Toward a unified theory of stupidity
I’ve been reading with interest some of the analyses of the phenomenon in the United States (but unfortunately not confined to us) in which stupidity seems to have emerged and spread in an unprecedented fashion through certain segments of the population. Leaving aside the chicken-or-egg question (was stupidity always this bad but we didn’t know it, or has some development caused it to expand *cough* Facebook *cough*), I believe that thinking about the nature of stupidity and its effects on sufferers has become an important need. I want to consider three major theories about aspects of stupidity (Cipolla, Dunning-Kruger, and Bonhoeffer) along with some speculations about other phenomena that seem related, particularly hypocrisy. This won’t be a deep dive into psychology so much as an exercise in philosophy and theory. The definition of theory I will use is a system of definitions and relationships that are useful for explaining why some observed phenomenon occurs (and I acknowledge that there are other possible interpretations of what theory is).
When we consider the classification developed by Cipolla, there are a few problems with the terms and definitions in his otherwise valuable framework. The biggest example in my opinion is the classification of people who benefit others but not themselves as “helpless,” because this characterization does not seem to take into account altruism and/or possible devotion to a larger socially-positive cause that requires self-sacrifice to serve. However, the main issue with viewing stupidity solely through this framework is that it does not really explain the root cause of the actions of the stupid, i.e. causing harm to themselves as well as harm to others. These actions seem more like a symptom than an answer to the “why” question of what produces stupidity. It considers what stupid does more so than what stupid is. It is still a very useful way of assessing stupidity and helping to identify the stupid, but it needs further support to unify our understanding of the nature and cause of stupidity.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect theory helps fill in the gap to some extent. In essence, it is about self-awareness and ability to effectively analyze the world around you, or more accurately lack thereof. I’m always reminded of the lament from Homer Simpson: “D’oh, why do the things that happen to stupid people always happen to me?” This framework is somewhat more explanatory of the cause of stupidity, but still works within the realm of how rather than why. A person who is unaware of their own sources of incompetence may be otherwise intelligent in particular situations (I’m thinking of someone like Ben Carson, for example) but still exhibits the signs and consequences of Dunning and Krueger’s concept. In this case, the root cause can possibly be at least partially attributed to a cognitive inability to make connections between behavior and consequences, as well as a level of narcissism that blinds the sufferer to their own limitations.
Seeing stupidity as a simple case of cognitive deficit or psychological impairment is impossible to really justify from the evidence, however. There are many people who have cognitive limitations who otherwise are perceptive and display a level of wisdom that places them in Cipolla’s category of Intelligent people. This way of viewing stupidity also ignores the concept of social-emotional intelligence, which does not depend on cognitive ability per se. That is where Bonhoeffer’s theory helps supply the mechanism. Bonhoeffer attributed stupidity to moral failure rather than lack of cognitive ability. Here we begin to see a mechanism that might be said to explain why stupidity exists. It relates to a lack of integrity and an unwillingness to confront and interrogate one’s world view, along with a distinct lack of empathy. When used in combination with Cipolla and Dunning-Krueger, it helps to put an explanation of what produces the behaviors and characteristics those other frameworks identify. Whether this condition is learned or related to actual physiological causes is an open question. The research that has come out in recent years on differences in brain structure and functioning between political conservatives and the rest of the population might supply some clues.
Some characteristics of present-day discourse seem to fit in with multiple aspects of the above discussion. Hypocrisy, which is certainly universal but has come to dominate the discourse and behavior of conservatives in the United States can easily be identified as a moral failing. Whether it is always an example of what Cipolla calls stupidity is questionable. Much hypocrisy obviously hurts the hypocrite as much or more than the targets of their hypocrisy, in ways ranging from moral degradation to impairment of clear thinking. However, it can just as easily be a weapon used by people in the Bandit category for their own benefit, particularly if there are no third parties willing to consistently and effectively call it out. Mitch McConnell is one of the most glaring examples. In the long-term, McConnell’s hypocrisy will be identified by historians despite being largely ignored by present-day political commentators, which will cause him harm at least in terms of his perceived legacy. But in the long run we’ll all be dead and before that will continue to suffer from his power-mongering hypocritical behavior even as it benefits his party above his country.
There are other phenomena, such as binary thinking and xenophobia, that might be good subjects of analysis in view of a more comprehensive theory of stupidity. The functioning of the three major theories considered above goes a long way toward identifying stupidity, but still fails in helping to understand exactly why it occurs and why it seems to have afflicted such a large segment of society in the 21st Century. I think it’s a valuable albeit somewhat irritating subject for further speculation, particularly if the hard sciences can be melded with philosophy to produce a more unified theory.