#Stupidity, #Cipolla, #5BasicLawsofHumanStupidity
The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity,
explores the controversial subject of stupidity. Stupid people are seen as a group, more powerful by far than major organizations such as the Mafia and the industrial complex, which without regulations, leaders or manifesto nonetheless manages to operate to great effect and with incredible coordination.
These are Cipolla's five fundamental laws of stupidity:
• Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
• The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
• 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.
• Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
• A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
Corollary: a stupid person is more dangerous than a pillager.
As is evident from the third law, Cipolla identifies two factors to consider when exploring human behaviour:
Benefits and losses that an individual causes to him or herself.
Benefits and losses that an individual causes to others.
Graph with the benefits and losses that an individual causes to him or herself and causes to others.
By creating a graph with the first factor on the x-axis and the second on the y-axis, we obtain four groups of people, with an additional category either existing in its own right or drawn from the members of each previous category whose position with respect to both axes is least extreme:
Intelligent people (top right), who contribute to society and who leverage their contributions into reciprocal benefits
Helpless people (top left), who contribute to society but are taken advantage of by it (and especially by the "bandit" sector of it); note, however, that extreme altruists and pacifists may willingly and consciously (rather than helplessly) accept a place in this category for moral or ethical reasons
Bandits (bottom right), who pursue their own self-interest even when doing so poses a net detriment to societal welfare
Stupid people (bottom left), whose efforts are counterproductive to both their and others' interests
ineffectual people (center)
Cipolla further refines his definition of "bandits" and "naive people" by noting that members of these groups can either add to or detract from the general welfare, depending on the relative gains (or losses) that they cause themselves and society. A bandit may enrich himself more or less than he impoverishes society, and a naive person may enrich society more or less than he impoverishes himself and/or allows himself to be impoverished. Graphically, this idea is represented by a line of slope -1, which bisects the second and fourth quadrants and intersects the y-axis at the origin. The naive people to the left of this line are thus "semi-stupid" because their conduct creates/allows a net drain of societal welfare; some bandits may fit this description as well, although many bandits such as sociopaths, psychopaths, and non-pathological "jerks" and amoralists may act with full knowledge of the net negative consequences to a society that they neither identify with nor care about.
Hate to ask but what is the purpose of this study? Are stupid people uneducated? Such a broad term.
@sassygirl3869 ? please define "educated" and "uneducated".
Isn't the purpose that of identifying 5 fundamental laws of human stupidity.
Which quadrant does your question lie in? Is it that of helpless people providing nothing but loss to yourself and allprofit to others? Does it create not only loss to yourself but also to others? Does it only benefit you whilst creating an equal amount of loss to others OR does it create profit to you, myself and everyone else and if so, how?
Maybe we need an app then that gauges the relative stupidity of an individual. It could do that by reading the eyes. Then again external factors could skew the results. Just an indicator then of whether you want to take the effort to converse with the individual. Of course he might have the same app. My tongue is well inside my cheek.
How do we measure someone who is obviously both stupid and a bandit like the President?
I know little of your President however I am told that he is in the process of creating great wealth for a limited few. If he is not gaining personal advantage then I suggest that places him in the category of an helpless person. If however he is also gaining advantage as well as advantaging a limited few then he is an intelligent person. If he is only advantaging himself at the expense of everyone else he is not only a bandit but a very corrupt politician. I suspect that in many aspects that he is not only creating loss for himself (giving away his presidential salary) but also creating mega loss for everyone else then he falls within the stupid category.
As with most things nothing is clearcut and so it is probable that at different times and on different issues he probably falls into each quadrant. Time will tell.
This is, indeed, fascinating ... thank you for this reference. It makes one wonder if we are living in a time dominated by the 'lower half' of this quandrant ... our own version of a kakistocracy: "a system of government which is run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens."
Is kack the same as the word I last heard colloquially used 50 years ago in the north of England - "cack" or "caque" meaning faeces?
Isn't that the standard problem with politicians - that if you want power, you are not a suitable person to have it?
This is fancisnating, nevercome across it before,although I have read Micheal Shermers"Why intelligent peoplebelieve stupidthings" which perhaps shows the flaw in how we define stupidity and intelligence based on Cultural and historical perspectives, after all a Capitailist may see a socialist as stupid and vice versa depending on how entrenched their views are,plusare stupid peoplepowerful because they can be manipulated easily by others-the bandits perhaps in this case in which casethe bandits(or government lol) hold all the power-don'teducate people tothink for themselves and their easier to control?-so perhapstheir not as powerful as theauthour suggests but merely appear to be??Lots of questions-where can I read more abot this theory??
Just follow all the Google or Duck links. I note this has been promulgated by many varying con artists trying to prove their con is intelligent. These range from those promoting get rich quick schemes to the American NRA. Just take their manipulation of their propaganda, apply the laws or even say the reverse of their arguments and apply the laws to see which quadrant becomes true according to Cipolla.