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...
I disagree. It's very quantifiable and utilitarian. It doesn't descend into moral judgment or elitism or simple dislike for a person's starting assumptions. Stupidity is just judged by its results.
So the "advantage" people are after is often an immediate and tiny satisfaction of their feelings, a perceived slight increase in their social status. Most examples in the article, such as not stepping aside when something is in your way.
And, frankly, being "ready for that" to some extent is a great piece of advice. Unfortunately.
I would say, though, that in almost all cases, emitting CO2 is more like bandit behavior than stupid behavior. If I drive 100 miles in my car, I probably benefit from that a lot more than the harm I cause directly to myself by emitting that CO2, which is almost certainly negligible.
You could make the case that it's B2 Bandit behavior (harm caused to everyone collectively is greater than the benefit to myself), but that would depend on why I made the car trip and how much benefit I got.
One could make the case that with climate change, human civilization as a whole is suffering because individually we're mostly engaging in B2 behavior. You might say that humanity is acting stupidly, but that would require us to define who the "other" is: non-human life? People who haven't been born yet? Space aliens?
It is only in aggregate, and possibly after the player's lifetime, when the negative consequences arrive.
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.
The irony here is that this itself is a very arrogant opinion.
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?
If he/she said something like "This is my opinion and if you think different, you're stupid." then that would be arrogant. I don't see an inkling of that here.
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.
That's kind of the point: you might expect that, and maybe it's true to some extent, but if you think there's some group of people somewhere that has some reliable method of excluding people who act in irrational and self-destructive ways, you're probably going to react the wrong way if you encounter such a person. The usual response is to assume some sort of nefarious plan. Maybe that person is executing a clever strategy to gain some sort of advantage? In actuality that person might not have any plan at all, they're just engaging in ordinary self-destruction and bringing everyone else along for the ride. Not recognizing that is a cognitive blind spot that people who don't do those sorts of things tend to have have.
Cipola does mention that while he considers the proportion of stupid people in circulation to be constant, a properly-functioning society will tend to give less agency to those people than a well-functioning one.
> It would be a profound mistake to believe the number of stupid people in a declining society is greater than in a developing society. Both such societies are plagued by the same percentage of stupid people. The difference between the two societies is that in the society which performs poorly: > > a) the stupid members of the society are allowed by the other members to become more active and take more actions; b) there is a change in the composition of the non-stupid section with a relative decline of populations of areas I, H1 and B1 and a proportionate increase of populations H2 and B2.
No, you've mistaken excuses for profundity.
> if you think there's some group of people somewhere that has some reliable method of excluding people who act in irrational and self-destructive ways
Yes, successful people, for many any definition of succesful that you respect. If one is successful, one clearly wasn't meaningfully self-destructive. If one is self-destructive, one expects to be systematically less successful. On average, in expectation, and with time lag. This isn't an observational trend, it's a definitional link.
Let's be concrete: if a professor makes a great discovery and then Cipola writes them off as stupid because he sees them struggling to tie their shoes, Cipola's model of stupidity is invalidated by the reality of the professor's useful contribution to society.
I've seen this happen.
> The usual response is to assume some sort of nefarious plan.
Cibola blamed the failure of his model on chance. He could also have chosen to blame it on conspiracy. He would still be wrong -- it's just a poor model.
> Not recognizing [self-destruction] is a cognitive blind spot that people who don't do those sorts of things tend to have have.
Sure, but this guy has enshrined Fundamental Attribution Error into a philosophy. It's not a blind spot, it's a blindfold.
Are those "stupid"? Presumably not. But if you allow for such non-material benfit, then what if your "stupid" people who are causing harm to others are actually deriving emotional benefits from it?
What it "stickin' it to the libs" makes them happy or feels to them like bringing a little bit of justice to the world?
How about someone who quits his job (losing money) at just the right time to cause his shitty boss huge problems (and a lot more money loss)?
Is that different? Do you really want to judge which emotional benefits are valid and which are not (and thus "stupid")? And call that a "precise definition"?
If that's entirely all of it then it's clearly a benefit. But conversely if "stickin' it to the libs" makes them lose their family, their job, or something else then the harm might outweigh the benefit and that would be stupid.
Seems straight forward to me.
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 basic observations contained in the essay to be useful.