but that would depend on why I made the car trip and how much benefit I got.

One could make the case that with climate change, human civilization as a whole is suffering because individually we're mostly engaging in B2 behavior. You might say that humanity is acting stupidly, but that would require us to define who the "other" is: non-human life? People who haven't been born yet? Space aliens?

Tragedy of the commons [0] is a tragedy precisely because it is not stupid for each individual player to take more than sustainable from the common environment.

It is only in aggregate, and possibly after the player's lifetime, when the negative consequences arrive.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

> The article defines stupidity in a very precise way

No, it doesn't. The part that you mention is "law" 3 of 5. I stopped reading mid-way into the first "law" up to which the article already used the term "stupidity" multiple times as if it's obvious what that is and was so unbelievably presumptuous regarding people that are somehow less worth than the author that it became unbearable.

You have to admit, that's kind of funny you based your criticism off an incomplete reading of the source material. I think complaining about clarity is something that should probably happen after one has contemplated the whole of the thing.

I disagree. When reading material that's so utterly flawed, full with oversimplifying stereotypes and arrogance, then it's entirely possible to have formed an opinion before finishing the piece. Nothing could have come after the first "law" that would have made the part up to that point better or more defensible.

>> When reading material that's so utterly flawed, full with oversimplifying stereotypes and arrogance, then it's entirely possible to have formed an opinion before finishing the piece.

The irony here is that this itself is a very arrogant opinion.

Not sure which part. You quoted an implication. Do you find my description in the antecedent arrogant (i.e. my characterization of the beginning of the article), or the implication itself?

If the former, I spent quite some time to argue in favor of my opinion in my original comment. You are welcome to argue the opposite. Just calling it "irony" is not much of an argument though.

If the latter, then I'd like to understand why. Do you argue that no matter how nonsensical some text, you need to read it fully before expressing any thought about it? Or do you mean something else?

I don't understand why you think so. Having a strong opinion about something is arrogant?

If he/she said something like "This is my opinion and if you think different, you're stupid." then that would be arrogant. I don't see an inkling of that here.

2nd law: stupidity is independent

3rd law: stupidity causes harm (definition)

There is a contradiction here. By this definition, if you select for attainment of any kind that would be sabotaged by the harm, you had better start seeing less stupidity. If you don't, it's a hint that your model of stupidity is wrong. Indeed, his model is wrong, but instead of taking the hint the author simply chalks the pile of contradictory evidence up to chance and sticks with his bad model: "Nature seems indeed to have outdone herself." No, dude -- the problem is not with nature, it's with your model.

> By this definition, if you select for attainment of any kind that would be sabotaged by the harm, you had better start seeing less stupidity.

That's kind of the point: you might expect that, and maybe it's true to some extent, but if you think there's some group of people somewhere that has some reliable method of excluding people who act in irrational and self-destructive ways, you're probably going to react the wrong way if you encounter such a person. The usual response is to assume some sort of nefarious plan. Maybe that person is executing a clever strategy to gain some sort of advantage? In actuality that person might not have any plan at all, they're just engaging in ordinary self-destruction and bringing everyone else along for the ride. Not recognizing that is a cognitive blind spot that people who don't do those sorts of things tend to have have.

Cipola does mention that while he considers the proportion of stupid people in circulation to be constant, a properly-functioning society will tend to give less agency to those people than a well-functioning one.

> It would be a profound mistake to believe the number of stupid people in a declining society is greater than in a developing society. Both such societies are plagued by the same percentage of stupid people. The difference between the two societies is that in the society which performs poorly: > > a) the stupid members of the society are allowed by the other members to become more active and take more actions; b) there is a change in the composition of the non-stupid section with a relative decline of populations of areas I, H1 and B1 and a proportionate increase of populations H2 and B2.

> That's kind of the point

No, you've mistaken excuses for profundity.

> if you think there's some group of people somewhere that has some reliable method of excluding people who act in irrational and self-destructive ways

Yes, successful people, for many any definition of succesful that you respect. If one is successful, one clearly wasn't meaningfully self-destructive. If one is self-destructive, one expects to be systematically less successful. On average, in expectation, and with time lag. This isn't an observational trend, it's a definitional link.

Let's be concrete: if a professor makes a great discovery and then Cipola writes them off as stupid because he sees them struggling to tie their shoes, Cipola's model of stupidity is invalidated by the reality of the professor's useful contribution to society.

I've seen this happen.

> The usual response is to assume some sort of nefarious plan.

Cibola blamed the failure of his model on chance. He could also have chosen to blame it on conspiracy. He would still be wrong -- it's just a poor model.

> Not recognizing [self-destruction] is a cognitive blind spot that people who don't do those sorts of things tend to have have.

Sure, but this guy has enshrined Fundamental Attribution Error into a philosophy. It's not a blind spot, it's a blindfold.

>The article defines stupidity in a very precise way: for the purposes of this essay, it's someone who causes harm to other people without any benefit or causing harm to themselves.

It's only precise in the abstract. When it comes to concrete information, it's a BS non-definition. In real life scenarios of any real importance (that is, non trivial examples of Dumb and Dumber style behavior), it quickly gets difficult to define if harm was caused, who caused it, whether they've benefited from it (especially as benefits are not just monetary or advancing one's position on some job or some such), and so on...

> it's a BS non-definition.

I disagree. It's very quantifiable and utilitarian. It doesn't descend into moral judgment or elitism or simple dislike for a person's starting assumptions. Stupidity is just judged by its results.

Unfortunately a great many people simply immediately and without thinking follow their feelings, never questioning the results before acting. And I'm not talking during a terror attack, or other high-tension situations where it might be understandable. Always, or very nearly always.

So the "advantage" people are after is often an immediate and tiny satisfaction of their feelings, a perceived slight increase in their social status. Most examples in the article, such as not stepping aside when something is in your way.

And, frankly, being "ready for that" to some extent is a great piece of advice. Unfortunately.

If we assume something like Einstein's popular idea of a "frame of reference"... well, then I think this entire article can be valid. Emphasis on the word can.

If I assume my frame of reference to be one where attitudes toward meat-eating is desired, then I am going to assume people who are vegan are stupid. Vegans will detract from my meat-eating ways, and the meat-eating ways of my friends and tribe.

If we can apply a frame of reference, then these laws of stupidity can be (comically) useful in the sense that "stupid" people will detract from your quality of life. "Stupid" people, per this article, seem to misalign with the views and desires of the "superior" (per your comment) person and thus cause friction in the life of the "superior".

In a weird way, I see this article as a funny way to remind us to be cautious with our time & energy. To be conscious about who we spend our time with, who to expose our ideas to, and who to ask for help. It might be an extremely satirical reference guide to make sure you catch yourself before you go too deep into relying on the wrong person for your job or favor, for example.

I wouldn't take it too seriously, because, well, that might be stupid.

I feel like we must have read two entirely different articles.

The author has a very precise definition of stupidity. He very explicitly states that level of knowledge/education is completely orthogonal to being stupid. (As prevalent among Nobel laureates as it is among blue collar workers.) Stupidity, in his definition, appears to be an attitude more than anything else.

The third 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."

Are you a stupid person if you do this once? Twice? Frequently? (Does anyone do it frequently?) Are any of us not stupid? And what does this have to do with the normal meaning of "stupid"?

I like this way of seeing it. All of us, at some point in our lives, have acted Helpless, Intelligent, Stupid, and as Bandits. Life and growth is learning from the past and improving where the balance of your behaviour lands in each respective quadrant.

I completely agree with you when reading this at face value as a contemporary, serious essay.

But it’s not quite that. It’s a long form semi-comic screed from a time when it wasn’t especially controversial to put plain words to one’s frustrations.

I don’t share these particular frustrations. I don’t resonate with what’s being said. I think it comes from a pretty alienated experience where you’re convinced that there’s a lot of bad in the world and that it can be attributed to a few conceptual scapegoats that are simple and identifiable and that things would be so much better if not for this one (or two or ten) darn things.

But a lot of people do feel that way, and I’m not ready to hold my different experience over theirs. It would probably be stupid of me to do so.

Well said, thank you.

His observations resonate with me but his model sucks. In particular, his 3rd law / definition

> 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.

contradicts his 2nd law

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

because if you select for accomplishment (or serial accomplishment) the definition implies that you had better start seeing fewer stupid people, but his 2nd law says you shouldn't. This isn't a nit, it strikes at the very core of why his model doesn't fit reality.

Here's a model that better fits reality: our assumptions about what "everybody knows" tend to be bad, both in an absolute sense and when conditioned on some particular level of education / accomplishment. Knowledge silos run deep, their shapes are strange, and people are really good at accommodating gaps in their knowledge. Clever people even moreso. So it's easy to underestimate the gaps, watch otherwise respectable people stumble over them, and think "how in the hell did that happen?"

If you attribute these gaps to an innate quality like stupidity, you will be unable to help people fill the gaps. Not because the people cannot be taught, but because your misunderstanding precludes you from being a good teacher. This makes his model damaging in addition to being incorrect and uncharitable.

Those may sound like harsh words, but they are not nearly as harsh as the mistake that eventually shook me out of a similar set of beliefs. Someone went from "stupidest person I know" to "smartest person I know," and that was a big hint that my model was wrong. We are a decade distant from that event, I've had the chance to run a lot of evidence past these two models, and "weird knowledge gaps" so thoroughly whips "innate stupidity" that I am slightly embarrassed I ever considered it true. Live and learn.

> "b) day after day, with unceasing monotony, one is harassed in one's activities by stupid individuals who appear suddenly and unexpectedly in the most inconvenient places and at the most improbable moments."

After reading this profoundly ungenerous article, I am inclined to be ungenerous here and assume that the "activities" the author refers to would be, by most of us, considered anti-social. "I'm just playing my music, why is everyone on my case? I'm a better driver when driving fast..."

From TFA the definition of a stupid person 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."

I would refer you to the first basic law, dear sir or madam.