Great point; Carlo Cipolla is one of my go-to scholars.
On a related matter, do you by change know this gem of a more recent paper: 'A Stupidity-Based Theory of Organizations' by Mats Alvesson and André Spicer:
Abstract:
In this paper we question the one-sided thesis that contemporary organizations rely on the mobilization of cognitive capacities. We suggest that severe restrictions on these capacities in the form of what we call functional stupidity are an equally important if under-recognized part of organizational life. Functional stupidity refers to an absence of reflexivity, a refusal to use intellectual capacities in other than myopic ways, and avoidance of justifications. We argue that functional stupidity is prevalent in contexts dominated by economy in persuasion which emphasizes image and symbolic manipulation. This gives rise to forms of stupidity management that repress or marginalize doubt and block communicative action. In turn, this structures individuals' internal conversations in ways that emphasize positive and coherent narratives and marginalize more negative or ambiguous ones. This can have productive outcomes such as providing a degree of certainty for individuals and organizations. But it can have corrosive consequences such as creating a sense of dissonance among individuals and the organization as a whole. The positive consequences can give rise to self-reinforcing stupidity. The negative consequences can spark dialogue, which may undermine functional stupidity.
First time I hear of this paper. I will make sure I read it. Sounds like an extension of Cipolla’s work. While Cipolla believed some people are born stupid, I can see how they can become more stupid by a variety of methods. Organizations, on the other hand, can become stupid even with intelligent people being of the set. That usually happens when they lose the sight of the reasons for their existence. Historical aims, which might have been intelligent and noble are replaced by moronic idea frameworks. We see examples of this all around us, don’t we?
Seems about as legit as Scientology to me. And is essentially the same thing, only on a greater scale. You give them money, they give you a token. More money equals advancing in the ranks. To what end?
Couldn't they at least sell tulips from Amsterdam instead?
Re the Scientology quip: of course, it's also a cult based on a strange initiation ritual (although I'm kinda on the sidelines if their 'story' is more credible than Worldcoin's…)
Great post. It's gonna be interesting to see how many idiots fall for this. This guy is probably already installing an orb in every room of his house as we speak and telling his kids to get scanned every morning ... But maybe this tech could be used to detect non-human politicians ?
This reminds me of the movie "Minority Report", where in the future there are all sorts of AI eye scanning technologies everywhere tracking your every move (we're really close to that reality). Like this scene, "personal advertising in the future": https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=7bXJ_obaiYQ
Thank you for this. Informative and chimes with sone of my own writing - specifically this piece about the long march of the ecumenists through the Holy Scriptures: https://timbosays.substack.com/p/oh-the-humanity I’m generally of the opinion that the ‘memory holing’ of language you mention is a pretty big deal.
I mean whoever keeps a smartphone on all day is giving up his data, even opening the smartphone with fingers or eyes... Problem is, idiots don't know, knowledgeable people know but they are sadomasochists by choice ;)
Life, mostly, is a question of choices. You can't blame others, sorry.
As to the choices, well, what can I say: a lot of them are driven by ‘peer’ pressure (as any parent knows watching/arguing with kids), and this brings up the salient point of—weakness, as in, a character flaw.
Viz. the Stanford Prison Experiment, we kinda know that there’s but a share of the overall population who has the moral and other fortitude to buck the majority’s stance. Personally, I’d think of it as a Pareto-like distribution (and, of course, with the more upright segment, there’s another such distribution at work).
Note that I don’t mean to infer that these approx. 20% of the population are ‘good’ or even ‘better’ people (see Covid).
I recommend reading Carlo Cipolla’s essay The Basic Laws Human Stupidity. See
https://ia801609.us.archive.org/29/items/kaufman-s-clinical-neurology-for-psychiatrists-pdfdrive/The%20Basic%20Laws%20of%20Human%20Stupidity%20%28Carlo%20M.%20Cipolla%29%20%28Z-Library%29.pdf
Great point; Carlo Cipolla is one of my go-to scholars.
On a related matter, do you by change know this gem of a more recent paper: 'A Stupidity-Based Theory of Organizations' by Mats Alvesson and André Spicer:
Abstract:
In this paper we question the one-sided thesis that contemporary organizations rely on the mobilization of cognitive capacities. We suggest that severe restrictions on these capacities in the form of what we call functional stupidity are an equally important if under-recognized part of organizational life. Functional stupidity refers to an absence of reflexivity, a refusal to use intellectual capacities in other than myopic ways, and avoidance of justifications. We argue that functional stupidity is prevalent in contexts dominated by economy in persuasion which emphasizes image and symbolic manipulation. This gives rise to forms of stupidity management that repress or marginalize doubt and block communicative action. In turn, this structures individuals' internal conversations in ways that emphasize positive and coherent narratives and marginalize more negative or ambiguous ones. This can have productive outcomes such as providing a degree of certainty for individuals and organizations. But it can have corrosive consequences such as creating a sense of dissonance among individuals and the organization as a whole. The positive consequences can give rise to self-reinforcing stupidity. The negative consequences can spark dialogue, which may undermine functional stupidity.
Link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01072.x
First time I hear of this paper. I will make sure I read it. Sounds like an extension of Cipolla’s work. While Cipolla believed some people are born stupid, I can see how they can become more stupid by a variety of methods. Organizations, on the other hand, can become stupid even with intelligent people being of the set. That usually happens when they lose the sight of the reasons for their existence. Historical aims, which might have been intelligent and noble are replaced by moronic idea frameworks. We see examples of this all around us, don’t we?
Exactly. Be advised that the paper is replete with economics boilerplate BS, but it specifically focuses on 'organisational stupidity'.
Let me know what you think of it once you're done, would you?
Do you have a pdf of this study? Wiley wants me to pay to access it.
Of course I do; I've just sent you an email to the address you used to subscribe.
Happy reading!
Got it. Thanks.
Of course!
Cheers, mate!
Seems about as legit as Scientology to me. And is essentially the same thing, only on a greater scale. You give them money, they give you a token. More money equals advancing in the ranks. To what end?
Couldn't they at least sell tulips from Amsterdam instead?
Re the Scientology quip: of course, it's also a cult based on a strange initiation ritual (although I'm kinda on the sidelines if their 'story' is more credible than Worldcoin's…)
Great post. It's gonna be interesting to see how many idiots fall for this. This guy is probably already installing an orb in every room of his house as we speak and telling his kids to get scanned every morning ... But maybe this tech could be used to detect non-human politicians ?
This reminds me of the movie "Minority Report", where in the future there are all sorts of AI eye scanning technologies everywhere tracking your every move (we're really close to that reality). Like this scene, "personal advertising in the future": https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=7bXJ_obaiYQ
Thanks for reading.
I'm unsure what you mean by 'non-human politicians'?
Yeah, Minority Report is an insightful movie (despite Tom Cruise in it), and I suppose this is where we're headed.
Thank you for this. Informative and chimes with sone of my own writing - specifically this piece about the long march of the ecumenists through the Holy Scriptures: https://timbosays.substack.com/p/oh-the-humanity I’m generally of the opinion that the ‘memory holing’ of language you mention is a pretty big deal.
Thank you for reading and the linked content: I'll definitely have a look.
Haha, now I read the piece before answering: it was very interesting, thanks a lot.
I mean whoever keeps a smartphone on all day is giving up his data, even opening the smartphone with fingers or eyes... Problem is, idiots don't know, knowledgeable people know but they are sadomasochists by choice ;)
Life, mostly, is a question of choices. You can't blame others, sorry.
True on all accounts.
As to the choices, well, what can I say: a lot of them are driven by ‘peer’ pressure (as any parent knows watching/arguing with kids), and this brings up the salient point of—weakness, as in, a character flaw.
Viz. the Stanford Prison Experiment, we kinda know that there’s but a share of the overall population who has the moral and other fortitude to buck the majority’s stance. Personally, I’d think of it as a Pareto-like distribution (and, of course, with the more upright segment, there’s another such distribution at work).
Note that I don’t mean to infer that these approx. 20% of the population are ‘good’ or even ‘better’ people (see Covid).