An important advantage of this approach is that it avoids the thorny problem of trying to find, in theory, a definition of stupidity (or intelligence) while it evaluates its relevance in relation to practical effects…
It’s obvious that, with this criterion, different categories of behavior can be defined. At one extreme we find people who do good for themselves as well as for others (therefore we call them “intelligent”). At the other end of the spectrum there are people who do harm to themselves as well as to others (and those are “stupid”). It’s pretty obvious that there are also at least two “in between” categories. One that harms others while gaining self advantage (Cipolla calls them “bandits”). And one where we place people who harm themselves while doing good for others.
The definition of this last category isn’t as simple as it may seem. It isn’t always appropriate to call them “hapless” or “hopeless”. That may seem correct if gain or loss are measured according to simplistic criteria of “classic” economy. But it can be wrong when applied to people who deliberately sacrifice some of their own benefits for the good of others – as we shall see shortly after the next point.
It’s obvious that this sort of concept can be “charted”, quite simply, by using the classic (two-dimensional) “Cartesian coordinate system”.
It is “standard procedure” to define four “quadrants”
numbered counterclockwise from I to IV
If we place on the horizontal (“abscissa”) X-axis the advantage (or disadvantage) that someone obtains from his or her own actions, and on the vertical (“ordinate”) Y-axis the effects on other people, anyone of us can find a placement, based on the practical consequences of behavior, where a person (of group of people) is to be placed – in general or in a particular circumstance. It’s obvious that behaviors in “quadrant I” (top right) are at various levels of “intelligence”, while in “quadrant III” (bottom left) it’s stupidity.
It is also obvious that in the fourth quadrant (bottom right) we can find different levels of “banditism”. But those in the second (top left) can’t be so easily defined. (This is one of the points in which my interpretation is somewhat different from Cipolla’s definitions – another, more general, difference is explained in the final comments in this article).
They may be “hapless” or “hopeless” if and when they harm themselves and others without being aware of what they are doing. But the same placement in the coordinates could be the result of deliberately generous or “altruistic” behavior. In such cases the analysis could take one of two courses. Consider moral and social benefits – and therefore place those behaviors in the “intelligent” area. Or leave them where they are, on the left of the Y-axis, but use a different definition (more on this subject is in a “footnote” to The Stupidity of Power).
Without getting into the details, that could be quite complex, of what can be done with this sort of analyses, a key fact is that the evaluation of different behaviors can be done on an individual basis (one-to-one) or on a wider scale, involving “large” systems (nations, international communities or even humanity as a whole) or not-so-wide environments (local situations, companies, associations, organized or informal groups, human communities of any sort, nature or size).
The system, as a whole, can improve or degrade as the result of a combination of several different behaviors, not all necessarily “altruistic”. But it’s clear that the greatest improvement is the result of “intelligent” action – and the worst deterioration is caused by stupidity. In other words, if each person or group of people mind too much their own interest, and don’t consider the effect of their actions on everyone else, there is a general decay of society as a whole – and so also those who thought they were being “smart” turn out to be stupid. But it often happens that this is understood when it’s too late.
This confirms the basic concept: the most dangerous factor in every human society is stupidity.
Of course there are specific, and often dramatic, consequences when there is an unbalance of cause and effect. As in the case of actions by a few people that have an effect on many. For more on this subject see The Stupidity of Power.
In the use of the coordinates there are some differences between the approach suggested by Carlo Cipolla and the method in my reasoning. They are mainly three.
- Observations by Pitkin, Cipolla and nearly everybody considering this subject are based on an assumption of total separation: some people are intelligent and some are stupid. As we shall see shortly further, I believe that almost nobody is totally stupid, and nobody can hope to be always intelligent. Therefore we need to consider the element of stupidity (and also of other behavior patterns) that exists in all of us.
- Analyses based on results can be made by trying to define a person’s general behavior pattern or be limited to a particular set of circumstances. This second option is not to be excluded. It can be quite interesting to find how the same person, in different situations, can behave in ways that lead to different results and definitions.
- The obvious attitude, when we work with these coordinates, it to place ourselves in the “X-axis” and someone else in the “Y”. But it can be very useful to do it the other way round, trying to trace the effects of our actions on other people. The difficulty lies in the fact that, of course, the quality of results is to be measured by the point of view of whoever is at the receiving end. But it’s always a useful exercise to try to “put ourselves in someone else’s shoes” – especially when we are trying to measure our level of stupidity (or intelligence.)
It’s a widely known fact that responsible and generous people are generally aware of how they are, malicious and nasty people understand what they are doing, and even the weakest victims have a feeling that something isn’t quite 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 I have been). And this indicates that I am not completely stupid.
At times, I have tried to locate myself in the Cartesian coordinates, 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 graph, above the X-axis, sometimes in the quadrant on the top right, that is to say, with a relatively “low” or “high” level of intelligence. But in some cases I am desperately lost on the left side, hurting myself as well as others. I just hope I am “useful to others” as often as I think. But I know that it’s impossible to never make mistakes – and that there is never any end to learning.
On a broader scale, one would expect the strongest success factors to lie in the first and fourth quadrant, that is, on the right side of the Y-axis. However, the staggering number of people who belong on the other side, and have wonderful careers, can be only explained by a strong desire on the part of several leaders to be surrounded by as many stupid people as possible.
Shortly after reading his book, 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 asked him:
«What do you think of my “corollary” to your theory?»
The answer was «Well… why not, maybe…» – which I think can be taken as agreement and approval of
Livraghi’s Corollary to Cipolla’s First Law
In each of us there is a factor of stupidity, which is always larger than we suppose.
This “corollary” (as those that followed – see Part Two) isn’t necessarily related so a single author. It could be applied, for instance, to Hanlon’s Razor or Finagle’s Law – as to any general consideration on the ubiquity of stupidity, that is often, if not always, more widespread and more dangerous than expected.
This creates a three-dimensional coordinate system 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, in addition to our own and other people’s stupidity, we can introduce other variables, such as our own behavior factors, and their many ways of combining with those of others. It may be wise to forget the “intelligent” factor, as there never is enough of that – but to consider “fourth quadrant” values, 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 stupidity values, the complexity can become quite staggering.
Try it for yourself… and get really scared…
