Stupid People in anticlimatic

Some old writer philosopher in the 70s, likely jokingly, penned an article to a concept he had cooked up. According to his understanding of the world, there were a number of immutable rules regarding stupid people. Now, I myself live in an odd place between “nobody is inherently stupid, everyone is just inherently ignorant in different and relative ways” and “how is everyone such a glaring sack of moronic shit, and how to they survive a single day in life?” so the concept had enough interest from me to hear it out, hypothetically.

He begins by defining stupid people as a social construct, of sorts- not exactly referring to IQ. People who harm both others, and themselves, are people he defines as stupid. In fact he makes a cross chart along two axis- those who help themselves, and harm themselves on the x axis, and those who help others, and harm others on the y axis, leaving us with four categories of person.

The ideal person, labeled “intelligent,” is someone who helps both himself and others. Think of any skilled worker who improves the world around them, and receives recognition, appreciation, opportunity, and security for the effort. Then there’s people who help others, but not themselves. These are the victims. The suckers. The people who are used by others but always end up with the short end of the stick. Then there’s the “bandit” catigory, as we slide into more direct malevolence. These are people who help themselves, but not others. The sociopaths. The predators. The crony capitalists. Evil people. And then there’s the final category, stupid people, who help neither others nor themselves.

Of the immutable rules, the author claims the following- though this seems less serious, more in jest, to me, so take it with a grain of salt. He claims that no matter what you think, even if you really think the worst, there are far more stupid people out there than you realize. He claims that being stupid has no identifiable marker, that people who could seem otherwise intelligent and reasonable, only seem so because of bias- that stupidity knows no favorite in IQ, or job, or diction, or style, or anything. No direct correlating attributes can be used to root it out. Of each demographic, an almost identical percent of it will be stupid- and it will be a substantial portion of them. And the last thing he claims, is that out of all the categories, stupid people are the most dangerous to society.

This resonates with me in a Bill Hicks sort of fashion, when it was understood that “the masses” were ignorant sheep almost by default, taking in their data on the world from the most basic mainstream and easily digestible “sources,” transforming oneself into another cog or useful idiot in the machinations of more sinister behind the scenes actors. The mob, ever at the mercy of the bandits.

This “mob mentality” effect, and how it relates to Stupid People as described by that author, definitely gives one pause for thought when considering “democracy” in general. Juxtaposed against “capitalism,” which one might argue possesses the biggest flaw in that it allows bandits and sociopathic monsters to thrive and grow.

Presenting democracy, or collectivism, as a remedy or morally superior replacement to capitalism for the sake of preventing as many sociopathic bandits from exploiting the “suckers” or “victims” in the cross chart, then allows the Stupidity of the masses to rule instead- which, the author argues, is even worse and more dangerous than dealing with the bandits.

I think there’s two kinds of people at bottom, and one’s politics might be informed by that single distinction. Ask yourself- which nightmare scenario between either a totalitarian left-wing hellscape where everyone is safe but completely controlled, or a fascistic right wing hellscape where everyone is free but navigating life is incredibly dangerous and only the strongest survive, which of these worst case scenarios would you prefer if you had to pick?