Stupidity

I like sushi

I read about a definition of stupidity in an article recently that I found to be intriguing.

It was based on a very simple system where Stupid people were those who made their own situation worse and the situation of others worse. Whereas those that made their own situation better and ithers worse were called Bandits, those that made their own situation better and the situation of others better too were Intelligent and finally those that ~~better~~ made their own situation worse and others better were … I forget … I think they were called Helpless.

Although this is an extremely simplified view the point was to show that Stupid people should be avoided as they were unpredictable, whereas the Bandits, although selfish, were at least predictable and so easier to manage.

More telling of this view was that Stupid people were everywhere in society and they are equally spread across all groups (be this in terms of wealth, education or profession).

Given that it makes sense to have less stupid people and more intelligent people, and that ‘education’ in its current state doesn’t sift out the Stupid what can be done to reduce the number of Stupid people in terms of pedagogy if anything?

Obviously this idea is limited as I’m sure many of you will get caught up in asking what is deemed as ‘better’ to which I can only refer to game theory in terms of what is most beneficial. Of course we’d have to consider short term and long term factors too. Overall I do find that view of `Stupidity’ and ‘Intelligence’ is useful as it ignores any idea of morality, intelligence (g-factor) and status/power/influence, as at every level Stupidity prevails in equal amounts.

Another problem we have is distinguishing between raw Stupidity and luck.

In terms of pedagogy I don’t really see how there is much we can do about the number of Stupid people there are in the world. But in terms of cultural attitudes I do think there is something we can do to shift power/status/influence of Stupid people where it is clear Stupidity is ruling. In such a case recognising and logging outcomes that are both detrimental to everyone short term and long term would result in such citizens being stripped of any reasonable influence. I don’t mean ‘imprisoned’ or ‘blamed’ just remove their assets (gained through luck maybe?) and isolate them more from impacting negatively upon others. I am talking about this at the highest degrees of status/power/influence rather than across the entire social strata simply because those that are stupid and in possession of greater status/power/influence can cause untold damage to themselves and many others whilst remaining oblivious to the fact.

Maybe we should all assume we are Stupid?

180 Proof

"Philosophy does not serve the State or the Church, who have other concerns. It serves no established power. The use of philosophy is to sadden. A philosophy that saddens no one, that annoys no one, is not a philosophy. It is useful for harming stupidity, for turning stupidity into something shameful." ~G. Deleuze

"One pays heavily for coming to power: power makes stupid." ~F. Nietzsche

... dangerously stupid. — 180 Proof

We are watching human stupidity at its height as we fatally deepen this self-inflicted wound on a global scale. — 180 Proof

Smart & stupid, it seems, are complementary rather than mutually exclusive capabilities: the latter being the maladaptive mis/ab-use of the former (which consists in the adequate match-up of means with ends and/or expectations with circumstances). — 180 Proof

By stupidity I understand ... inadvertant harm to oneself and/or others, especially for no appreciable gain (e.g. playing lose-lose games), from making judgments on the basis of not knowing that (and what) one does not know (i.e. maladaptive conduct.) — 180 Proof

Stupid shits! – either TR45H won in 2020 and therefore can't be elected in 2024 or he can be elected in 2024 because he did not win re-election in 2020. Unvaccinated trumptard mouth-breathers are simply immune to both logic and evidence. :shade: — 180 Proof

SQ (stupidity quotient) tests taken at the end of primary school, again at the end of secondary school and then lastly at the end of professional school (e.g. law, medicine, finance, a research science) would be, IMO, far more useful to society as a criterion for disqualifying idiots from being allowed to squat in high places ... — 180 Proof

And in so far as 'wisdom' denotes mastery over folly & stupidity (i.e. misuses & abuses, respectively, of intelligence, knowledge, judgment, etc), I translate philosophy as the love of 'opposing folly & stupidity'. — 180 Proof

Against stupidity, philosophers (i.e. sisyphusian 'meta-cognitive hygienists' and/or 'dialectical rodeo-clowns') struggle in vain. — 180 Proof

... a perpetual war of Intellect against Credulity & Stupidity. — 180 Proof

Re: Vote Rich but Live Poor – We the Sheeple — 180 Proof

Maybe it's possible to save ourselves from idiots-breeding-idiots just by removing "Warning!" "Hazardous!" & "For External Use Only!" labels and safety features/locks from every man-made thing and let Nature run her relentlessly darwinian course... — 180 Proof

:mask:

[M]aybe this quixotic 'fixation' expresses - exposes - nothing more than my own peculiar [stupidity] ... — 180 Proof

(Excerpts from TPF for an "Introduction" to a working draft of A Critique of Pure Stupidity by 180 Proof)

I like sushi

↪180 Proof

I think some instances of Banditry in your quotes there. They serve you and your ego but pile on the hate towards some others?

I’m happy to be Bandit if this is viewed as an ego boosting comment, but it is made with the intent of ‘helping’ you as you appear more Intelligent than a Bandit by my estimation. Maybe I’m less of a Bandit and more of a Helpless type?

If either of us are Stupid then our current circumstances should tell us (unless we’re simply lucky/oblivious)? Tough thing navigating this mess of human aptitude eh? :D

I like sushi

I do sometimes think that the biggest dangers are what makes humanity reveal itself more fully. In this case Stupidity would have its bonuses in helping the Intelligent take notice and action.

180 Proof

If stupidity consists in mostly oblivious, maladaptive, even harmful, uses of intelligence, then every "intelligent person" is also (habitually) self-afflicted with stupidity to varying degrees at different times in his / her life. My point is that 'intelligence & stupidity' are not mutually exclusive but complementary cognitive defects, the latter a mode of akrasia (wantonness ~ "lose-lose") and the former a mode of enkrateia (self-discipline ~ "win-win").

I like sushi

↪180 Proof

The definition given bases Stupidity on the overall outcomes. I don't think there is any suggestion that some people are Stupid only and other Intelligent only. The point is that there are clearly people who will act against their own best interests and against the interests of others (intentionally or not) and that these individuals are dangerous because it is impossible to predict what they are trying to achieve if the outcome literally benefits no one.

Varying degrees doesn't dismiss the underlying point being made by this idea of Stupidity. A Stupid use of Intelligence is contradictory too so as defined (see OP) you cannot simultaneously be Stupid and Intelligent in the same moment. You can certainly appear as Stupid one day and Intelligent the next (at different points), but again, that is missing out the point made in how Intelligence and Stupidity are distinguished.

Note: Stupid and Intelligent, not merely stupid and intelligent. I capitalised to make a distinction so Intelligent and Stupid are mutually exclusive in the context given.

unenlightened

every "intelligent person" is also (habitually) self-afflicted with stupidity to varying degrees at different times in his / her life. — 180 Proof

Indeed. :up: Actions are intelligent or stupid rather than actors.
Self concern is by definition short-sighted, because in the long run, we are all dead. However, "think global, act local." is the natural result of having good long distance vision and short arms.

One can avoid stupidity by inaction - but that would be stupid, wouldn't it?.

I like sushi

Actions are intelligent or stupid rather than actors. — unenlightened

That is kind of the point. Following from this people are more or less inclined towards Stupidity than others (make more Stupid actions).

People who behave in a Stupid way are unpredictable and therefore dangerous. We need to avoid them or they'll drag us down. How do we do this? How do we guard against them falling into positions of influence/power/status?

unenlightened

People who behave in a Stupid way are unpredictable and therefore dangerous. — I like sushi

But the only way to avoid them is to kill oneself, because one behaves stupidly oneself. IOW, It is stupid to try and avoid stupidity.
Take care of stupid therefore, and educate stupid, and understand stupid and be compassionate towards stupid. That is intelligence in action.

180 Proof

↪unenlightened

:up:

↪I like sushi

Okay. I guess I wasn't addressing the OP with my other posts so much as interjecting a different conception of Stupidity.

I like sushi

Take care of stupid therefore, and educate stupid, and understand stupid and be compassionate towards stupid. That is intelligence in action. — unenlightened

Given the specific definition to entangle with Stupid is to become Stupid. Compassion towards a hungry man-eating tiger won't stop it from eating you. Compassion towards someone who is Stupid (in the context of the OP) would just result in greater harm to yourself.

Think of it like this. If someone is walking around with high explosives attached to them - which they believe are expensive jewelry - that have various flashing lights and switches that could sent the explosives off if toyed with. What would happen if you got close enough to tell them they should remove said explosives? Do you put yourself in danger or not? Can they be reasoned with if they have either no concern or comprehension of what situation they are currently in.

We cannot 'teach' people not to be Stupid in this sense. If we can then how? Given the definition of Stupid is to act in a manner that is harmful/detrimental to both themselves and others. Can Stupid be changed? What makes someone Stupid to the point that they un/wittingly cause detriments to everyone in their vicinity including themselves?

Is this just an impossible problem to deal with? Maybe it is. I just found the concept interesting.

unenlightened

Compassion towards a hungry man-eating tiger won't stop it from eating you. — I like sushi

A hungry man-eating tiger is not stupid.

Think of it like this. If someone is walking around with high explosives attached to them - which they believe are expensive jewelry - that have various flashing lights and switches that could sent the explosives off if toyed with. What would happen if you got close enough to tell them they should remove said explosives? Do you put yourself in danger or not? Can they be reasoned with if they have either no concern or comprehension of what situation they are currently in. — I like sushi

That is a difficult situation. A stupid man in control of nuclear weapons is also a difficult situation. A group of stupid people destroying the environment by burning fossil fuels is also a difficult situation. Nobody said intelligence was easy or comfortable. I am saying stupidity cannot be avoided, and has to be dealt with intelligently, or it will indeed destroy us. Perhaps the best one can do with the chap with expensive jewellery is to try and conduct him to a quiet spot where only he and thee will be killed. Perhaps nothing can be done, perhaps macho-man can shoot him without setting off the explosives, or perhaps if we all ignore him he will stop thinking his jewellery is desirable and remove it. Who knows?

I like sushi

A hungry man-eating tiger is not stupid. — unenlightened

Funny joke.

Who knows? — unenlightened

Precisely the problem. So if, as proposed, such Stupidity is prevalent in human society we're all screwed. Can our intelligence (not merely Intelligence) figure it out if it is the case. I cannot but I'm not much more than average. Which leads to another idea in the article ...

We all underestimate the number of Stupid people there are in the world and the most Stupid people tend to think they are Intelligent.

unenlightened

We all underestimate the number of Stupid people there are in the world and the most Stupid people tend to think they are Intelligent. — I like sushi

I think everyone is stupid - that's an underestimate?

I like sushi

I think everyone is stupid - that's an underestimate? — unenlightened

If everyone was Stupid we'd all be dead. So yeah. Huge underestimate I'd say. If everything everyone was doing was a detriment to themselves and everyone else then I wouldn't be able to communicate via the internet with you as they'd be no power and I'd be scrounging around ruins for food starving, so that I could use it as bait to kill people rather than eat in

unenlightened

I wouldn't be able to communicate via the internet with you — I like sushi

I don't think we are communicating, alas, so I'll leave it there.

I like sushi

↪unenlightened

It usually helps if you address the definitions used in the OP and recognise analogies when used ;)

TheMadFool

those that better their own situation worse and others better were … I forget … I think they were called Helpless. — I like sushi

This does make a whole lot of sense! :confused:

I like sushi

↪TheMadFool

Oops!

AMended: those that MAKE their own situation worse and others better were … I forget … I think they were called Helpless.

TheMadFool

↪I like sushi

Still true but the previous statement was truer if I may say so. Still :confused: though. Nothing that you need to be concerned about, yet. Good day!

I like sushi

↪TheMadFool

Yeah, in a strange way as they 'better' the 'worseness' :D

TheMadFool

Yeah, in a strange way as they 'better' the 'worseness' :D — I like sushi

:up:

TheMadFool

raw Stupidity and luck. — I like sushi

Gettier problem, kind courtesy of Edmund Gettier.

How do we know that all we know are not Gettier cases?

unenlightened

It usually helps if you address the definitions used in the OP and recognise analogies when used — I like sushi

You are undoubtedly right, but I have difficulty believing in kinds of people whether they be goodies and baddies or stupids and intelligents.

Outlander

Sometimes you have to separate the art from the artist. Erm.. the decision from the person.

"Stupidity is possessing the ability to know better whilst, absent of undue burden, neglecting it. Without this ability, only ignorance remains."

Then again where does maliciousness come in. Somewhere between the two, or perhaps as a result of both.

T Clark

But in terms of cultural attitudes I do think there is something we can do to shift power/status/influence of Stupid people where it is clear Stupidity is ruling. In such a case recognising and logging outcomes that are both detrimental to everyone short term and long term would result in such citizens being stripped of any reasonable influence. I don’t mean ‘imprisoned’ or ‘blamed’ just remove their assets (gained through luck maybe?) and isolate them more from impacting negatively upon others. I am talking about this at the highest degrees of status/power/influence rather than across the entire social strata simply because those that are stupid and in possession of greater status/power/influence can cause untold damage to themselves and many others whilst remaining oblivious to the fact. — I like sushi

I don't find the definition of stupidity in your OP a very useful one. I don't have any additional comments about that, but I do about your prescription for dealing with the problem, as described in the quote, above.

In order to implement your program - stripping people of influence, removing assets, isolation - you will have to abandon property rights and the Bill of Rights. Which is ok, I guess. We've done it before - we sent Japanese-Americans to Manzanar during World War 2 and various American Indian tribes to reservations after taking away their property and rights. Yeah, that's what we need. Some concentration camps.

I like sushi

Yeah, that's what we need. Some concentration camps. — T Clark

If that’s what you get from what I wrote go away and bother someone else please.

T Clark

If that’s what you get from what I wrote go away and bother someone else please. — I like sushi

You specifically and clearly propose taking away people's property and social position, apparently based on a half-baked judgement of whether or not you think they are stupid. If the fact that I pointed that out bothers you, well, it should. It bothers me too. You need to take responsibility for your words.

I like sushi

↪T Clark

I am talking about this at the highest degrees of status/power/influence rather than across the entire social strata simply because those that are stupid and in possession of greater status/power/influence can cause untold damage to themselves and many others whilst remaining oblivious to the fact. — I like sushi

I don’t see any mention of concentration camps so fuck off.

DingoJones

↪I like sushi

I get the concentration camp reference. What you are suggesting in the OP is pretty dangerous. I know you specifically said not imprisoning but seizing assets is the same kind of thing. Even if you have the best of intentions and under your guidance its somehow successful, the power to seize assets will be there to abuse. It will be abused.
It is a perfectly fair reference, concentration camps, because this kinda thinking is where all that shit starts. Judgement, anyones judgement, is fallible. It doesnt matter how smart one is (even by the bizarre criteria you’ve laid out for intelligent). When you put rules in place that are so vague its only going to lead to someone gaming that rule to abuse it.
Even by your definitions whats smart or stupid is way to nebulous. As sympathetic as I am to the idea that stupidity is destructive and largely unchecked by society I can’t agree that your suggestions would be a good solution. I mean the distance between your suggestion and the worst examples of fascism history offers us is pretty short. Think about it, you are selecting a certain group and denying them rights that others have. What could go wring right?
Can’t we just educate people better, and across a wider/more useful spectrum? (Like teaching critical thinking in elementary school).

T Clark

I don’t see any mention of concentration camps so fuck off. — I like sushi

Again. You just aren't willing to take responsibility for your own words. As I mentioned, the US had concentration camps for Japanese-Americans during World War 2. That's how they took away their assets and influence. So, tell me. What methods will you use to implement your program of unconstitutional actions?

Stupidity

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions