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

71–80 of 91 posts

Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#71

Post by mikeash »

dEnigma wrote: post #67
mikeash wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perfect example. Somehow we see it as a people who "choose to act stupid," as if they can just will their brains into being more capable than they are.

It's a fact that people sometimes choose to act stupid. I have chosen to act stupid in the past; and when I was reprimanded, I knew exactly why, and how I could've avoided it. I'm not talking about people who are less capable in their mental faculties. Of course nobody should blame someone who is actually mentally handicapped for "stupid actions", or for "acting stupid". That's exactly the difference I was talking ab…

Why do you assume that a fairly stupid person is choosing to act stupid, but an extremely stupid person is not? "Mentally handicapped" is an arbitrary line we draw in the continuum of intelligence.

Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#72

Post by Chris_Jay »

kdamken wrote: post #64
paulajohnson wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If I have a friend who squanders their money while I save and build up wealth, are they stupid?" No, they are probably "helpless". If they actually have a more fulfilling life then they may be "intelligent". The distinguishing feature of "stupid" people in this typology is that they are the ones who cause grief to others with no gain to themselves. This is not the same as being unintelligent; the intro to the articl…

Seems like such a strange way to define stupidity to me, and why I wasn't a fan of how the paper defined things. Why does it depend on causing grief to others? I think the CPU analogy is more apt. Some people have faster processors, some have slower ones, but what actually matters is what you do with it. I know "smart" people who are living at home with their parents doing nothing with their lives, and I know "stupid…

What alternative names would you propose?

Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#73

Post by Chris_Jay »

srrge wrote: post #24

I feel this is one thing that differentiate the European political cultures and the US political culture. In Europe I feel we do better understand that people are stupid (in general). They won't insure their health, they'll kill you for $50, they won't pay the price for an education. That's why we don't have guns, we have mostly free healthcare and universities. In the US, I feel you guys hope or would like that peop…

I think the US response would be, "we don't want stupid people making laws the rest of us have to follow".

At least in theory. In practice of course, stupid bandits make laws all the time.

Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#74

Post by Chris_Jay »

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.

Tribal societies have many stories of such individuals, think Coyote or Loki. Clever stupid people are constantly falling into elaborate traps of their own making.

Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#75

Post by kdamken »

Chris_Jay wrote: post #72
kdamken wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like such a strange way to define stupidity to me, and why I wasn't a fan of how the paper defined things. Why does it depend on causing grief to others? I think the CPU analogy is more apt. Some people have faster processors, some have slower ones, but what actually matters is what you do with it. I know "smart" people who are living at home with their parents doing nothing with their lives, and I know "stupid…

What alternative names would you propose?

I don't have a good solution. I just know I don't like how the article defines stupid/intelligent, and that "stupid/smart" have a lot more (often hurtful) connotations than what they really mean.

But then you have the problem of going down the PC rabbit hole where you can't say anything about whether someone is smart or not, and have to live in a pretend world where everyone is the same intelligence even though they're not. So that's no good either.

Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#76

Post by wtflmaohnisdumb »

dEnigma wrote: post #67
mikeash wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perfect example. Somehow we see it as a people who "choose to act stupid," as if they can just will their brains into being more capable than they are.

It's a fact that people sometimes choose to act stupid. I have chosen to act stupid in the past; and when I was reprimanded, I knew exactly why, and how I could've avoided it. I'm not talking about people who are less capable in their mental faculties. Of course nobody should blame someone who is actually mentally handicapped for "stupid actions", or for "acting stupid". That's exactly the difference I was talking ab…

You assume free will there (and I don't necessarily disagree). :)

Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#77

Post by dEnigma »

mikeash wrote: post #71
dEnigma wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a fact that people sometimes choose to act stupid. I have chosen to act stupid in the past; and when I was reprimanded, I knew exactly why, and how I could've avoided it. I'm not talking about people who are less capable in their mental faculties. Of course nobody should blame someone who is actually mentally handicapped for "stupid actions", or for "acting stupid". That's exactly the difference I was talking ab…

Why do you assume that a fairly stupid person is choosing to act stupid, but an extremely stupid person is not? "Mentally handicapped" is an arbitrary line we draw in the continuum of intelligence.

I didn't realize an IQ of 90 was "fairly stupid" nowadays. I actually meant that as an example for a "smart enough" person. Of course one has to draw the line somewhere, and of course there will be false positives and false negatives; but what else can one do? It's the same for e.g. illness; at which point does a doctor allow a patient to stay home from work? He has to draw the line somewhere. There will be cases when he's too strict and a genuinely ill person is forced to work or use a vacation day; and there will be cases when he's too lenient and a perfectly healthy, simulating person can relax at home. I wouldn't argue that we should give everyone unlimited sick days without a proper diagnosis, which, again, might include false positives/negatives.

Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#78

Post by mino »

Worth remembering that Carlo M. Cipolla made up his middle name :)

What is the M. of Carlo M. Cipolla (1922-2000)? No, it's not for Maria, as everyone believes and as Wikipedia also reports. So is it for Mario? Do not be bothered. It just stands for nothing at all.

Or, better, it stands for itself. "M." is the initial that the author (...) made up just to fill the "middle name" box on the modules at the University of Berkeley where he moved in the 1950s.

(quick translation from http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/cultura/2011-10-21/irresistib...)

Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#79

Post by worldsayshi »

yetihehe wrote: post #22
worldsayshi wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it very difficult to buy the idea that a person is characteristically stupid. People does things like described by the definition all the time. It's called mistakes. Some people are ignorant sure. But my guess is that even the most ignorant person is not an idiot most of the time.

This is stated in article too. > When confronted for the first time with the Third Basic Law, rational people instinctively react with feelings of skepticism and incredulity. > Most people do not act consistently. [...] We can calculate for each person his weighted average position in the plane of figure 1 quite independently from his degree of inconsistency.

Yeah well it's also stated that

> The only important exception to the rule is represented by the stupid people who normally show a strong proclivity toward perfect consistency in all fields of human endeavours

Re: Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#80

Post by bendbro »

mikeash wrote: post #71
dEnigma wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a fact that people sometimes choose to act stupid. I have chosen to act stupid in the past; and when I was reprimanded, I knew exactly why, and how I could've avoided it. I'm not talking about people who are less capable in their mental faculties. Of course nobody should blame someone who is actually mentally handicapped for "stupid actions", or for "acting stupid". That's exactly the difference I was talking ab…

Why do you assume that a fairly stupid person is choosing to act stupid, but an extremely stupid person is not? "Mentally handicapped" is an arbitrary line we draw in the continuum of intelligence.

I bet it isn't arbitrary. It isn't possible to train IQ70s in a human lifespan, cost effectively, but it is possible to do so for IQ90s.
Post reply on HN