Man Vs Nature

Some people are stupid, but which of the two groups of people depicted below the Read More really represents stupidity? Or do they both?

If nature administers the ultimate IQ test based upon its own definition of intelligence, the ability to survive must represent a passing grade.  To what extent do a culture's concepts of intelligence transcend natures? And aren't both concepts bound to be the same anyway? Carlo M. Cipolla has studied the question of human stupidity at some length.

Through his study of economic history, he showed a keen interest in the causes that prompted specific economic and social situations during history, instead of focusing on facts and figures. He was noted as well for his work on overpopulation and his essays on human stupidity ...

By creating a graph with the first factor on the x-axis and the second on the y-axis, [Cipolla] obtains four groups of people:

* Intelligent people (top right)

* Helpless / Naive people (top left)

* Bandits (bottom right)

* Stupid people (bottom left)

The implications of the interactions of these four groups are explored here.




In Cipolla's typology, the stupid person represents some kind of entropic force. But it is not clear, from the video clip above, whether the "smart people" represented are truly smart. Through some operation of inner logic they refuse to replace the energy required to keep their system of smarts going. They can't breed. Can that be smart? On the other hand, the stupidos are depicted as leeching off the free energy initially provided by now unsustainable "intelligent people". That strategy fails in the long run too, but it fails later than the smart people's.

Is there some perspective from which both groups are stupid? And if so, is there some system of incentives that will permit the broader system to continue -- some perspective that is smart from the meta point of view? Alternatively, will nature simply wipe them out and start again?

"No Way In" print edition at Amazon

Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5