C/F MIT "clue theory" -fixed amount of clue in the universe, so teaching people is like entropy: you just reduce clue levels to a lower minima.
Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)
21–30 of 100 posts
Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)
#22This is a terrible view of humankind, society and the people around you. What is "stupidity" other than a concept vague enough that you can just throw it at anybody to, in part, immediately raise yourself to some level of superiority, and essentially defame without actually having to argue anything? Obviously they are stupid, and since you realize that, you are obviously not, so what's there to argue, right? Human in…
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.
Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)
#23This is a terrible view of humankind, society and the people around you. What is "stupidity" other than a concept vague enough that you can just throw it at anybody to, in part, immediately raise yourself to some level of superiority, and essentially defame without actually having to argue anything? Obviously they are stupid, and since you realize that, you are obviously not, so what's there to argue, right? Human in…
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.
Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find the car signalling problem interesting. Where I was born people trust the turn signalling and drive early. When I moved to the UK I (luckily) quickly realised you cannot do this here. Everyone waits until the car actually starts turning before driving. Even if it's signalling, no one trusts that, possibly creating less pressure for correct signalling. It makes traffic slightly slower but avoids the possibility…
Not trusting others' turn signals seems more like defensive driving than bad driving.
People don't trust signals, because the drivers are bad, not the other way around. I drove in most European countries, I drove in America, I even drove in China and I live in the UK. By far the worst drivers. Also the most polite, will always let you in, give way, dip lights, wave etc..
Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)
#25I'm not sure I agree with this:
"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."
Because gains/losses can be hard to quantify. Punishing people who violate rules of fairness is a useful strategy proven by game theory ("Tit for tat"), and there are indications it is a deeply ingrained human behaviour.
You might argue that even when it incurs losses to the punishers, its overall gains outweigh that, but those are future, hypothetical gains.
What about other cases where such future, hypothetical gains are less well-founded, but still expected by the "stupid person"? What about emotional gains?
It's not as easy to draw lines here as it may seem.
Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)
#26This is a terrible view of humankind, society and the people around you. What is "stupidity" other than a concept vague enough that you can just throw it at anybody to, in part, immediately raise yourself to some level of superiority, and essentially defame without actually having to argue anything? Obviously they are stupid, and since you realize that, you are obviously not, so what's there to argue, right? Human in…
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…
The definition is not precise at all, because "harm" and "benefit" cannot be precisely defined and can in fact be very subjective.
Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)
#27This is a terrible view of humankind, society and the people around you. What is "stupidity" other than a concept vague enough that you can just throw it at anybody to, in part, immediately raise yourself to some level of superiority, and essentially defame without actually having to argue anything? Obviously they are stupid, and since you realize that, you are obviously not, so what's there to argue, right? Human in…
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…
> 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.
Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)
#28This is a terrible view of humankind, society and the people around you. What is "stupidity" other than a concept vague enough that you can just throw it at anybody to, in part, immediately raise yourself to some level of superiority, and essentially defame without actually having to argue anything? Obviously they are stupid, and since you realize that, you are obviously not, so what's there to argue, right? Human in…
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.
Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not trusting others' turn signals seems more like defensive driving than bad driving.
People don't trust signals, because the drivers are bad, not the other way around. I drove in most European countries, I drove in America, I even drove in China and I live in the UK. By far the worst drivers. Also the most polite, will always let you in, give way, dip lights, wave etc..
I live in the UK and have driven on various European countries and all down the US West coast. LA had easily the worst and most aggressive drivers of all. It was terrifying; one moment you're trying to squeeze onto the highway between two cars that absolutely won't budge an inch, the next moment you're being overtaken on both sides simultaneously by cars going over the speed limit. I also passed two fresh car-totalling crashes in two days, which I've never experienced elsewhere.
Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)
#30This is one of the most pretentious things I've read all year.