On Stupidity

[Maya]

I'm not saying the video is bad, but I think Bonhoeffer (or at least what the video says about him) perhaps made some good observations about society and human behaviour, although he doesn't seem to have made a great discovery, others have observed the same things before as well. Putting a name or a label on it (stupidity) may be practical at some point and even sound sympathetic, but for the purposes of understanding the complex underlying phenomenon I don't know how much it can contribute because it is a simplistic reduction of a phenomenon that is complex and diverse in variables.

I think "stupidity" would perhaps be an acceptable name to refer to the symptom, to the overt aspects of the phenomenon, but it would seem to me rather narrow and pretentious if we were to use it to explain the causes of human behaviour.

Lazy and wishful thinking blind first comes to mind. Doesn't matter how we should call it - we're all hostages of them in this reality at the moment

 

[BHelmet]

Perhaps stupid isn’t quite the right word because of its usual connotation. I think he is talking about a very special Kind of stupid that might be more accurately described with another term or terms. Just plain stupid doesn’t get it for me. But, When I was a child I would have used stupid. I equated it with people who couldn’t see what I thought was obvious (as a young boy).

G did describe people as suggestible. (Prone to manipulations and hypnosis) so, is the problem really the stupid sheep or the evil magician? Seems to be both, to me.

And That seems to be the nature of one of the upper level graduate courses of this school. Struggling to resist the one and awaken the other. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t course #303.

While remaining light hearted.

The flogging will continue until morale improves.

 

[irjO]

Perhaps stupid isn’t quite the right word because of its usual connotation. I think he is talking about a very special Kind of stupid that might be more accurately described with another term or terms.

Well according to the dictionary the word stupid means: : not intelligent : having or showing a lack of ability to learn and understand things.

The word itself provoques emotional reaction because many times if not all the time it’s used to insult or attack someone, it has an emotional charge when used. But the meaning it’s quite accurate to what the little book portrays. I read it too long ago so my memory on it is not too fresh. Anyways, the word itself is not important, is how is almost accurately applied to the state the majority of people nowadays. The world nowadays is educated and trained to be and act permanently stupid. OSIT

 

[Andrian]

Very interesting insights everyone, thank you.

Stupidity as an argument, if one tries to analyze it as objective as possible will find out that it has a pretty complex connotation though at the same time a pretty simple explanation. That is, one's own level of Stupidity equals one's own level of being.

I remember reading in the Wave if I'm not mistaken where Laura was saying that one is ignorant as long as it is necessary and not a second less or longer.

It's a part of the spiritual growth, once one grows in knowledge by applying it one grows his own being and his own free will and thus is able to learn to resist to internal and external influences and forces who's aim is to keep him weak and meek and a nice little slave. And on, and on, and on...

Not mentioning about the forces behind the curtains that are pulling the strings of the "useful idiots" through their own ignorance and all that it implies.


That's of course my own understanding at the moment of this subject according to my current level of being.

 

[Redrock12]

Just ordered it today from the local public library. Has an intro by Nicholas Taleb. Should be interesting.

 

[Lathyrus]

I dunno; I like stupid. Why try to sugar over the devil?

Well according to the dictionary the word stupid means: : not intelligent : having or showing a lack of ability to learn and understand things.

The word itself provoques emotional reaction because many times if not all the time it’s used to insult or attack someone, it has an emotional charge when used. But the meaning it’s quite accurate to what the little book portrays. I read it too long ago so my memory on it is not too fresh. Anyways, the word itself is not important, is how is almost accurately applied to the state the majority of people nowadays. The world nowadays is educated and trained to be and act permanently stupid. OSIT

I am perhaps splitting hairs over semantics a little, but what I think people here generally mean by "stupidity" is not about the lack of mental capabilities in another person but more so due to their foolishness, or absence of wisdom. This is a slightly different question, having to do with the acknowledgement (or denial) of certain fundamental facts, rather than being a question of intellectual ability on its own. Like it says in the Bonhoeffer video, even a person that is on the one hand very intellectual and capable of very technical work can, at once, fall to very fatal and basic flaws of reasoning due to the refusal to acknowledge some kind of basic fact; contrasting against this, even someone that is not necessarily the most gifted in an intellectual sense can, nevertheless, demonstrate a good deal more of "common sense" than the so-called "intelligentsia" as it were in certain cases. Of course, someone that is both maybe not-so-intellectual and also a fool is basically a walking disaster and should be avoided at all costs, but that much I think can be taken for granted here.

A better way to maybe rephrase the question would be to put it in terms of ignorance; we are all born ignorant of course, but some can either learn on their own or be taught by others. However, there are those that, despite all external influences, will never be taught; they are the "willfully ignorant" and they do so, maybe at least partially due to lack of sheer mental aptitude, but more so due to the fact that acknowledging certain facts as "true" would mean having to acknowledge that the various lies they've imbibed are, in fact, NOT true, and would thus have to cause them to re-examine everything else about their lives that they simply do not want to see. It would destroy their carefully-constructed world of artificiality, and so when the 'truth' comes along and threatens to disturb it they'll fight to the death to defend it.

So, to them, we can do nothing practically. Summing this post up, there's a quote by Leonardo da Vinci that goes, "There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see." It is that simple, apparently.

 

[dredger]

Hello all,
I saw this thread being "re-animated" in the "Latest posts" section, so I clicked to first watch the small movie/animation posted by primeaddict, nice one ! thanks for this.
I almost read all the thread (in diagonal) but what got my attention is the following :
Laura opened the discussion the 11/11/2013:

The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity

If we click now on the link, the page displays 2 emails received by the site from a company which (pretends to) has (have) rights on the book and and ask to remove the text.

What puzzled me is the following :
The first email was sent just a few days before Laura posted it (the 29/10/2013)
A further "reminder" email, from the same person (Adrian from Romania), was sent only 2 weeks after, the 12/11/2013. Yes, just 1 day after Laura posted it.

So i searched on archive.org about this page.
The oldest snapshot of the page is dated of 17/8/2000, here's the link
Almost no change until the 18/11/2013 which is still clearly written at the bottom of the current page :

You may be able to find this material on internet archive websites. It was posted here around 2000 and was still in place until recently.​

2013 November 18​

Thus, the page, the information, were censored exacly 1 week after Laura posted (11/11/2013 / 18/11/2013) - Well done

Last thing that makes me wonder what is happening, is that in her initial post, Laura stated that the entire text can be found at the link, a 71 pages booklet. But if we look at what was stored in archive.org, it's the same from 2000 to 2013, a few pages with 4 cartoons, quite less material than 71 pages.

For the first point, what we could suspect is that ...maybe our 4D friends pushed the right button on a certain Adrian end of October 2013, knowing "in advance" that Laura was going to share this information, which followed by a censorship of the page. Isn't it strange that this page lasted more than 14y without being "challenged" and that at the right moment it's referenced here on the forum a process of censorship starts !? Kinda suspicious.

Regarding the second topic (a few pages vs 71 pages booklet), well, I can't explain it. Did they manipulate all the snapshoots of this page (from 2000 to 2013) on archive.org ? It's possible ...

 

[NewEngland Seeker]

In this discussion, stupid is a mindset coupled with amoral character, cowardice, perversity and irrationality to name a few of characteristics associated with it. I have noticed that our current 3D matrix has 3 primary principles that govern it, ignorance, chaos, and confusion. Those of us that are swimming against the current have to tackle these daily in order to evolve. Those who go with the flow will not struggle against the matrix thus we see that their behaviors, articulated by Bonhoeffer, as being stupid.

Therefore, Theory of Stupid is a multi faceted pattern of low level behavior that infects societies and drives them into totalitarianism. The remedy for the stupid is an awakening with a shocking realization that such low level behavior has destroyed their life and the lives of others. Perhaps the wave, earth's changes, and comets!

 

[BHelmet]

Well according to the dictionary the word stupid means: : not intelligent : having or showing a lack of ability to learn and understand things.

But the meaning it’s quite accurate to what the little book portrays.

Are there not many intelligent people who are showing a lack of ability to learn or understand certain things these days?

I know more than one PHD who is very bright, well-educated, vaxxed, afraid, and belligerent. But still stupid, in my view.

Stupid, to me, is a catch-all phrase. There are far too many kinds of stupid in this world. Stupid people can't see the harm they are doing, to others, and to themselves. Stupid is as stupid does. I don't know what word Bonhoeffer used in German. It might have a different flavor. But I get the strong sense of his frustration with (stupid) people, for lack of a better word.

 

[mkrnhr]

I think Cipolla's essay should be read because all of these issues about stupidity are already discussed there.
Stupid is as stupid does, which is why the definition of stupidity is based upon the behaviour and action of people in the real world rather than on any theoretical or abstract notion.

The second law states that the probabiblity of a person being stupid is independent of any other characteristic. That other characteristic can be education level or IQ or whatever, which means as N. Taleb points out in the preface to the book that the ratio of stupid people among Nobel laureates is the same as that among say tax accountants or any other grouping of people. There are of course other insights that are verified in everyday life, especially in these times.

The essay, or the corresponding book format, is worth the read.

Nothing compares to reading the original text but here is an old video with a summary of an already short read:

 

[Skyfall]

In the words of Carlo Cipolla :

“The stupid ones are more fearsome than Mafia, the military-industrial complex or the Communist International. They’re an unorganized group, without a leader or norm, but in spite of that, they act in perfect harmony, as guided by an invisible hand.

“With the smile on his lips, as if he were doing the most natural thing in the world, the stupid will appear on the spur of the moment to spoil your plans, destroy your peace, complicate your life and work, make you lose money, time, good humor, productivity, and all this without malice, without remorse and without reason. Stupidly”.

When you think about it , the implications are chilling indeed.
Basically what Cipolla pointed out is that they are acting in good faith , a "stupid " by Cipolla definition is somebody that inflict damage on others and on himself , the article also mention a study from Eötvös Loránd University ,further explaining 3 causes for stupidity , namely : ignorance and overconfidence (the worst type) , lack of control or distraction.

Bonhoeffer and Cipolla both reach the same conclusion (not surprisingly) that the "stupids" are very dangerous people because in the end (opposite for example to a "bandit "which will inflict damage to others for his own benefit) act without a goal or a purpose , just because they are stupid.
And then there is this part : The ability to hurt of a stupid person depends on the […] position of power or authority he occupies in the society.”
I do not believe further comments are required .

No doubt this topic require further study and observation , I ordered the book on Amazon.

 

[Pecha]

Bonhoeffer's theory has been taken up by others. This short video explores 5 principle laws of stupidity as outlined by Italian economic historian called Carlo Cipolla. The fundamental at the heart of his equation seems to be that true stupidity can be defined through actions that lead to loses to oneself as well as loses for others. Which quite neatly summarizes all those who proudly take the jab without knowledge or thought about the likely outcomes for themselves or for others (namely long term health decline for self and the destruction of society for others via enforcing group think compliance with tyranny).

This is a brilliant video and is an excellent definition for stupidity. Cipolla defines stupidity based on a scale on how one's actions benefit (or don't) oneself and others. On one end, you have entropic, stupid people where they cause damage to themselves and others. The other extreme are intelligent people who help themselves grow and aids others in the process. He brings up the distinction that IQ is not the determining factor for determining one's intelligence, but rather based on this scale.

You could have an individual on the lower end of the IQ graph and he or she can still be living a fulfilling life of hard work and effort, whether that be being a fun and awesome person to work and speak with, or sincerely being there for someone who needs it. Contrast that to psychopaths, with many having relatively high IQ, but cause damage to others in the short and/or long term while reaping all of the benefits in a selfish act of greed.

This got me thinking of company policies and how leadership can shape those to make it hard for entropic persons to get selfish gains by throwing others under the bus, while rewarding behavior that ends in a net positive for all parties. Healthcare is one sphere where this can have a tremendous impact in, but there are so many ways that health professionals can make out like a bandit, so to speak, especially nowadays with the COVID stuff. Can you believe, doctors in many hospitals get kickbacks for administering the vaccine or falsely labeling their patients as having COVID?

Another sphere that saw upheaval was the tech industry--with the rise of Big Data. Catherine Austin Fitts gave a pretty good explanation of what the big data boom meant for collaborative work that benefits both parties. Imagine two businessmen--one individual wants to buy the rights to the oil that the other person has. They are both selfish, and apply game theory to their decision making. So the deal occurs and the man trade assets (one gets money and the other the rights to the oil). Little did the buyer know, was that the entire deal was a set up. The man who had the original rights to the oil disposes of the buyer and steals the money back. Assuming the man has a way to avoid legal ramifications, according to cold, hard game theory, this business man won out big, to the detriment of the other.

Now, the above scenario with the oil may not seem too realistic (especially if the individuals don't have overt psychopathic traits), but the idea is that the bargaining system can sow these types of entropic seeds in the mind, virtually throwing out any natural progression towards cooperation.

Lets change up the context between the businessmen. Instead of oil, the man has a database containing millions of rows of data, and if the data is well kept and the collection methods are pristine, it will look like gold to any data scientist. The other man wants to buy it. The transaction occurs, and the owner of the database sends the other man a copy of the database. Does it make sense now for the original owner of the database to dispose of the buyer? The incentive to do that would not be as strong because the original owner still has their original copy of the database intact. With this setup with both individuals having the database, further collaboration can occur. They can harness the brilliant minds of their employees to work together and make something new.

When policies are made, ideally it would be one that rewards and prioritizes collaborative effort. These rules basically are only there as guidelines for stupid people as Cipolla puts it, and would in a way hinder psychopathic individuals from taking advantage of others.
Now this begs the moral question of if we can design a perfect system that seriously hinders those who have overt psychopathic traits from taking advantage of others, while greatly rewarding cooperation, would that be good in the long run? How would that effect Free-Will? If the cards are stacked so much in either direction, will that in a way abdicate Free-Will to some extent? In that case, what is the perfect balance?

This also leaves out the facets of long-term effects and the fruits of labor of such collaboration. Collaboration where it is between two criminal organizations is radically different between collaboration between two groups who have the best interests in heart for themselves and others.

 

[Vinícius]

after reading most of the comments here my hunch is that stupidity can be implied both as a label or process and the way you see it is individual(as per cited examples above)
that is, you can go on and analyze all reasons, sugar the parts that fit your view and write excellent books on it, in this process you can also identify too much with the label and end up in the opposite side of the scale(ironically, Taleb comes to mind)

does that make sense?

 

[Tauriel]

I don't know what word Bonhoeffer used in German.

Bonhoeffer used the word 'Dummheit' which has exactly the same connotation as 'stupidity'.

 

[gottathink]

Referring back to Muzafer Sherif’s Robber Cave Experiment: his first failed attempts to create conflict amongst the groups of boys was because they realised what the researchers were trying to do. Later after the second successful attempt, conflict was resolved when the boys had a common goal of survival (i.e. re-establishing a water supply).

I think these highlight two key points for recovering from stupidity: 1) understanding what the aims of the PTB are and, 2) events that cause people to turn away from their rule and unite to solve a serious presenting problem.
In other words firstly, knowledge of history and psychology and secondly, serious threats to our existence.

Both these things can and will be dished up in due course i.e. exposure and earth changes. The stupid will remain lazy and look to others to solve their problems. The catch is that you risk those others only wanting to solve their own problems, potentate your detriment.

I still think stupid is an appropriate term, it just is how it is. When we don’t make efforts to learn and think for ourselves we become stupid. Also I can’t resist this now cliche:
“Stupid is as stupid does”, meaning ones level of stupidity is determined by ones actions.

From this reading I’m trying to figure out what might be helpful insights to use in my every communications. I think at this stage I’m curious to just ask questions when people make statements. Things like, “how did you decide that?” or, “how does that help?”. I have no idea how else to engage in a conversation when people want to have them about what’s happening around us. Particularly as I am now one of NZs second class citizens and despised, apparently, by many. Hard to know if this is real or just faciebookie sensationalism as stupid people consign all their thinking to the government.
Sometimes walking away is a better strategy.