Stupidity is a very specific cognitive failing. Crudely put, it
occurs when you don’t have the right conceptual tools for the job. The
result is an inability to make sense of what is happening and a
resulting tendency to force phenomena into crude, distorting
pigeonholes.
[…] unlike character flaws, stupidity is primarily a property of
groups or traditions, not individuals: after all, we get most of our
concepts, our mental tools, from the society we are raised in
We can now explain why stupidity is so domain-specific, why someone
can be so smart in one area, and such an idiot in another: the relevant
concepts are often domain-specific.
So stupidity is tough to fix. This is exacerbated by the way it
dovetails with other vices: stubbornness stops me from revisiting my
concepts even as they fail me.
> Stupidity is a very specific cognitive failing. Crudely put, it occurs when you don’t have the right conceptual tools for the job. The result is an inability to make sense of what is happ
Stupidity is when you don't know the immortal science of marxism-leninism and the more you don't know the immortal science of marxism-leninism the more stupid it is.
I feel like the running example of trench warfare and Haig is talked
about quite ahistorically, and doesn’t really work in demonstrating what
the articles discusses as stupidity, when taking history and context
into account.
// edit: the longer I think about this piece, the more it bothers me.
Putting forward a thesis, then chosing an example and stripping it from
all nuance and context until it fits the conclusion in an article that’s
about stupidity, and, well, by extension motivated reasoning, is
certainly … a choice.
Some nice yet very simply put little tidbits from this short article Why some of the smartest people can be so very stupid
I feel like the running example of trench warfare and Haig is talked about quite ahistorically, and doesn’t really work in demonstrating what the articles discusses as stupidity, when taking history and context into account.
/r/AskHistorians has some great answers on this, e.g. Did General Haig Make a Good Choice By fighting the Battle of the Somme?, Why was WWI so dependant on trench warfare? Using hindsight, would different tactics, using the technology the had, plus the equipment they had at their disposal, would have made any difference?, or, quite in depth, Why did they bother attacking? Were the Generals a bunch of idiots? The issue with “human wave assaults”. Who’s this Haig guy and why am I hearing about his butcher shop all the time? A general dealing and reference guide to bad WWI military history..
// edit: the longer I think about this piece, the more it bothers me. Putting forward a thesis, then chosing an example and stripping it from all nuance and context until it fits the conclusion in an article that’s about stupidity, and, well, by extension motivated reasoning, is certainly … a choice.