Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)
1–10 of 91 posts
Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)
#2> I made a special point to extend my research to a specially selected group... The result confirmed Nature's supreme powers: σ fraction of the Nobel laureates are stupid.
I mean... okay. I would like to know both what the definition of "stupid" is here and what this study actually consists of. Also I'm pretty sure using "We all recollect occasions..." as your main supporting evidence is several logical fallacies rolled into one.
Is this satire? Am I missing the joke? If the main point is that stupidity is a product of nature and can't be changed by experience there needs to be a lot more evidence to back it up.
Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)
#3> I made a special point to extend my research to a specially selected group... The result confirmed Nature's supreme powers: σ fraction of the Nobel laureates are stupid. I mean... okay. I would like to know both what the definition of "stupid" is here and what this study actually consists of. Also I'm pretty sure using "We all recollect occasions..." as your main supporting evidence is several logical fallacies rol…
As defined by "The third (and golden) basic law":
"A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses."
These are absolute laws, no need to see the studies =P
Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)
#4Unfortunately this is a taboo subject so no one can talk about it candidly (hence: satire).
Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)
#5Speaking of intelligence, from my brief thirty-year existence, I've observed that self-reflection and creativity are positively correlated with intelligence. I haven't tested out this theory, but I believe r = 0.75.
Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)
#6> I made a special point to extend my research to a specially selected group... The result confirmed Nature's supreme powers: σ fraction of the Nobel laureates are stupid. I mean... okay. I would like to know both what the definition of "stupid" is here and what this study actually consists of. Also I'm pretty sure using "We all recollect occasions..." as your main supporting evidence is several logical fallacies rol…
As defined by "The third (and golden) basic law": "A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses." These are absolute laws, no need to see the studies =P
Not sure if I should take these laws seriously, but the difficulty is in defining a loss versus a gain.
For example, the old "I'm taking you down with me" is often driven out of spite or vindictiveness. Maybe it's stupid, but maybe not? If you get pleasure out of it, is it a loss?
Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)
#7There are lots of strategies which are rational, non-stupid, in a specific context but irrational & stupid if context is expanded. Eg. Paying it forward by advising a sociopath, working on something interesting despite it being damaging, not being religious because its illogical even if being religious makes you feel/act better.
A better general definition of stupidity as a non-rational strategy would be "taking an action in deliberate ignorance of context". Not "taking a non-rational action". Root contexts are pretty simple and almost universally agreed "don't be an ass to others", "aim for happiness". If you don't ensure your action within context is rational, your being stupid.
Obviously its difficult in many scenarios to grasp the larger context, but if we promoted this definition we would as a society optimise for core ethics and be less apt to being manipulated by a minority.
Rationalism, about as useful as a piece of string is long :P
Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)
#8It's not that a certain percentage of people are stupid. It's that no matter how intelligent people are, they are very inconsistent about what they apply their intelligence to and there's always going to be some super intelligent idiot who doesn't have his head in the game and fucks shit up for everyone else because he wasn't paying attention to the right things.
Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)
#9There are lots of strategies which are rational, non-stupid, in a specific context but irrational & stupid if context is expanded. Eg. Paying it forward by advising a sociopath, working on something interesting despite it being damaging, not being religious because its illogical even if being religious makes you feel/act better. A better general definition of stupidity as a non-rational strategy would be "taking an a…
"Obviously its difficult in many scenarios to grasp the larger context, but if we promoted this definition we would as a society optimise for core ethics and be less apt to being manipulated by a minority."
Doesn't this mean that you already believe that we need to be first manipulated by the minority that holds the definition you advocate, since that definition is not already generally held? And if your definition is generally held you lose your complaint, don't you?
To be fair, I think your point about the importance of correct context is completely valid. I just don't think minority vs. majority is a factor. Failing to think, or not knowing how to think, rationally and independently puts you at the mercy of wrong minority, or majority, opinion.
Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)
#10Does anybody have a year for it? I went with 2009 via https://web.archive.org/web/20090601000000*/http://www.zoon.... but it feels like it might be older, especially as the author had been dead for 9 years.
Edit: a comment (now deleted) helpfully pointed out the Whole Earth Review, Spring 1987 reference at the bottom. Thanks!
Previously: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Basic%20Laws%20of%20Human%20St.... Interesting annotation by pg at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=817703.
Url changed from http://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basic-laws-of-human-stupidit..., which points to this.