And no Forrest Gump fans either???
Posted on 09/11/2005 11:47:11 AM PDT by ForGod'sSake
Giancarlo Livraghi was recruited to Serendipia by Ron Lee and Jake Ghitis (see About Serendip Forum, 25 August, and following). Giancarlo is a writer, living in Italy, who has been involved in advertising, and currently concentrates on "the human and social issues of electronic communication", having been a founder of ALCEI-Electronic Frontiers Italy. Among his writings in English is an on line newsletter. Giancarlo's essays on stupidity appeared originally in Entropy Gradient Reversals, and are mirrored here with his permission. Some additional information about Giancarlo is provided by Entropy Gradient Reversal as part of their posting of his second essay.
By Giancarlo Livraghi
gian@gandalf.it
June 1996
[See also The Power of Stupidity, Part II, written 15 months later.]
I have always been fascinated with Stupidity.
My own, of course; and that's a big enough cause of anxiety.
But things get much worse when one has a chance to find out how Big People take Big Decisions.
We generally tend to blame awful decisions on intentional perversity, astute mischievousness, megalomania, etc. They are there, all right; but any careful study of history, or current events, leads to the invariable conclusion that the single biggest source of terrible mistakes is sheer stupidity. When it combines with other factors (as happens quite often) the results can be devastating.
One of the many examples of stupidity is that intrigue and powermongering are called "machiavellian". Obviously nobody has read his books, as that is not what old Niccolò meant.
Another thing that surprises me (or does it?) is the very little amount of study dedicated to such an important subject. There are University departments for the mathematical complexities in the movements of Amazonian ants, or the medieval history of Perim island; but I have never heard of any Foundation or Board of Trustees supporting any studies of Stupidology.
I have found very few good books on the subject. One I read when I was a teenager, but never forgot. It is called A Short Introduction to the History of Human Stupidity by Walter B. Pitkin of Columbia University, and was published in 1934. I found it by chance many years ago while browsing around my mother's bookshelves; and much to my delight, when I went to her home yesterday and looked for it, it was still there. Old as it is, it's still a very good book. Some of Professor Pitkin's observations appear extraordinarily correct sixty years later.
Now... why did he call a 300-page book a "short introduction"?
At the end of the book, it says: Epilogue: now we are ready to start studying the History of Stupidity. Nothing follows.
Professor Pitkin was a very wise man. He knew that a lifetime was far too short to cover even a fragment of such a vast subject. So he published the Introduction, and that was it.
Pitkin was well aware of the lack of previous work in the field. He had a team of researchers hunt through the files of the Central Library in New York. They found nothing. According to Pitkin, there were only two books on the subject: Aus der Geschichte der menschlichen Dummheit by Max Kemmerich, and Über die Dummheit by Lewenfeld. Unfortunately I don't understand German, though "Dummheit" sounds clear enough; and I guess Kemmerich and Lewenfeld must have had a special abundance of material for their studies, considering what happened in Germany in 1933 and following years.
In Pitkin's opinion, four people out of five are stupid enough to be called "stupid." That was one and a half billion people when he wrote the book; it is over four billion now. This, in itself, is quite stupid.
He observed that one of the problems of Stupidity is that nobody has a really good definition of what it is. In fact geniuses are often considered stupid by a stupid majority (though nobody has a good definition of genius, either). But stupidity is definitely there, and there is much more of it than our wildest nightmares might suggest. In fact, it runs the world -- which is very clearly proven by the way the world is run.
But somebody, fifty-four years later, came up with a rather interesting definition. His name is Carlo M. Cipolla and he is Professor Emeritus of Economic History at Berkeley. All of his books are in English, except two. The first was published by "Il Mulino" in Bologna in 1988.
In that book there is a little essay called The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity, which may be the best ever written on the subject.
Here are the Five Laws of Stupidity according to Carlo Cipolla:
We always underestimate the number of stupid people.
This is not as obvious as it sounds, says Cipolla, because:
and
He also observes that it is impossible to set a percentage, because any number we choose will be too small.
The probability of a person being stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
If you study the frequency of stupidity in the people who come to clean up classrooms after hours, you find that it is much higher than you expected. You assume that this is related to their lower level of education, or to the fact that non-stupid people have better chances of obtaining good jobs. But when you analyze students or University professors (or, I would add, computer programmers) the distribution is exactly the same.
Militant feminists may be incensed, says Cipolla, but the stupidity factor is the same in both genders (or as many genders, or sexes, as you may choose to consider). No difference in the sigma factor, as Cipolla calls it, can be found by race, color, ethnic heritage, education, etcetera.
A stupid person is someone who causes damage to another person, or a group of people, without any advantage accruing to himself (or herself) -- or even with some resultant self-damage.
(We shall come back to this, because it is the pivotal concept of the Cipolla Theory.)
Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid people. They constantly forget that at any moment, and in any circumstance, associating with stupid people invariably constitutes an expensive mistake.
That (I would say) suggests that non-stupid people are a bit stupid -- but I shall get back to this point at the end.
A stupid person is the most dangerous person in existence.
This is probably the most widely understood of the Laws, if only because it is common knowledge that intelligent people, hostile as they might be, are predictable, while stupid people are not. Moreover, its basic corollary:
A stupid person is more dangerous than a bandit
leads us to the heart of the Cipolla Theory. There are four types of people, he says, depending on their behavior in a transaction:
- Hapless
- Someone whose actions tend to generate self-damage, but also to create advantage for someone else.
- Intelligent
- Someone whose actions tend to generate self-advantage, as well as advantage for others.
- Bandit
- Someone whose actions tend to generate self-advantage while causing damage to others.
- Stupid
- We already have this definition in the Third Law.
Professor Cipolla uses a matrix that looks like this:
Y
| | | H | + I | | | | ------------------- O ------------------- X - | + | | | S | - B | | |
The "X" axis measures the advantage gained from one's actions.
The "Y" axis measures the advantage gained by another person (or group).
Clearly, people in the "I" area are intelligent, people in the "B" area are bandits, people in the "H" area are hapless, and people in the "S" area are stupid.
It is also quite clear that, depending on where they fall in this matrix, people have a greater or lesser degree of stupidity, intelligence, banditism, etc. One can develop quite a variety of combinations, such as smart bandits or stupid bandits, depending on the benefit-damage ratio. (In this, Cipolla observes, the amount of damage is to be measured from the perspective of the victim, not the bandit, which makes most thieves and criminals quite stupid.)
I guess that from here on each of us can use this matrix to study stupidity and elaborate the application of the Cipolla Theory in all its many possible variations.
But that is not quite the end of the story.
Y
| . | . Hi | . | + I . | . | Hs . | . | ------------------- O ------------------- X - | . + | . | . Bi | . S | - . | Bs . | . | M
If we draw a diagonal line across the matrix, we find that everything on the upper right side of this line generates an improvement to the overall balance of the system, while events (and people) on the other side cause a deterioration.
A variety of interesting analyses can be conducted by studying variables in each of the four sectors, such a Sh and Sb, Ib and Ih, Hs and Hi, or as many sub-sectors as one may wish to define.
For instance, the "M" chord in the lower right side of the grid delineates the position of the "perfect bandit": someone who causes exactly as much damage as he or she accrues gain. Obviously, on the two sides of the diagonal you have "imperfect" bandits -- Bi are "intelligent bandits" and Bs are "stupid bandits."
In a world populated exclusively by "perfect bandits," the system as a whole would be balanced; damage and advantage would cancel each other out. The same effect would occur in a world populated by "perfectly hapless" people.
Of course intelligent people make the biggest contribution to society as a whole. But, nasty as it may sound, intelligent bandits also contribute to an improvement in the balance of society by causing more advantage than harm overall. "Hapless-intelligent" people, though they lose individually, can also have socially positive effects.
However, when stupidity gets into the act, the damage is enormously greater than the benefit to anyone.
This proves the original point: the single most dangerous factor in any human society is stupidity.
As a historian, Cipolla points out that, while the sigma factor (stupidity) is a constant in time as well as space, a strong upcoming society has a higher percentage of intelligent people, while a declining society has an alarming percentage of bandits with a strong stupidity factor (sub-area Bs in the grid) among the people in power, and an equally alarming percentage of hapless (H area) among those who are not in power.
Where are we now? That's a good question...
Cipolla also observes that intelligent people generally know they are, bandits are well aware of their attitude, and even hapless people have a sneaking suspicion that all is not right.
But stupid people don't know they are stupid, and that is one more reason why they are extremely dangerous.
Which of course leads me back to my original, agonizing question: am I stupid?
I have passed several IQ tests with good marks. Unfortunately, I know how these tests work and that they don't prove anything.
Several people have told me I am intelligent. But that doesn't prove anything, either. They may simply be too kind to tell me the truth. Conversely, they could be attempting to use my stupidity for their own advantage. Or they could be just as stupid as I am.
I am left with one little glimpse of hope: quite often, I am intensely aware of how stupid I am (or have been). And this indicates that I am not completely stupid.
At times, I have tried to locate myself in the Cipolla matrix, using as far as possible measurable results of action, rather than opinion, as a yardstick. Depending on the situation, I seem to wander around the upper side of the grid, between the Hs and Ib areas; but in some cases I am desperately lost in Sh. I just hope I am on the right side of the diagonal as often as I think.
On a broader scale, one would expect the strongest success factors to lie in the Ib and Bi subsectors. However, the staggering number of Sb and even Sh people who have wonderful careers can be only explained by a strong desire on the part of many leaders to be surrounded by as many stupid people as possible.
When I read the book, I liked it so much that I wrote a letter to Carlo Cipolla. (I have done this sort of thing only twice in my life).
Much to my surprise, he answered, briefly but kindly.
I had two questions:
The answer was no. (He didn't say why, but I have a hunch.)
"What do you think of my 'corollary' to your theory?"
In this case, the answer was "Well... why not, maybe..." -- which I took as Enthusiastic Approval and Endorsement of...
In each of us there is a factor of stupidity, which is always larger than we suppose.
This creates a three-dimensional grid and I don't think I have to take you through the steps, because no stupid (or timid) person would have had the courage to read this far.
Of course, one can introduce other variables, such as our own H
and B factors, and other people's S, H and B. It may be wise to forget I, as there never is enough of that; however, do consider B, because even the most generous person can sometimes behave like a bandit, if only by mistake. These additional factors generate multi-dimensional models that can get fairly difficult to manage. But even if we consider only our individual sigma values, the complexity can become quite staggering.
Try it for yourself... and get really scared.
Go to
The Power of Stupidity, Part II
I'm getting on in years but I have a good memory and an interest in current events. And I have seen history and money-burning repeat itself over and over like Groundhog Day. In the past, nobody wanted to share research and could get away with it sneaking federal funding. Now, with computers, it's pretty much just a case piranha schooling of the biggest names with the biggest MBAs getting money (the hell with results). Funding is the only objective, and the big ones get it. Research is no fun anymore and I'm glad I don't do it. Gnar.
It isn't that complicated, and the guy who cracks the problem is gonna make a bundle.
If, pulling out all the stops, we make vehicles very efficient, many of them will not use any fuel at all, being driven ten miles to a parking lot, sitting all day in the sun, and then being driven fifteen miles home.
Yes, but there's a reason why it didn't work. I say it's a wash because, while the expansion of liquid water to steam generates gas pressure, the quenching action of converting the liquid to steam steals from the heat and thus the gas pressure you got from burning the gasoline. You've already liberated the energy, you're just making it do more work inside the cylinder.
Yes, with the engines we have now, even after you let the pressure off, there's still residual energy in the exhaust. All we do with it now is warm the passenger compartment in winter and dissipate the excess with the radiator. There might be something you can do with that, but it's hard to see just what.
And whoever the clever asshole is who figures it out, is forced to sign all rights over to some big company that will make a fortune. It's fun to play but you can barely make a living at it. It's not like it used to be.
You sound a little turmoiled. Been hanging out on the wrong threads?
The resources available to the backyard inventor today are awesome in comparison to what went before. Communications, drafting programs, search engines, and component availabilities are all stunning in their scope.
Automobile parts and inventive tinkerers are also widely available, and the need is apparent. Why would the vacuum that Nature abhors not be filled?
Financing? Didja ever hear of the baby boom? All kinds of people are retiring now, and they are in the full vigor of their mental and social life. They will want to make contributions for the future, for their grandchildren, and for the fun of it.
I am confident.
I've been married to R&D for 40 years and know cellar dwellers and Fortune 500 employees all over the US and part of the world. Hubby has way over 100 patents and we have worked with many different types of enterprises. I can be good.
Convection
And no Forrest Gump fans either???
Thanks!
Being "stupid" in a creative way is not as easy as one might think. Comedians like Jeff Foxworthy work a lot harder than they make it seem.
"If your fingers move when you talk, you might be a FReeper!"
Thanks for the ping!
Heh. Another gem.
"If life hands you raspberries, steal its pants. That way you have its raspberries and its pants."
And on this odd, and late, note I am heading off to bed.
;-)
Who is John Galt?
She said they made lots of money -- for other people.
I was asking her how I could become rich. She didn't know either.
No Bill Gates. Sorry, it was late, I was tired and thought that was Freepmail.
Once they figured out how to take your money, they learned how to steal your intellectual property. Now, not only do you have to be smart, you have to be lucky.
At the risk of unintentional exposure, I confess that the word "stupid," as used in this article, brings a smile to my face. It is a very amusing-sounding word.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.