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

61–70 of 100 posts

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#61

Post by kelseydh »

mcguire wrote: post #52
Calavar wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

I like this way of seeing it. All of us, at some point in our lives, have acted Helpless, Intelligent, Stupid, and as Bandits. Life and growth is learning from the past and improving where the balance of your behaviour lands in each respective quadrant.

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#62

Post by dieselgate »

mcguire wrote: post #57
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 ar…

Haha yeah that’s a fair point and I understand what you mean - you’re right. It’s just supposed to be a joke but maybe that’s not clear

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#63

Post by dieselgate »

notakio wrote: post #59
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.

Ah gotcha yeah i wasn’t sure if it was Carlin or Burr!

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#64

Post by jjoonathan »

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…

2nd law: stupidity is independent

3rd law: stupidity causes harm (definition)

There is a contradiction here. By this definition, if you select for attainment of any kind that would be sabotaged by the harm, you had better start seeing less stupidity. If you don't, it's a hint that your model of stupidity is wrong. Indeed, his model is wrong, but instead of taking the hint the author simply chalks the pile of contradictory evidence up to chance and sticks with his bad model: "Nature seems indeed to have outdone herself." No, dude -- the problem is not with nature, it's with your model.

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#65

Post by coldtea »

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: for the purposes of this essay, it's someone who causes harm to other people without any benefit or causing harm to themselves.

It's only precise in the abstract. When it comes to concrete information, it's a BS non-definition. In real life scenarios of any real importance (that is, non trivial examples of Dumb and Dumber style behavior), it quickly gets difficult to define if harm was caused, who caused it, whether they've benefited from it (especially as benefits are not just monetary or advancing one's position on some job or some such), and so on...

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#68

Post by Paul_S »

n4r9 wrote: post #29
Paul_S wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-totalli…

That's my point. I think my mistake was not defining what a good and bad driver means. I don't mean safe, cautious, polite - I simply mean competent in moving the car where you want it to go. Drivers in America and even more so in China are aggressive, but they also can control their cars better because they have to! No one will let them in, they have to force their way. If someone in my country of origin drives at the speed limit, everyone will overtake him, even if it's dangerous and if it's physically impossible they will beep at him. In the UK if someone is driving 40 in a 60 zone there will be a long line of cars behind him. It used to boil my blood first couple of years. Now I'm patient like the rest.

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#69

Post by psi75 »

polotics wrote: post #10
psi75 wrote: post #8

The thing about this stupidity is that it's the thrill of being the cause and, as the essay observes, it is not just low-IQ or low "class" people who indulge. Some people like to steal stop signs, and some people like to ruin their co-workers' reputations. It has little to do with actual low intelligence, but it is irrational and unpredictable. The most dangerous people, though, are bandits who figure out how to use…

Having seen the posted articles quite a few times in past years, this is the first case of a comment contributing a new idea to the riff. Thumbs up!

I was one of the best posters on Hacker News until my real name account got banned. Now I'm 30 of the best posters on Hacker News.

Re: Five Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

#70

Post by wildmanx »

enraged_camel wrote: post #54
wildmanx wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not sure which part. You quoted an implication. Do you find my description in the antecedent arrogant (i.e. my characterization of the beginning of the article), or the implication itself?

If the former, I spent quite some time to argue in favor of my opinion in my original comment. You are welcome to argue the opposite. Just calling it "irony" is not much of an argument though.

If the latter, then I'd like to understand why. Do you argue that no matter how nonsensical some text, you need to read it fully before expressing any thought about it? Or do you mean something else?

Post reply on HN