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

Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

harmful.cat-v.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 100 posts

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#51

Post by wildmanx »

swatcoder wrote: post #47
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…

I completely agree with you when reading this at face value as a contemporary, serious essay. But it’s not quite that. It’s a long form semi-comic screed from a time when it wasn’t especially controversial to put plain words to one’s frustrations. I don’t share these particular frustrations. I don’t resonate with what’s being said. I think it comes from a pretty alienated experience where you’re convinced that there’…

Well said, thank you.

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#52

Post by mcguire »

Calavar wrote: post #23
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…

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.

The third 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."

Are you a stupid person if you do this once? Twice? Frequently? (Does anyone do it frequently?) Are any of us not stupid? And what does this have to do with the normal meaning of "stupid"?

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#53

Post by wvenable »

brazzy wrote: post #26
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 definition is not precise at all, because "harm" and "benefit" cannot be precisely defined and can in fact be very subjective.

Turtles all the way down? I don't think you need precise definitions of "harm" and "benefit" to understand the point. The subjectiveness of these terms don't not undermine the definition.

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#54

Post by enraged_camel »

wildmanx wrote: post #50
redleggedfrog wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree. When reading material that's so utterly flawed, full with oversimplifying stereotypes and arrogance, then it's entirely possible to have formed an opinion before finishing the piece. Nothing could have come after the first "law" that would have made the part up to that point better or more defensible.

>> When reading material that's so utterly flawed, full with oversimplifying stereotypes and arrogance, then it's entirely possible to have formed an opinion before finishing the piece.

The irony here is that this itself is a very arrogant opinion.

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#55

Post by throwyawayyyy »

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…

> "b) day after day, with unceasing monotony, one is harassed in one's activities by stupid individuals who appear suddenly and unexpectedly in the most inconvenient places and at the most improbable moments."

After reading this profoundly ungenerous article, I am inclined to be ungenerous here and assume that the "activities" the author refers to would be, by most of us, considered anti-social. "I'm just playing my music, why is everyone on my case? I'm a better driver when driving fast..."

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#56

Post by jjoonathan »

swatcoder wrote: post #47
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…

I completely agree with you when reading this at face value as a contemporary, serious essay. But it’s not quite that. It’s a long form semi-comic screed from a time when it wasn’t especially controversial to put plain words to one’s frustrations. I don’t share these particular frustrations. I don’t resonate with what’s being said. I think it comes from a pretty alienated experience where you’re convinced that there’…

His observations resonate with me but his model sucks. In particular, his 3rd law / definition

> 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.

contradicts his 2nd law

> The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.

because if you select for accomplishment (or serial accomplishment) the definition implies that you had better start seeing fewer stupid people, but his 2nd law says you shouldn't. This isn't a nit, it strikes at the very core of why his model doesn't fit reality.

Here's a model that better fits reality: our assumptions about what "everybody knows" tend to be bad, both in an absolute sense and when conditioned on some particular level of education / accomplishment. Knowledge silos run deep, their shapes are strange, and people are really good at accommodating gaps in their knowledge. Clever people even moreso. So it's easy to underestimate the gaps, watch otherwise respectable people stumble over them, and think "how in the hell did that happen?"

If you attribute these gaps to an innate quality like stupidity, you will be unable to help people fill the gaps. Not because the people cannot be taught, but because your misunderstanding precludes you from being a good teacher. This makes his model damaging in addition to being incorrect and uncharitable.

Those may sound like harsh words, but they are not nearly as harsh as the mistake that eventually shook me out of a similar set of beliefs. Someone went from "stupidest person I know" to "smartest person I know," and that was a big hint that my model was wrong. We are a decade distant from that event, I've had the chance to run a lot of evidence past these two models, and "weird knowledge gaps" so thoroughly whips "innate stupidity" that I am slightly embarrassed I ever considered it true. Live and learn.

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#57

Post by mcguire »

dieselgate wrote: post #33

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…

As an aside, averages don't work that way. The average (mean) can vary greatly from the median, which is the central value, due to outliers. For example, "Median individual income in the United States was $44,225. Average individual income in 2021 in the United States was $63,214.03." (https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-individual-income-perce...

[1] Not sure that I buy the actual numbers; the median has been around $30K for a number of years, up to 2019 at least. A $10K jump in 2 years?

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#58

Post by enraged_camel »

eikenberry wrote: post #9
titzer wrote: post #6

These are great. I've always used a rule of thumb. Dumb = ignorant, seems to get better with more knowledge Stupid = confidently wrong to the point of net negative for everyone, seems to get worse with more knowledge

Sounds like this goes against the old saying "I may be stupid but I'm not dumb", i.e. I'm not book smart but I have common sense.

This is the distinction Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition rules made between the Intelligence stat and the Wisdom stat. Intelligence was book smartness and wisdom was common sense and general understanding of the world and people. Wizards were intelligent but not necessarily wise, and clerics/druids were the opposite.

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#59

Post by notakio »

dieselgate wrote: post #33

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…

Not Bill Burr, rather George Carlin. But that theme is present in both comedians' work, to be sure.

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#60

Post by mcguire »

jerf wrote: post #3
openfuture wrote: post #2

"stupidity" I'd rather think of this as "wasted potential" the reason you reach for this pejorative label is due to frustration. A wise man once said that there is nothing more common than wasted potential, in that sense I agree with some of this article.

It is vital when reading this to understand that it is descriptive, not proscriptive. It defines a particular definition of stupidity, a very utilitarian one, and then proceeds to classify various portions of the world based on that definition. It does not spell that out right at the beginning, or even necessarily at all. But it is not discussing all possible uses of the word "stupid". "Wasted potential" definitely d…

The article also discusses stupidity as an attribute of people, not actions.

I assume anyone who has had any experience with the world at all has "cause[d] losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain." Are there any non-stupid people?

Post reply on HN