Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976) • Hacker News Board

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#31

Post by carapace » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:24 PM UTC

adamc wrote: post #19

ncmncm wrote: post #16

I used to host this article. Somebody in Italy claimed to own the copyright ("literary heirs" of Carlos), and demanded I take it down, despite that Carlos clearly wanted it distributed far and wide. He's dead now, so he gets no say anymore.

He needed to put it in the public domain or something similar if he really cared.

> STATED by the Author in its 1986 version as intended for the public domain (and yes, stated again in 1992, despite having re-published this text in 1988, slightly modified, in his "Allegro ma non troppo" copyrighted collection).

Small print at the bottom of the page.

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#32

Post by just_boost_it » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:25 PM UTC

My new basic law of charts of personality types: "if you make an xy chart of any human traits, and look at it long enough, you can name enough parts of the chart to write a blog post or maybe even a book."

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#33

Post by dieselgate » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:26 PM UTC

Didn’t read the whole thing because it’s super dense and I don’t like the “breaking people into four basic categories” thing - but the cartoons are good. Just makes me think of a Bill Burr(?) (edit: joke) line equating to something like “Think about how dumb the average American is and realize half of them are more stupid that that”. (Edit: always wondered if he assumed a normal distribution heh)

Suppose this is why we have “specializations” - most people don’t seek out medical advice from an electrician (or vice versa) but that doesn’t mean the respective individual lacks “knowledge”.

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#34

Post by wildmanx » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:32 PM UTC

elihu wrote: post #22

wildmanx wrote: post #20

This 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 article defines stupidity in a very precise way

No, it doesn't. The part that you mention is "law" 3 of 5. I stopped reading mid-way into the first "law" up to which the article already used the term "stupidity" multiple times as if it's obvious what that is and was so unbelievably presumptuous regarding people that are somehow less worth than the author that it became unbearable.

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#35

Post by simonh » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:34 PM UTC

No definition of stupidity is given, no criteria for identifying stupid behaviour, no evidence for any of these ramblings. I checked out a few other article. More flat statements with little or no reasoned or evidentiary support, and what references are given if you actually read them, in the cases I found are being mis-interpreted. They often don't actually support the position taken.

The whole thing is stupid.

Having said that, I think we do sometimes overestimate how clever we are, as a species. If you think about it, we literally just right now, in evolutionary terms, put together a technological society. The last 10k years of advances since agriculture and cities are 3% of the last 300k years since our last common ancestor.

That means we only just barely have enough intelligence to develop a civilization, the bare minimum required. Otherwise we'd have done it sooner. We're jumped up plains apes.

Still, this article contains no such discussion, no analysis, no examination of evidence or reasons why any of what is asserted might be true or if it is true. It doesn't even properly explain what it's talking about. Nothing you could even hang a discussion on. Pure rubbish.

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#36

Post by paulpauper » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:35 PM UTC

This article is bad. It's like a rant that went on 1000 words too long. Time to try the 'flag' feature.

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#37

Post by lobstrosity420 » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:38 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #35

No definition of stupidity is given, no criteria for identifying stupid behaviour, no evidence for any of these ramblings. I checked out a few other article. More flat statements with little or no reasoned or evidentiary support, and what references are given if you actually read them, in the cases I found are being mis-interpreted. They often don't actually support the position taken. The whole thing is stupid. Havi…

It's a satirical piece, you are allowed to not like it but you don't have to peer review it.

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#38

Post by redleggedfrog » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:42 PM UTC

wildmanx wrote: post #34

elihu wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 article defines stupidity in a very precise way No, it doesn't. The part that you mention is "law" 3 of 5. I stopped reading mid-way into the first "law" up to which the article already used the term "stupidity" multiple times as if it's obvious what that is and was so unbelievably presumptuous regarding people that are somehow less worth than the author that it became unbearable.

You have to admit, that's kind of funny you based your criticism off an incomplete reading of the source material. I think complaining about clarity is something that should probably happen after one has contemplated the whole of the thing.

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#39

Post by simonh » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:48 PM UTC

lobstrosity420 wrote: post #37

simonh wrote: post #35

No definition of stupidity is given, no criteria for identifying stupid behaviour, no evidence for any of these ramblings. I checked out a few other article. More flat statements with little or no reasoned or evidentiary support, and what references are given if you actually read them, in the cases I found are being mis-interpreted. They often don't actually support the position taken. The whole thing is stupid. Havi…

It's a satirical piece, you are allowed to not like it but you don't have to peer review it.

Why do you think it's satirical? Read the other articles on the blog, they're all like that. Dull, plodding blobs of boorishness. Check out the screed on gay marriage.

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#40

Post by laserlight » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:51 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #35

No definition of stupidity is given, no criteria for identifying stupid behaviour, no evidence for any of these ramblings. I checked out a few other article. More flat statements with little or no reasoned or evidentiary support, and what references are given if you actually read them, in the cases I found are being mis-interpreted. They often don't actually support the position taken. The whole thing is stupid. Havi…

> No definition of stupidity is given

From the article:

“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.”