On Stupidity
Most fundraisers know about the Pareto Principle—that 80% of an organization’s revenue comes from 20%, or fewer, of its donors. This handy rule of fundraising is a bastardization of the work of the 19th century Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, whose groundbreaking work helped develop the field modern economics with its data-oriented, scientific approach.
Last evening I sure wasn’t thinking of Pareto as I tearfully watched the simple and moving ceremony grieving the loss of U.S. lives in the pandemic. Along the Reflecting Pool at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., 400 lights—for 400,000 dead—that illuminated and memorialized those lost.
But, as I pondered (for at least the hundredth time this year) the Why? Why? Why? of this tragedy II did think of another Italian scholar – Carlo Cipolla, whose contribution to behavioral economics is worthy of note as we seek to answer the “Why?” questions surrounding not only the obscene number of pandemic deaths, but the apocalypse of economic, political and social plagues that have descended on the U.S.
In 197j6, while teaching at the University of California Berkeley, Prof. Cipolla published a powerful essay titled “The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity.”
In his essay Cipolla argued that stupid people as a group, are more powerful by far than major organizations such as the Mafia or major industries and corporations. Even without rules and regulations, leaders or even an ideology or agenda the stupid manage to operate to great effect and with incredible coordination, he noted.
Today—Inaguration Day– when Donald Trump leaves the White House and a wave of optimism/relief greets the new President Joe Biden I’m sure breathing a sigh of relief.
BUT…I’m also deeply worried about the millions of Trump supporters, white supremacists and other ultra-right extremists still out there and still fired up. I really don’t know what to do about ‘em, but I at least find some explanation of who they are and how dangerous they are from Prof. Cipolla’s essay.
Cipolla’s Five Basic Laws of Stupidity:
- Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
- The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
- 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.
- 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.
- A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
In his Third Law , Cipolla identifies two factors to consider when exploring human behavior:
- 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, he identifies four groups of people, with an additional category (ineffectual people). either existing in its own right or drawn from the members of each previous category whose position with respect to both axes is the least extreme. Here’s a diagram of the categories:
Over the past five years of Trump I’ve read and listened to the pols and pundits explain “who” (‘deplorables’, ‘uneducated’)_ Trump supporters are. Lots of stereotypes and generalities–not unlike assigning ‘demographic personas’ to segment a file or singling out “millennials” for special attention in fundraising.
But, Cipolla reminds us in his Second Law: “The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person will be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.”
This helps me understand why some of my old college classmates –well-educated and successful –are Trumpists. According to Cipolla anybody, whether intellectual or ignorant, blue-collar or white collar, book smart or street smart, can be stupid. Moreover, the professor notes that ssidiocy persists at roughly equal proportions at all levels of society. The rate of stupidity amongst Nobel laureates is just as high as it is amongst male swimmers on the U.S. Olympic team as shown by the actions of gold medalist swimmer Klete Keller charged with ransacking the U.S. Capitol.
“[The Second Basic Law’s] implications are frightening,” Cipolla wrote. “The Law implies that whether you move in distinguished circles or you take refuge among the head-hunters of Polynesia, whether you lock yourself into a monastery or decide to spend the rest of your life in the company of beautiful and lascivious women, you always have to face the same percentage of stupid people — which (in accordance with the First Law) will always surpass your expectations.”
How can this be? Well, it might make more sense in light of the definition of stupidity, which Cipolla provides in his Third Law: “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.”
I suspect you and I and almost every Agitator reader listen to the statements of the Trump supporter and other zealots and think they’re so utterly thoughtless and unreasonable that we simply can’t fathom how these people can function this way. Often we simply laugh at them.
Cipolla insists: “Our daily life is mostly made of cases in which we lose money and/or time and/or energy and/or appetite, cheerfulness and good health because of the improbable action of some preposterous creature who has nothing to gain and indeed gains nothing from causing us embarrassment, difficulties or harm. Nobody knows, understands or can possibly explain why that preposterous creature does what he does. In fact there is no explanation – or better there is only one explanation: the person in question is stupid.”
We have only ourselves to blame because , according to Cipolla’s Fourth Basic Law, we tacitly encourage stupidity.
“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.”
Even when we have a good idea of who stupid individuals are, we still hang out with them, even if it’s to our detriment, Cipolla laments. “Through centuries and millennia, in public as in private life, countless individuals have failed to take account of the Fourth Basic Law and the failure has caused mankind incalculable losses.”
Cipolla’s Fifth Basic Law of stupidity is unequivocal:“A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.”
Last night at the Reflecting Pool we saw the tragic truth of that Fifth Law. Let’s celebrate and be optimistic on this historic Inauguration Day. And be alert to the Basic Laws of Stupidity on the days that follow.
Roger
10 responses to “On Stupidity”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
This is a very “stupid” take on human nature. To call stupidity a binary that separates humanity into two groups is very naïve and damaging. It’s the classic mistake of separating humanity by the “enlightened” and ‘unenlightened”. To conservatives, the “far-left” is the height of stupidity, and who is right? Does it just depend on what group you fall into? We are all capable of stupidity, and blindness to our own biases and assumptions. It’s when the biases and perspective of a group become radicalizes through insulation and echo-chambers to become an ideological worldview that we run into the problems we are facing. IF liberals maliciously stole the election and are determined to crush our liberties enshrined in the Constitution, then isn’t radical action necessary? IF that is true, is acting radically stupid or courageous? You need to understand the other side before you label them as a bunch of blithering idiots. Open dialogue and courageously taking off our biases to converse with the other side can save America, no lazily classifying people into “stupid” and “non-stupid” categories.
Hi James
There’s nothing binary in Prof Cipolla’s analysis. Please take the time to read his complete essay. I think you’ll find that his analysis applies to far more than politics.
Frankly, I’m not interested in name calling or stereotyping; simply trying my best to understand the folks around me.
Best
Roger
I agree with you James. The label “stupid” as much as I’d like to use it, is highly offensive and highly subjective, even using Cipolla’s definition.
I was recently on a presentation of voter research (Diane Hessen, American Voter project) in the USA that presented data that Hillary Clinton tanked any last chance of her win when she used “deplorables” to describe the Trump supporters. And while I would say the insurgents who attacked the Capitol, who cynically feed right wing hysteria are deplorable, her blanket use of the word confirmed for Trump supporters the belief that the “elites” considered them stupid.
For me, I’m starting today celebrating possibility and hope again. To Build Back Better. There is a need for justice and reckoning, but today I need everything positive to flow through my veins again.
Gayle,
I’m sure with you. I’m enjoying this entirely different Inauguration day and am filled with optimism.
The message I wanted to send is simply a reminder that stenotypes (whether generalizations about ‘deplorables’, millennials, or any other grouping is not helpful and, indeed, can be harmful when it comes to politics, fundraising, and life.
I join you in celebrating this day of hope and possibilities.
Roger
Although I’ve read the Cipolla essay in years past (as part of class assignments in social science for an educational certificate), I nevertheless took time to at least skim through it again on your suggestion.
The bottom line is that I agree completely with James. This entire notion that we can simply divide our nation neatly into two major groups, the stupid and the non-stupid (liberal, enlightened, elite, brilliant?), is beyond ludicrous. It is also beyond “stupidly” simplistic!
It’s very dangerous to proceed on the basis that we can discuss the U.S. population today in such a simplistic context, especially in light of what seems to be a hopelessly polarized political (and even social and religious) environment, and particularly in the wake of the recent election. Right now, our so-called “mainstream media” would turn this kind of discussion into a conflagration. In fact, they actually have been describing Americans as falling into the same two categories (stupid and enlightened) for the past four years.
May I be foolishly personal with you for a moment? I’m a self-described political/social/religious conservative. In 1998, after being a lifelong (“cradle”) Democrat, I walked away from that party, because of Bill Clinton’s “performance” as POTUS and because the party’s philosophy and positions/policies had come to run counter to my personal beliefs, values and conscience. I did not move to the Republican Party, because I felt that was not a home for true conservatives either. I’ve been a registered Independent voter since 1998.
In 2016, I voted for POTUS Trump, not because I greatly liked him as a person, and certainly not because I was looking for a cultish home, but rather because I could not, in good conscience, vote for Hillary Clinton. For me, she represented everything I still found morally wrong and indefensible with the Democrat Party. I voted for Trump again last November for the very same reasons and with the same general feelings, although it seemed to me his accomplishments for the country far outweighed his many shortcomings. And don’t we all have those human shortcomings!
As today’s inauguration exercises played out, I found myself deeply offended, because I’m still not confident that Biden won the election fairly and also, more importantly, because he stood on the podium and called me and about 75-85 million (yes, that’s been estimated) of my fellow citizens racists, white supremacists and domestic terrorists! It appears the longstanding tradition of Democrat “identity politics” and outright ridiculous hyperbole and lies is going to continue, as we all feared!
I’m not a racist, a white supremacist or a domestic terrorist. Several of my family members and friends were at the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, but I was unable to be there. None of them participated in any violence, and neither would I have done so. You see, I’m NOT STUPID! The reason to be there was to petition our government for redress of what we felt were grievances. We had not been provoked by POTUS Trump. In fact, at its core, it all really had nothing to do with any individual person, Trump or Biden.
Please excuse this long “homily.” My intent was simply to make the point and to heavily emphasize that, with all due respect to Prof. Cipolla and his research, this topic is a “loaded cannon” waiting to go off at this point in our nation if we deal with in the context of “stupid” and “non-stupid.”
Peace!
All excellent examples of the tremendous power of simple words.
Wow. While I agree there are no legitimate binaries when it comes to intelligence, there are certainly differences in the validity and ethics of different thoughts and actions.
Biden is not perfect, but for someone who’s followed the news to vote *again* for Trump in 2020 as you did Raymond, it requires a reduced level of empathy for people of color, immigrants, LGBTQ+ folks, women, animals, the environment, and everyone subject to losing their own lives or loved ones from the inexcusably mismanaged Covid response by his science-denying administration.
We have a duty to not normalize the malignancy of casting such an anti-social, anti-inclusive vote. I suppose some Trump voters may not know all the realities of harm he has wrought if they’ve truly lived in a right wing media bubble, but it does not seem you have that excuse Raymond.
Wow is right!
Looks like I’ve received a scolding from someone who is not acquainted with me, who knows nothing about me or my personal history beyond what I put forward in my original comment; and that was scant. He does not reside in my head, so he has no knowledge of my thoughts beyond, again, what I stated above. He certainly has no clue about the content of my heart or my conscience or my code of ethics.
It is exactly this kind of one-sided, political “hyper-judgementalism” that has resulted in our country being so sadly polarized as it is today. And it has to stop if we are to preserve our “unum” in “E pluribus unum.”
Sir, my vote in the recent election was in no way driven by following the news. And, again, you know nothing about me, so how would you know that fact. Anyone with a functioning brain knows that the last source of reliable, truthful information on politics today are the so-called “news media.” No, my vote is always driven by careful, personal homework and research followed by equally careful consideration of what I am about to do.
How dare you suggest that I am a person with a “reduced level of empathy for … ” anyone. Again, you are totally ignorant of me as a human being. Your presumption, and it is only a presumption, seems based more on your dislike of what you think my politics might be than anything else.
The real flaw in your presentation appears to be your conclusion and outrageous suggestion that all of us must be lined up and separated, as the wheat from the chaff, based on our politics. That is pure poison!
In your view, it seems, indeed, to be a binary choice: either fully accede to our political view (and admit your vote for a particular political candidate was a mistake) or you are fully deserving of being ostracized. And we’ll see that you are!
“We have a duty to not normalize the malignancy of casting such an anti-social, anti-inclusive vote.” My question is: “Who appointed you or any group as judge of half the nation?”
People should be judged by their actions—nothing more or less—and voting is a pretty damn consequential action. You must feel there is an ethical difference between Biden’s and Trump’s actions, as do I. Voting isn’t just a matter taste after all. So of course I think you made the less ethical choice, and you’re entitled to think the same of me.
The number of others who made the same choice as you has no bearing on its ethics. I don’t think they or you are generally evil—or satanic, as a decent chunk of Trump’s more disturbed supporters laughably think Democrats are. But I think they are either missing one or more of these: understanding of the avoidable pain Trump’s actions have wrought, a reasonable degree of empathy for others not like them demographically, understanding of and concern for public health.
Trump is a self-evidently an antisocial narcissist with little empathy. If you were interested in joining the mob at the Capitol (even before it was clearly a mob) to protest the election results–and that was THE grievance they were there for despite your vagueness–you have a loose grip on reality. Believing there is any way that a mass voter fraud conspiracy was carried out is delusional and incredibly dangerous.
It’s too plainly obvious and examples too plentiful to waste much time on it—but Trump has caused tremendous suffering and made bigoted choices that have limited and ended people’s lives more than the choices nearly any other president would have made. Banning transgender people from the military, mocking people with disabilities, dismantling environmental and animal welfare protections, separating and caging kids, emboldening misogynists with his rhetoric, and emboldening racists even more with his thinly veiled dog whistles are just the tip of the iceberg. His shameful shunning of science much of the time regarding Covid, and mocking the use of face masks were incredibly deadly influences he had.
There’s just no debating that his example, policies, and utterly failed response to Covid have resulted in tens of thousands of deaths at the very least that would not have happened at this point with any other recent president, who would enact a federal response plan. For you to worry about being shamed by me as an elitist in the face of all this is just ridiculous.
Many dictators have had support among wide swaths of their nations—and while Trump was just a pathetic wannabe-dictator, he’s done more damage than many true autocrats. Right and wrong is not all relative in my book. Promoting the most well-being and preventing the most possible suffering, including from marginalization, police brutality, bigotry, greed, and ignorance of science—is the goal of ethics in my book.
What exactly is the goal of your ethics, that you wished to bolster with your aggrieved compatriots at the Capitol on January 6?
People should be judged by their actions—nothing more or less—and voting is a pretty damn consequential action. You must feel there is an ethical difference between Biden’s and Trump’s actions, as do I. Voting isn’t just a matter taste after all. So of course I think you made the less ethical choice, and you’re entitled to think the same of me.
The number of others who made the same choice as you has no bearing on its ethics. I don’t think they or you are generally evil—or satanic, as a decent chunk of Trump’s more disturbed supporters laughably think Democrats are. But I think they are either missing one or more of these: understanding of the avoidable pain Trump’s actions have wrought, a reasonable degree of empathy for others not like them demographically, understanding of and concern for public health.
Trump is a self-evidently an antisocial narcissist with little empathy. If you were interested in joining the mob at the Capitol (even before it was clearly a mob) to protest the election results, and that was THE grievance they were there for despite your vagueness, you have a loose grip on reality. Believing there is any way that a mass voter fraud conspiracy was carried out is delusional and incredibly dangerous.
It’s too plainly obvious and examples too plentiful to waste much time on it—but Trump has caused tremendous suffering and made bigoted choices that have limited and ended people’s lives more than the choices nearly any other president would have made. Banning transgender people from the military, mocking people with disabilities, dismantling environmental and animal welfare protections, separating and caging kids, emboldening misogynists with his rhetoric, and emboldening racists even more with his thinly veiled dog whistles are just the tip of the iceberg. His shameful shunning of science much of the time regarding Covid and mocking the use of face masks were incredibly deadly influences.
There’s just no debating that his example, policies, and utterly failed response to Covid have resulted in tens of thousands of deaths at the very least that would not have happened at this point with any other recent president who would enact a federal response plan. For you to worry about being shamed by me as an elitist in the face of all this is just ridiculous.
Many dictators have had support among wide swaths of their nations—and while Trump was just a pathetic wannabe-dictator, he’s done more damage than many true autocrats. Right and wrong is not all relative in my book. Promoting the most well-being and preventing the most possible suffering, including from marginalization, police brutality, bigotry, greed, and ignorance of science—is the goal of ethics in my book.
What exactly is the goal of your ethics, that you wished to bolster with your aggrieved compatriots at the Capitol on January 6?