Explaining stupidity
Why is there so much stupidity?
Had it been detrimental to survival, as we are frequently reminded, there would be much less of it, so it is either neutral or beneficial. I will argue the latter. Stupidity is greatly underrated.
The view that stupidity is "irrational" because it is harmful to oneself is naive: it is perfectly rational to harm oneself provided that the others are harmed even more (Hamiltonian spite). Spite is the other side of altruism:
...An individual can increase the chance of its genetic alleles to be passed to the next generations either by helping those that are more closely related, or by harming those that are less closely related than relationship by chance. It is adaptive for an individual to be altruistic to any other individuals that are more closely related to it than this average level, and it is also adaptive for an individual to be spiteful against any other individuals that are less closely related to it than this average level. The indirect adaptive benefits of such acts can surpass certain costs of the act (either helpful or harmful) itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_spite
People that like "biological" explanations of altruism tend to forget that the same mechanism favors spite towards non-kin individuals, even if it incurs individual costs, provided that the costs for the others are higher and their revenge can be avoided. Many forms of stupidity look entirely rational from this Hamiltonian standpoint. Since the adaptive benefit of spite depends on the risk of the revenge, in doing harmful things it is important to appear foolish, as only so much responsibility can be expected from a fool. Narrowly understood foolishness (that is, below-average cognitive ability) springs eternal through natural genetic variability, but spite would make it benefitial to appear foolish thereby exaggregating its actual occurrence. Because this behavior is morally problematic and harming oneself conflicts one's instinct for short-term benefit, it would not be surprising had it been delegated to the unconscious, to avoid the unnecessary tension: the stupid person truly does not "know" what he is doing, but this does not make his behavior any less rational from the Hamiltonian standpoint. Would he know, he would stop before gaining the whole advantage from his stupidity, so the mind is not engaged.
However, this individual advantage is only part of it. There is also group advantage. Group "irrational" behavior can be more advantageous than individual "rational" behavior. Here is an example:
...Three friends negotiate the use of a tennis court. Each of you has to decide without communication with the others which offer to take: 45 minutes of tennis at court A, or 60 minutes at court B. If everyone opts for the same court, you can all play but you have to share the court, so that each one will play 2/3 of the total time available (40 min). If one of you selects a court different from the choice of the two others, he is alone and can not play any tennis, while the other two each have the court of their choice available to play for the full time allotted. Which tennis court do you choose? A rational person will select option 'B'. Assuming that your two friends make the same choice, you will each enjoy 40 minutes of tennis. But what if both others select court 'A'? This changes things dramatically. You end up alone at court 'B' which gives you no play, while the two others each enjoy 45 minutes of tennis. http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/survival_stupidest-77846
As this example shows, stupidity pays off in situations where people making seemingly "stupid" decisions can band together, even without cooperation, as their stupidity offsets benefit calculus creating greater benefit with respect to the rational behavior for all players. In other words, stupidity is beneficial and (potentially) rational, both from the standpoints of individual and group advantage.
It is hardly surprising that there is so much of it around, and it is here to stay.
Had it been detrimental to survival, as we are frequently reminded, there would be much less of it, so it is either neutral or beneficial. I will argue the latter. Stupidity is greatly underrated.
The view that stupidity is "irrational" because it is harmful to oneself is naive: it is perfectly rational to harm oneself provided that the others are harmed even more (Hamiltonian spite). Spite is the other side of altruism:
...An individual can increase the chance of its genetic alleles to be passed to the next generations either by helping those that are more closely related, or by harming those that are less closely related than relationship by chance. It is adaptive for an individual to be altruistic to any other individuals that are more closely related to it than this average level, and it is also adaptive for an individual to be spiteful against any other individuals that are less closely related to it than this average level. The indirect adaptive benefits of such acts can surpass certain costs of the act (either helpful or harmful) itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_spite
People that like "biological" explanations of altruism tend to forget that the same mechanism favors spite towards non-kin individuals, even if it incurs individual costs, provided that the costs for the others are higher and their revenge can be avoided. Many forms of stupidity look entirely rational from this Hamiltonian standpoint. Since the adaptive benefit of spite depends on the risk of the revenge, in doing harmful things it is important to appear foolish, as only so much responsibility can be expected from a fool. Narrowly understood foolishness (that is, below-average cognitive ability) springs eternal through natural genetic variability, but spite would make it benefitial to appear foolish thereby exaggregating its actual occurrence. Because this behavior is morally problematic and harming oneself conflicts one's instinct for short-term benefit, it would not be surprising had it been delegated to the unconscious, to avoid the unnecessary tension: the stupid person truly does not "know" what he is doing, but this does not make his behavior any less rational from the Hamiltonian standpoint. Would he know, he would stop before gaining the whole advantage from his stupidity, so the mind is not engaged.
However, this individual advantage is only part of it. There is also group advantage. Group "irrational" behavior can be more advantageous than individual "rational" behavior. Here is an example:
...Three friends negotiate the use of a tennis court. Each of you has to decide without communication with the others which offer to take: 45 minutes of tennis at court A, or 60 minutes at court B. If everyone opts for the same court, you can all play but you have to share the court, so that each one will play 2/3 of the total time available (40 min). If one of you selects a court different from the choice of the two others, he is alone and can not play any tennis, while the other two each have the court of their choice available to play for the full time allotted. Which tennis court do you choose? A rational person will select option 'B'. Assuming that your two friends make the same choice, you will each enjoy 40 minutes of tennis. But what if both others select court 'A'? This changes things dramatically. You end up alone at court 'B' which gives you no play, while the two others each enjoy 45 minutes of tennis. http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/survival_stupidest-77846
As this example shows, stupidity pays off in situations where people making seemingly "stupid" decisions can band together, even without cooperation, as their stupidity offsets benefit calculus creating greater benefit with respect to the rational behavior for all players. In other words, stupidity is beneficial and (potentially) rational, both from the standpoints of individual and group advantage.
It is hardly surprising that there is so much of it around, and it is here to stay.