Post: #1

Here is a good link to an article describing the research paper.
For some reason I could not download it.

The main researcher seems like a BETA male:

This does not mean he may not be up to something, but more on the BETA traits later.

First they made a database of stupid stories:

Quote:the researchers ended up with 180 stories, a small number of which they deliberately manipulated to alter the consequences of the stupid actions and the responsibility level of the perpetrator.

Then they showed it to their research sample:

Quote:The stories were ... shown to 154 undergrads in Hungary. The students rated the intensity of the stupidity on display and also rated how much 30 potential psychological factors (including things like overconfidence and fatigue) were to blame for the stupidity

Those of you who now anthropological/qualitative research know that now you look at the "Themes" - you categorize what people describe into main themes:

Quote:•"Confident ignorance" which is when people engage in risky actions for which they lack the prerequisite skills or knowledge. Such actions received the highest ratings of stupidity and were encapsulated by a story of burglars who thought they were stealing mobile phones, but actually stole GPS tracking devices which allowed the police to find them.
•"Lack of control", resulting from obsessive, or addictive behaviour. For example, a person who cancelled a meet up with a good friend because they couldn't pull themselves away from a video game. This category was intermediary in the hierarchy of stupidity.
•"Absentmindedness – Lack of practicality" which refers to instances when people fail a practical task, either out of distraction or because of a lack of practical skills. This category was encapsulated by someone inflating car tires too far. In terms of stupidity ratings, the participants were most lenient toward these kind of acts.

Also, people think you are more stupid based on outcome.

Red pill lens:
Higher ranking men (Alpha) will be the first to be torn down and ridiculed if they make a "stupid" mistake when they are in power.
Lesson for us - Do risky activities and be aware that you might be perceived as "stupid" if you fail.

"Lack of control" - I so see females here. That inability to stop chatting in order to do some work...

Also, if you "lack practicality", people will probably pity you. This is not were tingles are born.

We were waiting for the BETA spin, so here it is:

Quote:Aczel and his team speculate that people are generally rather preoccupied by acts of stupidity, either committed by themselves or others, because to maintain this vigilance is beneficial. By striving to avoid the label of stupidity, we are all galvanised toward avoiding actions, such as overconfidence, or mindlessness, that are likely to lead to misfortune or loss of status

Red pill lens: Avoid risks so you will not be perceived as "STUPID".

You know what? FUCK THAT!

No risk - No reward.
If you fear doing things - you will not be perceived as stupid. But, you also will not be perceived.
The team actually tells us, that from a feminine-imperative perspective, it is better to do less. You might lose that precious "status".

Don't think that the paper does not have limitations - it has. The main one is relying on Millennial opinions.

Last quote:

Quote:the study of intelligent behaviour may benefit from understanding its flipside, unintelligent behaviour, which in turn may be inherently linked to our conception of stupid actions

Well - from what I remember in psychology, the main idea of positive psychology research was that learning the abnormal yields very little assistance in understanding the NORMAL.

However - it does have some ideas about how you are perceived when "things go wrong".

Post: #2

"Absentmindedness - Lack of practicality"

A few nights ago, I was looking into a small hand-held mirror when I decided I wanted to know what my face would look like upside down.

So I tried to rotate the mirror...

Post: #3

This reminds me of an economic paper written about stupidity. Its called "The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity" by Carlo M. Cipolla.

Quote: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:

1) Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
2) The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
3) 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.
4) 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.
5) 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.
  

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
• Naive people (top left), who contribute to society but are taken advantage of by it (and especially by the "bandit" [q.v.] sector of it); note, however, that extreme altruists and pacifists may willingly and consciously (rather than "naive[ly]") 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
• Helpless/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.

Post: #4

Sure, there are stupid people in terms of extremely low IQ, but even smart people have the capacity to be stupid, on some level(s).

For instance, absent-mindedness can occur to anyone. To someone who doesn't know that person, they would be categorised as "stupid", even though it's situational. Maybe the "data" they received was faulty, which informed their stupid decision.

Then there's the highly intellectual yet socially retarded types. Would they be considered as stupid due to not having a firm grasp of social cues/etiquette?

Conversely, we all know of elite athletes that are naturally gifted in their chosen field, making high level on-the-fly decisions/movements, reading the play etc, but aren't the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to other aspects of life.

Someone may be brilliant with the written word, but hopeless with mathematics.

Another may be gifted at mathematics but have no capacity for creative thought or ability.

It's not as black and white as it initially seems. We all have our strengths and our weaknesses and despite what western society encourages regarding working on weaknesses, it's sometimes better to cut your losses and exploit your strengths.

Post: #5

I really like this theory.

It's very common for people to whine, "ugh, people are so stupid."

But this guy really nails down what this ineffable "stupid" is, the kind of stupid that's not captured by IQ.

And yes I think his idea is correct.

Post: #6

I have found that very book smart people tend to be some of the most annoying and insufferable types around. They are often pseudo intellectuals who would be lost and possibly robbed if they ever left their safe environment. In my eyes, they can be classified as stupid..

Post: #7

What about smoking or drug addiction? Is it stupid to smoke knowing full well it is not healthy.

What about religious fanatics? Suicide bombers? The crusaders? Was it dumb to believe in a sky god and go to war for it?

Post: #8

(12-23-2015 04:47 PM)Tactician Wrote:  "Stoned"

A few nights ago, I was looking into a small hand-held mirror when I decided I wanted to know what my face would look like upside down.

So I tried to rotate the mirror...

Fixed that for you.

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Rudyard Kipling