I suspect that he’s overdosed on magic mushrooms and currently thinks he’s a clown fish.
I think it’s more that there’s so many idiots that it’s inevitable some of them get to rule us.
Idiocy and stupidity are related concepts.
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.
that author habitually dispenses insults...
MK14, I'm thinking, as in case of a child, that silence your comment on the OP, the OP / and or BOT, goes silent, perhaps, simply cause the algorithm has no response; maybe sometimes random insert a completely dis-jointed irrelevant response...just to appear HUMAN. Maybe we should start calling (the OP)...The 'OP-BOT'. !
I did notice (let's maybe just call'em: 'ThreadBot?'), that author habitually dispenses insults...
Perhaps that 'whatevwr' ducks out, to go criticising THIS site...(I'm not sure what other blogs)
I think it’s more that there’s so many idiots that it’s inevitable some of them get to rule us.
Idiocy and stupidity are related concepts. Here are two of my postings about the standard textbook on stupidity from another thread:
[1] I like my definition of stupidity. Being unaware of one's ignorance is another form of ignorance.
However, yesterday I started reading a very short book: C M Cipolla, The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity, Doubleday, 2019 (original version 1976), where the author discusses (axiomatically) the nature of stupid people, rather than stupidity itself.
Looking ahead past my present bookmark is 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."
The author is describing harmful stupidity, worse than in my definition.
[2] By the way, the five basic laws of C M Cipolla, discussed in the book I mentioned, are
(1) Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
(2) The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
(5) A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
(Corollary) A stupid person is more dangerous than a bandit.
The book has a strange publication history: originally privately printed (in English) in 1976, then translated into Italian in 1988, finally published in English in 2011 by an Italian publisher, then by a British publisher in 2019. Only 81 pages. The author, a serious professor of economic history, died in 2000.
That sounds like an interesting book, I'll have to look for a copy of it. His five rules certainly match with what I've observed in life.
BTW I'm just wondering, does the author consider people that ruin their lives with alcohol, drugs, gambling or other vices to be stupid or something else?I think it’s more that there’s so many idiots that it’s inevitable some of them get to rule us.
Idiocy and stupidity are related concepts. Here are two of my postings about the standard textbook on stupidity from another thread:
[1] I like my definition of stupidity. Being unaware of one's ignorance is another form of ignorance.
However, yesterday I started reading a very short book: C M Cipolla, The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity, Doubleday, 2019 (original version 1976), where the author discusses (axiomatically) the nature of stupid people, rather than stupidity itself.
Looking ahead past my present bookmark is 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."
The author is describing harmful stupidity, worse than in my definition.
[2] By the way, the five basic laws of C M Cipolla, discussed in the book I mentioned, are
(1) Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
(2) The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
(5) A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
(Corollary) A stupid person is more dangerous than a bandit.
The book has a strange publication history: originally privately printed (in English) in 1976, then translated into Italian in 1988, finally published in English in 2011 by an Italian publisher, then by a British publisher in 2019. Only 81 pages. The author, a serious professor of economic history, died in 2000.
a "bandit", who harms others and profits from this harm himsel
Quotea "bandit", who harms others and profits from this harm himsel
What could profit be? Presumably he is thinking money or status or similar, but suppose someone just enjoys harming someone else. Does his enjoyment count as profit? What if he has a grudge - someone else ran off with his girlfriend, perhaps, or nicked his motor - would 'taking down' the other person be profit since it might discourage others from doing the same?
Perhaps that section might better read as "a 'stupid person' who unwittingly does not derive gain from his harm to others".
A stupid perp need not be aware that his actions hurt others and himself.
A bandit knows that his actions hurt others, but hopes to profit himself.
TL;DR
If the book had significant validity, then surely there would be many other similar books and/or it would be more widely well known.
TL;DR
If the book had significant validity, then surely there would be many other similar books and/or it would be more widely well known.
I don't agree. For example, just because most of the human race hasn't seen the new 'Top Gun' movie don't mean that it isn't a good movie. The number of viewers of a movie or the number of readers of a book or the number of purchasers of any given product is often more about the amount of advertising than the quality. That's why we had to suffer through YEARS of TV advertisements for the trashy Ronco products.
I'm sure that pretty much everyone on this list can name some very good books that most of us have never heard of. Have you read Obed Macy's 'History of Nantucket' printed in 1835? I have but I doubt that anyone else on this forum has. Yes, that book is OT for this forum but so is Cipolla's book. But if your interest lies in those areas then both are probably worth reading.