What is stupidity? A call to share: “Entropy Of Welfare”

April 9, 2009 General 10 comments

Post updated

Some years ago I was talking with my friend David about stupidity. He told me about the definition of stupidity by Carlo Maria Cipolla, an italian history and economy professor. Cipolla deeply studied the concept about human stupidity trying to define it and creating the 5 laws of stupidity. There are many studies related to this but until now none of them could provide a clear definition of it. Stupidity appears in a subjective and human environment but detailed definitions are hard to achieve.

Anyway, the explanation of Cipolla could be resumed in a diagram representing, that in one word is a way to understand human life.

1. I benefit myself damaging others

Unfortunately this is the common posture in this planet. Everything is based on self profit and nobody cares about the impact of his/her own behavior unto others. Just look around on this planet and realize that the vast majority try to achieve this point. Banks, big corporations and governments, don’t care about the pain in this world, exploiting any resource for their own interests.

2. I benefit others and damage myself

This is the position of the altruist. The good guy, the one that doesn’t care to damage him/herself to help others. Unfortunately people like this is rare and the few ones that exist usually become an object of cult.

3. I damage others and I damage myself

This is the behavior of the stupid. His/her behavior does not create any benefit for anybody. Unfortunately this is the the common result in this world. Almost anybody try to behave as in point 1 but at the end almost everybody ends in this point, doing the most stupid thing: Hurting him/herself and hurting others.

4. I benefit myself and create benefit to others

This is the behavior of the intelligent. This is the goal that everybody as individual and as a group, or as a company or government should try to achieve. It’s not so difficult, just start to share and help others even in small things. Don’t think always and only if the current action will provide us a direct benefit. Maybe it does not provide a direct benefit now, but in the future we will see the fruits of this behavior.

This four points could be better understood in this diagram:

stupidity

Internet and free and open licenses as Creative Commons and GPL are an example of this. In internet the people usually help others, answering questions, sharing information, as programs, movies, music or any other kind of things, including their time.
Sharing with others, helping others even in small things, even without a direct impact in our bank account or any other direct benefit will help to increase the entropy of welfare.
Benefit our environment will benefit ourselves too.

Finally this is an interesting video about stupidity:

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-2599954293614654567&hl=en&fs=true

  • http://www.orcero.org/irbis/blog/ David Santo Orcero

    It would be great that (1) were most common, at least there would be anybody beneficiated. ;-)

    My experience says that (3) is more common (and Cipolla’s work says the same)

  • http://www.orcero.org/irbis/blog/ David Santo Orcero

    It would be great that (1) were most common, at least there would be anybody beneficiated. ;-)

    My experience says that (3) is more common (and Cipolla’s work says the same)

  • http://www.zuco.org/ Pietro Zuco

    You are right, but I mean that in this world the people that have the power to do something, unfortunately belongs to (1). Of course (3) is the more common, in fact only the stupids can be so blind to feel that they are voting the right one or to believe that they are living in freedom and democracy.

  • http://www.zuco.org Pietro Zuco

    You are right, but I mean that in this world the people that have the power to do something, unfortunately belongs to (1). Of course (3) is the more common, in fact only the stupids can be so blind to feel that they are voting the right one or to believe that they are living in freedom and democracy.

  • David Gavilan

    Very interesting :)
    Although I would add another group before (1). (0) I benefit myself without damaging others. I think that’s the real common group. Although it is true that most people do not care about the impact their actions may have (sometimes, it is just too overwhelming if we have to think of the “butterfly” effect every time we through away a plastic bag…), it’s not as if people do it on purpose. So in the diagram, I would split the group of “bandits” into two: “self-profit” (normal people) and “cheaters”. I think it makes a big difference, because in most studies I read about population and society, the group of “cheaters” tends to be small, because evolution can’t sustain a majority of cheaters: “cheaters” survive thanks to others. But if you make those “cheaters” synonimous of those “bandits”, that you say are majority, humans would have disappeared thousands of years ago ;p As far as I know, human population is increasing every year. With all the bad things we do, we managed quite well to take the whole human race further. I think that can only be achieved through cooperation.

    Notice that when you say “performed by the vast majority”, you use as examples “banks, big corporations and governments”, as if everyone working for a bank is a “bandit”. With the division I propose, only the heads of the bank, the fat rich men, are the “cheaters”. They got there by “cheating” and purposedly damaging other. The majority of employees would be just group (0): trying to benefit themselves, but not trying to damage their coworkers or their clients. There’s a different between trying to damage others, trying to help other, or just not caring at all (the category of the vast majority that in my opinion you forgot to mention).

    Yes, let’s try to share small things, even things like investing some of our time writing our opinions with friends, to try to augment the entropy of knowledge, and thus, the entropy of welfare (cool term!!! :D)

    Cheers

  • David Gavilan

    Very interesting :)
    Although I would add another group before (1). (0) I benefit myself without damaging others. I think that’s the real common group. Although it is true that most people do not care about the impact their actions may have (sometimes, it is just too overwhelming if we have to think of the “butterfly” effect every time we through away a plastic bag…), it’s not as if people do it on purpose. So in the diagram, I would split the group of “bandits” into two: “self-profit” (normal people) and “cheaters”. I think it makes a big difference, because in most studies I read about population and society, the group of “cheaters” tends to be small, because evolution can’t sustain a majority of cheaters: “cheaters” survive thanks to others. But if you make those “cheaters” synonimous of those “bandits”, that you say are majority, humans would have disappeared thousands of years ago ;p As far as I know, human population is increasing every year. With all the bad things we do, we managed quite well to take the whole human race further. I think that can only be achieved through cooperation.

    Notice that when you say “performed by the vast majority”, you use as examples “banks, big corporations and governments”, as if everyone working for a bank is a “bandit”. With the division I propose, only the heads of the bank, the fat rich men, are the “cheaters”. They got there by “cheating” and purposedly damaging other. The majority of employees would be just group (0): trying to benefit themselves, but not trying to damage their coworkers or their clients. There’s a different between trying to damage others, trying to help other, or just not caring at all (the category of the vast majority that in my opinion you forgot to mention).

    Yes, let’s try to share small things, even things like investing some of our time writing our opinions with friends, to try to augment the entropy of knowledge, and thus, the entropy of welfare (cool term!!! :D)

    Cheers

  • ed zevallos

    Very intyeresting, I just read Cipolla’s original article. Your approach is based on this article, with certain modifications. Entropy is a concept that nobody undestands well, because is a function, either thermodynamical or probabilistic. I not entering in details about entropy, but something that entropy is NOT, is that is not a mesurement of disorder. If you are using it in this sense, then you may be producing an anthropomorphic fallacy. Disregarding this, when you say that intelligents “help to increase the entropy of welfare”, I think would have been very interesting that you further elaborate about this matter. Why? because excesive increaded of entropy, out of a permessible range compromising the consistency and integrity of a system, obviously, compromise the functioning and existence of a sytem as such. So, that so-called “increase the entropy of welfare” may not be ultimately beneficial if not constrain in the limits of a certain phase-space. This does no mean that I am against the freedom of sharing, NOT AT ALL. However, unbridal sharing could be in a final ironical argument perilous. For instance, newspapers are in financial problems because of the freedom of news in the Internet, so, less and less people buys newspapers. The music industry also have heavy losses because of PC-PC downloads. I can give you more examples. The point is that increasing entropy out of limits may dissolves the systems, and what come out of a death system, most of the times is not “better”. The whole idea in a society is decreasing the entropy, also to certain limits, but homogeneously among the elements of such society. That is the ultimate goal of a democracy: equality in welfare and power (in a high standard).

  • ed zevallos

    Very intyeresting, I just read Cipolla’s original article. Your approach is based on this article, with certain modifications. Entropy is a concept that nobody undestands well, because is a function, either thermodynamical or probabilistic. I not entering in details about entropy, but something that entropy is NOT, is that is not a mesurement of disorder. If you are using it in this sense, then you may be producing an anthropomorphic fallacy. Disregarding this, when you say that intelligents “help to increase the entropy of welfare”, I think would have been very interesting that you further elaborate about this matter. Why? because excesive increaded of entropy, out of a permessible range compromising the consistency and integrity of a system, obviously, compromise the functioning and existence of a sytem as such. So, that so-called “increase the entropy of welfare” may not be ultimately beneficial if not constrain in the limits of a certain phase-space. This does no mean that I am against the freedom of sharing, NOT AT ALL. However, unbridal sharing could be in a final ironical argument perilous. For instance, newspapers are in financial problems because of the freedom of news in the Internet, so, less and less people buys newspapers. The music industry also have heavy losses because of PC-PC downloads. I can give you more examples. The point is that increasing entropy out of limits may dissolves the systems, and what come out of a death system, most of the times is not “better”. The whole idea in a society is decreasing the entropy, also to certain limits, but homogeneously among the elements of such society. That is the ultimate goal of a democracy: equality in welfare and power (in a high standard).

  • ed zevallos

    In an ultimate “irony” all and everything ends up to be a bandit and a stupid. Physically speaking “good” (not necessarily moral) is similar to say decreasing the entropy of the system. Well, the usage of energy, doing work of any type, decreases the entropy of a system. Up to here, sounds great! But, do not celebrate yet, because when energy is used, by default, usually heat or waste is produced (in other words shit is done). A system that decreases its entropy, the more it is decreased, the more shit it produces. To be successful, the sytem has to transfer its shit to another system, but the latter suffers, as by receiving other’s shit it increases its entropy. Threfore everybody tries to pass his (her or its) shit to everybody else! “Shit happens!”. Who are the stupids. All of us because everybody does shit to everybody else. Even the Universe is stupid because the universal entropy is always increases. Shit is cummulative. What the Universe does to alleviate the shit? Ity expands!

  • ed zevallos

    In an ultimate “irony” all and everything ends up to be a bandit and a stupid. Physically speaking “good” (not necessarily moral) is similar to say decreasing the entropy of the system. Well, the usage of energy, doing work of any type, decreases the entropy of a system. Up to here, sounds great! But, do not celebrate yet, because when energy is used, by default, usually heat or waste is produced (in other words shit is done). A system that decreases its entropy, the more it is decreased, the more shit it produces. To be successful, the sytem has to transfer its shit to another system, but the latter suffers, as by receiving other’s shit it increases its entropy. Threfore everybody tries to pass his (her or its) shit to everybody else! “Shit happens!”. Who are the stupids. All of us because everybody does shit to everybody else. Even the Universe is stupid because the universal entropy is always increases. Shit is cummulative. What the Universe does to alleviate the shit? Ity expands!