Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

zoon.cc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 91 posts

Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#51

Post by taejo »

treerock wrote: post #42
srrge wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think individualism is a respectable philosophy. Thank you for sharing this article. I think however that a reasonable person would also consider that social policies may have great benefits for herself as an individual. For example: - If stupids don't have access to war weapons, maybe it will be more difficult for them to mass murder ME. - If the stupids have to vaccinate and can get healthcare, maybe they won't s…

I would question the last one. Stupid people with an education can cause havoc. Possibly related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord#Cl...

What happens when the two characteristics of clever and stupid are combined? I'm far from certain this combination is impossible.

Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#52

Post by nanomoose »

yodsanklai wrote: post #31

> Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation. I think it's very arrogant and pretentious to call other people 'stupid' and I try to refrain from doing it. We all know people who are much smarter than us, surely we must sound stupid to them. Besides, one can be stupid for one thing (say mathematics) and shine for something else (raising kids or playing the trumpet). T…

While that's very kind of you, I don't know how you've come to think that life is devoid of the unfortunate - some people are simply stupid.

Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#53

Post by Xenos_Ender »

taejo wrote: post #51
treerock wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would question the last one. Stupid people with an education can cause havoc. Possibly related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord#Cl...

What happens when the two characteristics of clever and stupid are combined? I'm far from certain this combination is impossible.

Some people like to see the world burn. [insert joker meme]

Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#54

Post by arithma »

scandox wrote: post #47
kierenj wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really, truly? The interesting question to me is then: why not? Or how? There are many individuals on the planet who, through no fault of their own, have severely limited mental capacity. You've never met one?

I have met people with mental disability, who would have had significant limits on their intellectual capabilities, but I didn't consider them stupid. If it helps to clarify: I can't explain relational databases to someone who doesn't have basic numeracy and you can't explain (say) quantum mechanics to me and the hyper-intelligent aliens can't explain ?$%>$£DDDD to you...but none of us in that chain are stupid. And a…

But that's quite circular. I have never found a cup that would overspill, if not poured to beyond its capacity. I think I understand the sympathy you're trying to convey, and the insight that you should try to explain things to the capacity of the other people. It's a mine field of perceived ability and all, but yeah.

Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#55

Post by runald »

Rather than asserting that the laws of stupidity are an inherent characteristic of people, I think it would be more useful or productive to apply the laws to human actions instead. So the third law would be something like:

A stupid action is anything that causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while the executor of action derives no gain and even possibly incurring losses.

The laws could serve as a heuristic for people who consistently perform stupid actions, and reconsider their position from being a plague to something (better?) like a bloodsucking parasite. Admittedly, the laws of stupidity seem to be in conflict with the laws of conservation. Then again, This comment probably qualifies as an act of stupidity.

Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#56

Post by AstralStorm »

nine_k wrote: post #48
alain_gilbert wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the text: "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 think all of your examples give the person some gain, or causes good to others.

This looks like a hint on a whole possible matrix: - Personal gain, others' gain: "good businessman". - Personal gain, others' loss: "evil". - Personal loss, others' gain: "benefactor" / "saint". - Personal loss, others' loss: "stupid".

Number 3 is called helpless for a reason. Even saints typically attempt to maximize gain, helpless do not - they tend to minimize loss instead.

In fact I would say many if not most people are helpless. This is part H1. Part H2 is the benefactor.

Likewise part I1 which is upper left triangle of I would be the inventor, scientist or good reformer. (They benefit but society benefits more). Bottom right of I would be good businessman. (Their own benefit is higher than society.) Top right B2 would be exploitative businessman. (Society loses a bit but the businessman gains a lot.)

As per political systems, capitalism attempts to promote rightmost two quadrants. Socialism (not Stalinism) attempts to penalize bottom half.

Essentially the full graph would be a square with a 45º rotated square inside. The stupid have two categories too - unnecessary cutting corners and messing up for minimal immediate gain with net loss (shortsighted) - top right of stupid quadrant - and plain old danger to society.

Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#57

Post by scandox »

arithma wrote: post #54
scandox wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have met people with mental disability, who would have had significant limits on their intellectual capabilities, but I didn't consider them stupid. If it helps to clarify: I can't explain relational databases to someone who doesn't have basic numeracy and you can't explain (say) quantum mechanics to me and the hyper-intelligent aliens can't explain ?$%>$£DDDD to you...but none of us in that chain are stupid. And a…

But that's quite circular. I have never found a cup that would overspill, if not poured to beyond its capacity. I think I understand the sympathy you're trying to convey, and the insight that you should try to explain things to the capacity of the other people. It's a mine field of perceived ability and all, but yeah.

Well then the other way to look at it is that we are all stupid. The point I'm making is that the term itself does not mean what its users intend it to mean. It is actually a way of excusing our own lack of ability to communicate in a meaningful way.

Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#58

Post by mikeash »

kdamken wrote: post #15

What makes a person stupid? If I have a friend who squanders their money while I save and build up wealth, are they stupid? What if they have a much happier and more fulfilling life than I do? If you have a difficult job (like brain surgeon), but are terrible at most of the other parts of your life, does that make you stupid? Are slow readers stupid? What if they invent a product or start a business that makes them a…

One thing that really fascinates me is that stupidity is one of the few genetic handicaps that society considers acceptable to criticize and blame people for.

If a person gets hit by a bus because they have some muscular disorder which causes them to fall in front of it, we would have nothing but sympathy for them. If they get hit by a bus because they're too stupid to remember to look for traffic, most people would criticize them harshly for being stupid.

What's really amazing is that there's a cutoff point. If someone has an IQ of 90, you can blame them for all their stupid actions. I'd go so far as to say that not only can you, but it's expected. But if the person has an IQ of 70 suddenly everything changes, people become sympathetic, and blaming them for their own stupidity is super taboo.

To be clear, I'm not trying to pretend that I'm superior in this respect. I do this just like most of the people I see. But when I start thinking about it, I really can't figure out how it makes any sense.

Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#59

Post by BeetleB »

alain_gilbert wrote: post #17
kdamken wrote: post #15

What makes a person stupid? If I have a friend who squanders their money while I save and build up wealth, are they stupid? What if they have a much happier and more fulfilling life than I do? If you have a difficult job (like brain surgeon), but are terrible at most of the other parts of your life, does that make you stupid? Are slow readers stupid? What if they invent a product or start a business that makes them a…

From the text: "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 think all of your examples give the person some gain, or causes good to others.

Based on that description, stupid people are very, very rare.

This is a classic case of "There are almost no irrational people." Or phrased in a way my mentors would put it: If you call someone irrational, you are being lazy and not trying to understand them.

Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#60

Post by dEnigma »

mikeash wrote: post #58
kdamken wrote: post #15

What makes a person stupid? If I have a friend who squanders their money while I save and build up wealth, are they stupid? What if they have a much happier and more fulfilling life than I do? If you have a difficult job (like brain surgeon), but are terrible at most of the other parts of your life, does that make you stupid? Are slow readers stupid? What if they invent a product or start a business that makes them a…

One thing that really fascinates me is that stupidity is one of the few genetic handicaps that society considers acceptable to criticize and blame people for. If a person gets hit by a bus because they have some muscular disorder which causes them to fall in front of it, we would have nothing but sympathy for them. If they get hit by a bus because they're too stupid to remember to look for traffic, most people would…

We blame people for acting stupid, not for being stupid. As you mentioned, someone with an IQ of 90 or higher should have all the mental capacity to go about their day without causing chaos or running in front of a bus. But when they choose to act stupid, inconvenience others and possibly even endanger people, we have every right to blame them for that. If on the other hand a person has an IQ around 60 we can't expect them to navigate our complex society without any hiccups and consequently we try to help and understand instead of putting the full blame on them.
Post reply on HN