What do you think?
Rate this book
The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity
"A masterly book" --Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of The Black Swan
"A classic" --Simon Kuper, Financial Times
In the spirit of On Bullshit and Assholes: A Theory, an economist explores the five laws that confirm our worst fears: stupid people can and do rule the world
Since time immemorial, a powerful dark force has hindered the growth of human welfare and happiness. It is more powerful than the Mafia or the military. It has global catastrophic effects and can be found anywhere from the world's most powerful boardrooms to your local pub. This is the immensely powerful force of human stupidity.
Seeing the shambolic state of human affairs, and sensing the dark force at work behind it, Carlo M. Cipolla, the late, noted professor of economic history at the University of California, Berkeley, created a vitally important economic model that would allow us to detect, know, and neutralize this threat: The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity.
If you've ever found yourself despairing at the ubiquity of stupidity among even the most 'intellectual' of people, then this hilarious, timely, and slightly alarming little book is for you. Arm yourself in the face of baffling political realities, unreasonable colleagues, or the unbridled misery of Christmas day with the in-laws with the first and only economic model for stupidity.
"Cipolla's subtle tongue-in-cheek humor made this book an underground classic in Italy. Today, under current worldwide political trends, it reads more like black humor. Keep in mind: reliable statistical data shows that 98% of the people seriously believe that they are far less stupid than the average." --Carlo Rovelli, author of Seven Brief Lessons on Physics
"A classic" --Simon Kuper, Financial Times
In the spirit of On Bullshit and Assholes: A Theory, an economist explores the five laws that confirm our worst fears: stupid people can and do rule the world
Since time immemorial, a powerful dark force has hindered the growth of human welfare and happiness. It is more powerful than the Mafia or the military. It has global catastrophic effects and can be found anywhere from the world's most powerful boardrooms to your local pub. This is the immensely powerful force of human stupidity.
Seeing the shambolic state of human affairs, and sensing the dark force at work behind it, Carlo M. Cipolla, the late, noted professor of economic history at the University of California, Berkeley, created a vitally important economic model that would allow us to detect, know, and neutralize this threat: The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity.
If you've ever found yourself despairing at the ubiquity of stupidity among even the most 'intellectual' of people, then this hilarious, timely, and slightly alarming little book is for you. Arm yourself in the face of baffling political realities, unreasonable colleagues, or the unbridled misery of Christmas day with the in-laws with the first and only economic model for stupidity.
"Cipolla's subtle tongue-in-cheek humor made this book an underground classic in Italy. Today, under current worldwide political trends, it reads more like black humor. Keep in mind: reliable statistical data shows that 98% of the people seriously believe that they are far less stupid than the average." --Carlo Rovelli, author of Seven Brief Lessons on Physics
96 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1976
About the author
Carlo M. Cipolla
85 books103 followersCarlo M. Cipolla (August 15, 1922 – September 5, 2000) was an Italian economic historian. He was born in Pavia, where he got his academic degree in 1944.
As a young man, Cipolla wanted to teach history and philosophy in an Italian high school, and therefore enrolled at the political science faculty at Pavia University. Whilst a student there, thanks to professor Franco Borlandi, a specialist in Medieval economic history, he discovered his passion for economic history. Subsequently he studied at the Sorbonne and the London School of Economics.
Cipolla obtained his first teaching post in economic history in Catania at the age of 27. This was to be the first stop in a long academic career in Italy (Venice, Turin, Pavia, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa and Fiesole) and abroad. In 1953 Cipolla left for the United States as a Fulbright fellow and in 1957 became a visiting professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Two years later he obtained a full professorship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M....
As a young man, Cipolla wanted to teach history and philosophy in an Italian high school, and therefore enrolled at the political science faculty at Pavia University. Whilst a student there, thanks to professor Franco Borlandi, a specialist in Medieval economic history, he discovered his passion for economic history. Subsequently he studied at the Sorbonne and the London School of Economics.
Cipolla obtained his first teaching post in economic history in Catania at the age of 27. This was to be the first stop in a long academic career in Italy (Venice, Turin, Pavia, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa and Fiesole) and abroad. In 1953 Cipolla left for the United States as a Fulbright fellow and in 1957 became a visiting professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Two years later he obtained a full professorship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M....
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,013 reviews
April 19, 2023
Nu-mi plac cărțile care vorbesc despre cît de proști sînt ceilalți și cît de „dăștepți” sînt autorii lor. Trebuie să ai umorul și inteligența să te incluzi și pe tine în masa celor sortiți disprețului, massa damnata.
Cipolla formulează 5 legi fundamentale:
1. În societate, numărul imbecililor e constant și întotdeauna mai mare decît cel estimat de specialiști.
2. Prostia e un „privilegiu aleatoriu”, un dat al Providenței inscrutabile. Nu poate fi remediată prin educație și cultură. Prostia e din născare și nu are leac.
3. O definiție: imbecilul provoacă necontenit pierderi celorlalţi, fără să cîștige nimic în schimb.
4. Capacitatea imbecilului de a face rău întrece orice închipuire.
5. Dintre toate tipurile umane, imbecilul e cel mai periculos.
În concluzie, imbecilul are un comportament haotic și nu gîndește rațional. Din acest motiv e imprevizibil.
Probabil că eseul lui Cipolla este ironic. Cel mai mult mi-au plăcut graficele și tonul pedant, sobru, obiectiv, „științific”. L-am citit și nu știu dacă am dat dovadă de inteligență.
Măcar în parte, opiniile mele diferă de cele ale istoricului italian. Între proști și isteți văd o disjuncție inclusivă (sau/și). Consider că inteligența e intermitentă, ca firul de apă în deșert. Nimeni nu este isteț 24 de ore din 24, 7 zile din 7. Omul e mai degrabă prost decît isteț (23h din 24h). Prin urmare, prostia e regula, geniul - excepția. Nu există geniu pur, nu există imbecil pur. Există, din fericire pentru toți, grade, trepte, o suavă combinație.
George Bernard Shaw: „Oamenii gîndesc cam o dată pe an. Faptul că eu gîndesc de două ori pe săptămînă mi-a adus o notorietate nemeritată”.
Cipolla formulează 5 legi fundamentale:
1. În societate, numărul imbecililor e constant și întotdeauna mai mare decît cel estimat de specialiști.
2. Prostia e un „privilegiu aleatoriu”, un dat al Providenței inscrutabile. Nu poate fi remediată prin educație și cultură. Prostia e din născare și nu are leac.
3. O definiție: imbecilul provoacă necontenit pierderi celorlalţi, fără să cîștige nimic în schimb.
4. Capacitatea imbecilului de a face rău întrece orice închipuire.
5. Dintre toate tipurile umane, imbecilul e cel mai periculos.
În concluzie, imbecilul are un comportament haotic și nu gîndește rațional. Din acest motiv e imprevizibil.
Probabil că eseul lui Cipolla este ironic. Cel mai mult mi-au plăcut graficele și tonul pedant, sobru, obiectiv, „științific”. L-am citit și nu știu dacă am dat dovadă de inteligență.
Măcar în parte, opiniile mele diferă de cele ale istoricului italian. Între proști și isteți văd o disjuncție inclusivă (sau/și). Consider că inteligența e intermitentă, ca firul de apă în deșert. Nimeni nu este isteț 24 de ore din 24, 7 zile din 7. Omul e mai degrabă prost decît isteț (23h din 24h). Prin urmare, prostia e regula, geniul - excepția. Nu există geniu pur, nu există imbecil pur. Există, din fericire pentru toți, grade, trepte, o suavă combinație.
George Bernard Shaw: „Oamenii gîndesc cam o dată pe an. Faptul că eu gîndesc de două ori pe săptămînă mi-a adus o notorietate nemeritată”.
June 2, 2022
Divertida e interesante.
Aunque me gustó mucho más el artículo de las leyes de la Estupidez, el más famoso, desde que leí “El papel de las especias…” he intentado sustituir en mi dieta la sal por la pimienta y no puedo quejarme de los resultados... y alguien más tampoco.
April 11, 2021
Ok, this is not a book, precisely, but a pamphlet. Which doesn't preclude the book from being a classic, on par with Parkinson's Law and Bullshit Jobs: A Theory.
It's so tongue-in-cheek (and, ahem, true) that I can't find it in myself to be politically correct enough to get offended at the language or blunt phrasing.
Q:
Cultural trends now fashionable in the West favor an egalitarian approach to life. People like to think of human beings as the output of a perfectly engineered mass production machine. Geneticists and sociologists especially go out of their way to prove, with an impressive apparatus of scientific data and formulations, that all men are naturally equal and if some are more equal than the others, this is attributable to nurture and not to nature.
I take exception to this general view. It is my firm conviction, supported by years of observation and experimentation, that men are not equal, that some are stupid and others are not and that the difference is determined by nature and not by cultural forces or factors. One is stupid in the same way one is red-haired; one belongs to the stupid set as one belongs to a blood group. A stupid man is born a stupid man by an act of Providence. (c)
Q:
moving up the social ladder I found that the same ratio was prevalent among the white-collar employees and among the students. More impressive still were the results among the professors. Whether I considered a large university or a small college, a famous institution or an obscure one, I found that the same fraction σ of the professors were stupid. So bewildered was I by the results that I made a special point to extend my research to a specially selected group, to a real elite, the Nobel laureates. The result confirmed Nature’s supreme powers: σ fraction of the Nobel laureates were stupid. (c)
Q:
... whether you move in distinguished circles or you take refuge among the headhunters of Polynesia, whether you lock yourself in a monastery or decide to spend the rest of your life in the company of beautiful and lascivious women, you always have to face the same percentage of stupid people—which percentage (in accordance with the First Law) will always surpass your expectations. (c)
Q:
We can recollect cases in which a fellow took an action by which both parties gained: he was intelligent. Such cases do indeed occur. But upon thoughtful reflection you must admit that these are not the events that punctuate most frequently our daily life. Our daily life is mostly made up of cases in which we lose money and/or time and/or energy and/or appetite, cheerfulness, and good health because of the improbable action of some preposterous creature who has nothing to gain and indeed gains nothing from causing us embarrassment, difficulties or harm. Nobody knows, understands, or can possibly explain why that preposterous creature does what he does. In fact there is no explanation—or better, there is only one explanation: the person in question is stupid. (c)
Q:
A stupid creature will harass you for no reason, for no advantage, without any plan or scheme and at the most improbable times and places. You have no rational way of telling if and when and how and why the stupid creature attacks. When confronted with a stupid individual you are completely at his mercy. (c)
It's so tongue-in-cheek (and, ahem, true) that I can't find it in myself to be politically correct enough to get offended at the language or blunt phrasing.
Q:
Cultural trends now fashionable in the West favor an egalitarian approach to life. People like to think of human beings as the output of a perfectly engineered mass production machine. Geneticists and sociologists especially go out of their way to prove, with an impressive apparatus of scientific data and formulations, that all men are naturally equal and if some are more equal than the others, this is attributable to nurture and not to nature.
I take exception to this general view. It is my firm conviction, supported by years of observation and experimentation, that men are not equal, that some are stupid and others are not and that the difference is determined by nature and not by cultural forces or factors. One is stupid in the same way one is red-haired; one belongs to the stupid set as one belongs to a blood group. A stupid man is born a stupid man by an act of Providence. (c)
Q:
moving up the social ladder I found that the same ratio was prevalent among the white-collar employees and among the students. More impressive still were the results among the professors. Whether I considered a large university or a small college, a famous institution or an obscure one, I found that the same fraction σ of the professors were stupid. So bewildered was I by the results that I made a special point to extend my research to a specially selected group, to a real elite, the Nobel laureates. The result confirmed Nature’s supreme powers: σ fraction of the Nobel laureates were stupid. (c)
Q:
... whether you move in distinguished circles or you take refuge among the headhunters of Polynesia, whether you lock yourself in a monastery or decide to spend the rest of your life in the company of beautiful and lascivious women, you always have to face the same percentage of stupid people—which percentage (in accordance with the First Law) will always surpass your expectations. (c)
Q:
We can recollect cases in which a fellow took an action by which both parties gained: he was intelligent. Such cases do indeed occur. But upon thoughtful reflection you must admit that these are not the events that punctuate most frequently our daily life. Our daily life is mostly made up of cases in which we lose money and/or time and/or energy and/or appetite, cheerfulness, and good health because of the improbable action of some preposterous creature who has nothing to gain and indeed gains nothing from causing us embarrassment, difficulties or harm. Nobody knows, understands, or can possibly explain why that preposterous creature does what he does. In fact there is no explanation—or better, there is only one explanation: the person in question is stupid. (c)
Q:
A stupid creature will harass you for no reason, for no advantage, without any plan or scheme and at the most improbable times and places. You have no rational way of telling if and when and how and why the stupid creature attacks. When confronted with a stupid individual you are completely at his mercy. (c)
December 3, 2018
كان اهتدائي لهذا الكتاب دليلًا على أهمية أن نتشارك ما نقرأ، فقد أشار إليه قبل أيامٍ الصديق أسامة قفاف على صفحته على الفيس بوك، ولم يهدأ لي بال حتى استعرته بحمد الله وقرأته لنفاد طبعته العربية، وسوء تصوير طبعته الإنجليزية على الانترنت.
شغلني خلال العام الفائت موضوع "الغباء" بوصفه أحد أهمّ المعطيات التي تدخل في تعامل الإنسان بالإنسان. وقلّما التفت إليه أحد أو ذكره في سياق التخطيط أو الشراكة أو الزواج وغير ذلك من ألوان التعاملات البشرية.
هذا الكتاب الصغير يعرض للـغباء كظاهرة تستحقّ الانتباه الجيّد، والنظر الدقيق، لأنّها مكلفة جدًا على الصعيد الفردي والجمعي، ولأّنها أكثر انتشارًا مما نتوقع، ولأنّها معطىً ثابتٌ في كلّ المجتمعات وعلى جميع المستويات مهما ارتقت في السلّم الاجتماعي أو العلمي والأكاديمي.
كما حاول الكتاب أن يرسم للغباء صورة عملية "رياضية" مما يوفّر للقارئ آليةً -على قدرٍ كبيرٍ من الدقّة- لاكتشافه وتعيينه وتشخيصه.
كتابٌ صغير الحجم كُتب في عام 1976 واشتهر صاحبه (سيبولا) به، ونعايش موضوعه يوميًا في حياتنا العامة والخاصّة، ويُفسّر بدقّة ما نستهجنه ونستغربه من وجود "الأغبياء" في أماكن كنّا نظنّها مقصورةً على الدهاة والأذكياء!!
يُقرأ الكتاب في ساعةٍ واحدة! لكنّه سيشغل ذهن قارئه بلذّة الاكتشاف والفهم لمدّة طويلة وتطول..
شغلني خلال العام الفائت موضوع "الغباء" بوصفه أحد أهمّ المعطيات التي تدخل في تعامل الإنسان بالإنسان. وقلّما التفت إليه أحد أو ذكره في سياق التخطيط أو الشراكة أو الزواج وغير ذلك من ألوان التعاملات البشرية.
هذا الكتاب الصغير يعرض للـغباء كظاهرة تستحقّ الانتباه الجيّد، والنظر الدقيق، لأنّها مكلفة جدًا على الصعيد الفردي والجمعي، ولأّنها أكثر انتشارًا مما نتوقع، ولأنّها معطىً ثابتٌ في كلّ المجتمعات وعلى جميع المستويات مهما ارتقت في السلّم الاجتماعي أو العلمي والأكاديمي.
كما حاول الكتاب أن يرسم للغباء صورة عملية "رياضية" مما يوفّر للقارئ آليةً -على قدرٍ كبيرٍ من الدقّة- لاكتشافه وتعيينه وتشخيصه.
كتابٌ صغير الحجم كُتب في عام 1976 واشتهر صاحبه (سيبولا) به، ونعايش موضوعه يوميًا في حياتنا العامة والخاصّة، ويُفسّر بدقّة ما نستهجنه ونستغربه من وجود "الأغبياء" في أماكن كنّا نظنّها مقصورةً على الدهاة والأذكياء!!
يُقرأ الكتاب في ساعةٍ واحدة! لكنّه سيشغل ذهن قارئه بلذّة الاكتشاف والفهم لمدّة طويلة وتطول..
April 8, 2017
Στην απονομή του πτυχίου μου, μαζί με τον πάπυρο μου, μου έδωσαν την Καινή Διαθήκη. Μέχρι σήμερα δεν έχω καταλάβει γιατί το πτυχίο μου έπρεπε να συνοδεύεται από ένα θρησκευτικό κείμενο. Αν ήταν στο χέρι μου, αντί για την Καινή Διαθήκη, θα έδινα σε όλους όσους έπαιρναν πτυχίο ένα αντίτυπο του «Οι βασικοί νόμοι της ανθρώπινης ηλιθιότητας». Το ίδιο θα έκανα και σε όσους τελείωναν το λύκειο. Και σε όσους παντρεύονταν. Και σε όσους πήγαιναν να ψηφίσουν. Και γενικά, θα έδινα από ένα αντίτυπο σε όλους όσους έφταναν σε ένα σημείο της ζωής τους που είτε έπρεπε να πάρουν μία μεγάλη απόφαση, είτε που βίωναν μία αλλαγή στην πορεία της ζωής τους.
Για την ακρίβεια, το «Οι βασικοί νόμοι της ανθρώπινης ηλιθιότητας» είναι ένα βιβλίο που θα έπρεπε να διαβάσουν όλοι τουλάχιστον μία φορά στη ζωή τους αλλά κυρίως είναι ένα βιβλίο που πρέπει να ξαναδιαβάζουμε κάθε φορά ��ιώθουμε δυστυχισμένοι. Διότι, χρησιμοποιώντας τα διαγράμματα που μας παρέχει στο τέλους του, ίσως ανακαλύψουμε σκληρές αλήθειες.
Επειδή ένα τέτοιο βιβλίο δε θα μπορούσε παρά να είναι εξαιρετικά επίκαιρο, παραθέτω την τελευταία παράγραφό του:
«Σε μία χώρα που έχει πάρει την κάτω βόλτα, το ποσοστό των ηλιθίων ανθρώπων εξακολουθεί να ισούται με η, ωστόσο στο υπόλοιπο πληθυσμό παρατηρείται μεταξύ αυτών που κατέχουν την εξουσία μια δραματική εξάπλωση του πληθυσμού των Κακοποιών με καλπάζουσα ηλιθιότητα και μεταξύ όσων δεν μετέχουν στην εξουσία μία εξίσου ανησυχητική αύξηση του πληθυσμού των Ανύμπορων ατόμων. Τέτοιες μεταβολές στη σύνθεση του μη Ηλίθιου πληθυσμού αναπόφευκτα ενισχύουν την καταστροφική δύναμη του ποσοστού η και καθιστούν την παρακμή αναπόφευκτη. Και η χώρα πάει κατά διαόλου.»
Για την ακρίβεια, το «Οι βασικοί νόμοι της ανθρώπινης ηλιθιότητας» είναι ένα βιβλίο που θα έπρεπε να διαβάσουν όλοι τουλάχιστον μία φορά στη ζωή τους αλλά κυρίως είναι ένα βιβλίο που πρέπει να ξαναδιαβάζουμε κάθε φορά ��ιώθουμε δυστυχισμένοι. Διότι, χρησιμοποιώντας τα διαγράμματα που μας παρέχει στο τέλους του, ίσως ανακαλύψουμε σκληρές αλήθειες.
Επειδή ένα τέτοιο βιβλίο δε θα μπορούσε παρά να είναι εξαιρετικά επίκαιρο, παραθέτω την τελευταία παράγραφό του:
«Σε μία χώρα που έχει πάρει την κάτω βόλτα, το ποσοστό των ηλιθίων ανθρώπων εξακολουθεί να ισούται με η, ωστόσο στο υπόλοιπο πληθυσμό παρατηρείται μεταξύ αυτών που κατέχουν την εξουσία μια δραματική εξάπλωση του πληθυσμού των Κακοποιών με καλπάζουσα ηλιθιότητα και μεταξύ όσων δεν μετέχουν στην εξουσία μία εξίσου ανησυχητική αύξηση του πληθυσμού των Ανύμπορων ατόμων. Τέτοιες μεταβολές στη σύνθεση του μη Ηλίθιου πληθυσμού αναπόφευκτα ενισχύουν την καταστροφική δύναμη του ποσοστού η και καθιστούν την παρακμή αναπόφευκτη. Και η χώρα πάει κατά διαόλου.»
December 9, 2023
"الشخص الغبي هو أشدّ أنواع الأشخاص خطراً.."
الغباء البشري كتاب للمؤرخ الاقتصادي الإيطالي كارلو تشيبولا وقد باع كتابه هذا أكثر من نصف مليون نسخة وتُرجم إلى 16 لغة...
من خلال ٥ قوانين أطلق عليهم الكاتب القوانين الأساسية لغباء الإنسان يحاول الكاتب معرفة و اكتشاف واحدة من أشدّ القوى المظلمة التي تعيق نمو و رفاهية الإنسان وسعادته وهي الغباء...
"الشخص الغبي هو شخص يكبّد شخصاً آخر أو مجموعة من الأشخاص خسائر، وفي الوقت عينه لا يحقّق لنفسه أيّ مكسب، بل لعلّه يتكبّد خسائر أيضاً.."
يوضح الكاتب إن الأغبياء موجودين حولنا وأنهم يتوزّعوا توزّعاً متماثلاً وفق نسبة ثابتة في كل المجتمعات وداخل كل المهن..حتلاقيهم موجودين سواء بين الطلاب ،الاكادميين،الحاصلين علي نوبل و أكيد في القادة و رؤساء الدول وحتي في الشخصيات الدينية:)
"فحياتنا اليومية تتكوّن من حالات نفقد فيها المال و/ أو الوقت و/ أو الطاقة و/ أو الشهية والبهجة والعافية، بسبب تصرّف غير مُحتمَل الوقوع يقوم به كائن أخرق ليس لديه ما يكسبه، ولا يكسب شيئاً في الواقع من إلحاق المتاعب أو الأذي لنا"
كنت أتمني الكاتب يتكلم عن نماذج لأشخاص أغبياء سواء حكام او غيره ودة للأسف محصلش وعادي هم معروفين يعني أو لو دورنا حنلاقيهم بسهولة:)
الكتاب حلو و مكتوب بإسلوب سلس.. صحيح حجمه صغير و لكنه مهم و حيخليك تتعلم حاجة مهمة جداً
أن التعامل مع الأغبياء في كل الأوقات والأماكن وفي ظلّ أي ظرف، هو خطأ فادح.. يعني من الاخر لو تعرف حد غبي..ابعد عنه..الحياة مش ناقصة:)
التقييم ٣.٥..
الغباء البشري كتاب للمؤرخ الاقتصادي الإيطالي كارلو تشيبولا وقد باع كتابه هذا أكثر من نصف مليون نسخة وتُرجم إلى 16 لغة...
من خلال ٥ قوانين أطلق عليهم الكاتب القوانين الأساسية لغباء الإنسان يحاول الكاتب معرفة و اكتشاف واحدة من أشدّ القوى المظلمة التي تعيق نمو و رفاهية الإنسان وسعادته وهي الغباء...
"الشخص الغبي هو شخص يكبّد شخصاً آخر أو مجموعة من الأشخاص خسائر، وفي الوقت عينه لا يحقّق لنفسه أيّ مكسب، بل لعلّه يتكبّد خسائر أيضاً.."
يوضح الكاتب إن الأغبياء موجودين حولنا وأنهم يتوزّعوا توزّعاً متماثلاً وفق نسبة ثابتة في كل المجتمعات وداخل كل المهن..حتلاقيهم موجودين سواء بين الطلاب ،الاكادميين،الحاصلين علي نوبل و أكيد في القادة و رؤساء الدول وحتي في الشخصيات الدينية:)
"فحياتنا اليومية تتكوّن من حالات نفقد فيها المال و/ أو الوقت و/ أو الطاقة و/ أو الشهية والبهجة والعافية، بسبب تصرّف غير مُحتمَل الوقوع يقوم به كائن أخرق ليس لديه ما يكسبه، ولا يكسب شيئاً في الواقع من إلحاق المتاعب أو الأذي لنا"
كنت أتمني الكاتب يتكلم عن نماذج لأشخاص أغبياء سواء حكام او غيره ودة للأسف محصلش وعادي هم معروفين يعني أو لو دورنا حنلاقيهم بسهولة:)
الكتاب حلو و مكتوب بإسلوب سلس.. صحيح حجمه صغير و لكنه مهم و حيخليك تتعلم حاجة مهمة جداً
أن التعامل مع الأغبياء في كل الأوقات والأماكن وفي ظلّ أي ظرف، هو خطأ فادح.. يعني من الاخر لو تعرف حد غبي..ابعد عنه..الحياة مش ناقصة:)
التقييم ٣.٥..
August 22, 2016
Ιδεαλιστική προσέγγισ�� στην ερμηνεία των νόμων που οδηγούν στην ανθρώπινη ηλιθιότητα. Υπερτονίζει τη σημασία της κληρονομικότητας στη δημιουργία ηλιθίων χωρίς να δίνει τη δέουσα σημασία στον πρωτεύο��τα ρόλο των κοινωνικοοικονομικών συνθηκών της κάθε εποχής που καθορίζει τη συμπεριφορά των ατόμων μέσα στην κοινωνία. Σύμφωνα με το συγγραφέα " κάποιος είναι ηλίθιος ακριβώς με τον τρόπο που κάποιος άλλος έχει κόκκινα μαλλιά" και " ο ηλίθιος γεννιέται ηλίθιος λόγω Θείας Πρόνοιας". Παρότι διαφώνησα μαζί του από τις πρώτες κιόλας προτάσεις του, διάβασα με προσοχή τις απόψεις του και κατέληξα οριστικά στην αναξιοπιστία των εργαλείων που χρησιμοποίησε και τον οδήγησαν σε αυθαίρετα συμπεράσματα.
Εύκολα εντάσσω τον συγγραφέα στην κατηγορία που ορίζει σύμφωνα με τον Τρίτο Βασικό Νόμο του ως "κακοποιό", διότι προσπαθεί να παραπλανήσει τον αναγνώστη κάνοντάς τον να πιστέψει στην κληρονομική μεταβίβαση της ηλιθιότητας - με 'ότι αυτό συνεπάγεται περί απραξίας των υπολοίπων έναντι των ηλιθίων αφού ότι και να κάνουν οι μη ηλίθιοι ο αριθμός των ηλιθίων πάντα θα παραμένει σταθερός - πράγμα που τον ευνόησε στο να κάνει και ακαδημαϊκή καριέρα σε αρκετά πανεπιστήμια.
Για το λόγο αυτό θα αλλάξω τον Πέμπτο Βασικό του Νόμο σε " ο κακοποιός άνθρωπος είναι πιο επικίνδυνος από τον ηλίθιο".
Επίσης, αμφιβάλλω για τις έρευνες και τα πειράματα που χρησιμοποίησε ώστε να φτάσει στο συμπέρασμα πως ο αριθμός των ηλιθίων παραμένει σταθερός ανά τους αιώνες είτε η κοινωνία προοδεύει είτε οδηγείται σε παρακμή.
Δύο αστέρια γιατί έκανε τον κόπο - έστω - να ερμηνεύσει ένα αρκετά σοβαρό θέμα παρότι απέτυχε σύμφωνα με τη δική μου κρίση.
ΥΓ
Για να κατανοήσετε τις έννοιες - αφού δε σας συνιστώ να διαβάσετε το εν λόγω βιβλίο- του ηλίθιου και του κακοποιού σας παραθέτω τους ορισμούς τους σύμφωνα με τον Τσιπόλα:
Ηλίθιος είναι αυτός που κάνοντας μία ενέργεια κάνει κακό και στον εαυτό του και στους υπολοίπους.
Κακοποιός είναι αυτός που προβαίνει σε μια ενέργεια ή πράξη κάνοντας καλό στον εαυτό του εις βάρος όλων των υπολοίπων.
Εύκολα εντάσσω τον συγγραφέα στην κατηγορία που ορίζει σύμφωνα με τον Τρίτο Βασικό Νόμο του ως "κακοποιό", διότι προσπαθεί να παραπλανήσει τον αναγνώστη κάνοντάς τον να πιστέψει στην κληρονομική μεταβίβαση της ηλιθιότητας - με 'ότι αυτό συνεπάγεται περί απραξίας των υπολοίπων έναντι των ηλιθίων αφού ότι και να κάνουν οι μη ηλίθιοι ο αριθμός των ηλιθίων πάντα θα παραμένει σταθερός - πράγμα που τον ευνόησε στο να κάνει και ακαδημαϊκή καριέρα σε αρκετά πανεπιστήμια.
Για το λόγο αυτό θα αλλάξω τον Πέμπτο Βασικό του Νόμο σε " ο κακοποιός άνθρωπος είναι πιο επικίνδυνος από τον ηλίθιο".
Επίσης, αμφιβάλλω για τις έρευνες και τα πειράματα που χρησιμοποίησε ώστε να φτάσει στο συμπέρασμα πως ο αριθμός των ηλιθίων παραμένει σταθερός ανά τους αιώνες είτε η κοινωνία προοδεύει είτε οδηγείται σε παρακμή.
Δύο αστέρια γιατί έκανε τον κόπο - έστω - να ερμηνεύσει ένα αρκετά σοβαρό θέμα παρότι απέτυχε σύμφωνα με τη δική μου κρίση.
ΥΓ
Για να κατανοήσετε τις έννοιες - αφού δε σας συνιστώ να διαβάσετε το εν λόγω βιβλίο- του ηλίθιου και του κακοποιού σας παραθέτω τους ορισμούς τους σύμφωνα με τον Τσιπόλα:
Ηλίθιος είναι αυτός που κάνοντας μία ενέργεια κάνει κακό και στον εαυτό του και στους υπολοίπους.
Κακοποιός είναι αυτός που προβαίνει σε μια ενέργεια ή πράξη κάνοντας καλό στον εαυτό του εις βάρος όλων των υπολοίπων.
January 10, 2021
fails to provide essential substance.
January 10, 2017
Σας παραπέμπω σε κριτική με την οποία συμφωνώ 100%:
Κριτική του Sub Sakoul
Θα ήθελα να συμπληρώσω κι άλλα πράγματα, αλλά θεωρώ χάσιμο χρόνου ακόμη και το να ασχοληθώ σοβαρά γράφοντας κριτική με επιχειρήματα.
Κριτική του Sub Sakoul
Θα ήθελα να συμπληρώσω κι άλλα πράγματα, αλλά θεωρώ χάσιμο χρόνου ακόμη και το να ασχοληθώ σοβαρά γράφοντας κριτική με επιχειρήματα.
August 13, 2020
Τόσο εύστοχο και αληθινό που σχεδόν τρομάζει..... "Μεγάλο" βιβλίο!
January 28, 2023
"Consider that the average person is stupid. Now, consider that most people are below average."---George Carlin
Carlo Cipolla came to exactly the same conclusion as George, only he has the scientific data to back it up. Carlo defines stupidity much as Barbara Tuchman defined folly: "The pursuit of goals contrary to self-interest". To wit: 1. Intelligent people vastly underestimate how many stupid people there are around them. This includes lawyers, doctors, and naturally politicians, inter alia. 2. Stupid people can cause vast amounts of damage even in small numbers, or as Napoleon once proclaimed, "In battle, one bad general is worth thirty good ones". 3. Cipolla's most astounding find: Human stupidity is not correlated to anything else. Nothing at all. He does not mean the obvious connections, such as gender, race, age, geography, or even economic status. No. Stupidity can be found everywhere among all peoples and places. There are stupid Noble Prize winners; how else do you explain James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA, championing the idea that Blacks are genetically inferior to whites? There are stupid U.S. presidents (no surprise there), among whom both Carter and Reagan rate very high on the human stupidity scale; and there are stupid world-renowned authors, from T.S. Eliot's and Ezra Pound's anti-semitism to William Butler Yeat's belief in ghosts and fairies. This timely book is both hilarious and shocking. It does much to illuminate the decline of the West since 1945. The late American comedian Gallager used to do a routine before his audience that began, "one out of every third of Americans is stupid. Now, look to your right and left. If you think these people are intelligent, well, then guess what...".
Carlo Cipolla came to exactly the same conclusion as George, only he has the scientific data to back it up. Carlo defines stupidity much as Barbara Tuchman defined folly: "The pursuit of goals contrary to self-interest". To wit: 1. Intelligent people vastly underestimate how many stupid people there are around them. This includes lawyers, doctors, and naturally politicians, inter alia. 2. Stupid people can cause vast amounts of damage even in small numbers, or as Napoleon once proclaimed, "In battle, one bad general is worth thirty good ones". 3. Cipolla's most astounding find: Human stupidity is not correlated to anything else. Nothing at all. He does not mean the obvious connections, such as gender, race, age, geography, or even economic status. No. Stupidity can be found everywhere among all peoples and places. There are stupid Noble Prize winners; how else do you explain James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA, championing the idea that Blacks are genetically inferior to whites? There are stupid U.S. presidents (no surprise there), among whom both Carter and Reagan rate very high on the human stupidity scale; and there are stupid world-renowned authors, from T.S. Eliot's and Ezra Pound's anti-semitism to William Butler Yeat's belief in ghosts and fairies. This timely book is both hilarious and shocking. It does much to illuminate the decline of the West since 1945. The late American comedian Gallager used to do a routine before his audience that began, "one out of every third of Americans is stupid. Now, look to your right and left. If you think these people are intelligent, well, then guess what...".
August 4, 2015
Funny but too brief, loved this part:
"Whether the Second Basic Law is liked or not, however, its implications are frightening: the Law implies that whether you move in distinguished circles or you take refuge among the head-hunters of Polynesia, whether you lock yourself into a monastery or decide to spend the rest of your life in the company of beautiful and lascivious women, you always have to face the same percentage of stupid people—which percentage (in accordance with the First Law) will always surpass your expectations."
"Whether the Second Basic Law is liked or not, however, its implications are frightening: the Law implies that whether you move in distinguished circles or you take refuge among the head-hunters of Polynesia, whether you lock yourself into a monastery or decide to spend the rest of your life in the company of beautiful and lascivious women, you always have to face the same percentage of stupid people—which percentage (in accordance with the First Law) will always surpass your expectations."
October 17, 2016
Το σημαντικό με τέτοια βιβλία είναι να μπορείς να "αξιολογήσεις" τον εαυτό σου και να τον "κρίνεις" για να δεις ποιος είσαι.
August 24, 2018
TL;TR: Κατά τη γνώμη αυτό το βιβλίο θα έπρεπε να είναι ενοχλητικό για οποιονδήποτε με στοιχειώδη αναλυτική σκέψη. Ούτε τιμά τον συγγραφέα που το έγραψε έτσι, ούτε και ικανοποιεί κανέναν ηλίθιο ή μη. Είναι ένα φιάσκο αλαζονικού ύφους που αν το διάβαζε ένας ολόκληρος πληθυσμός, η κοινότητα θα χαρακτηριζόταν ευθέως ως τοξική. Γνώμη μου.
Αν κανείς το κρίνει σοβαρά, αφιερώνει ένα 40λεπτο από τη ζωή του σε ένα κείμενο με βαρύγδουπες δηλώσεις και αναφορές χωρίς όμως να παρέχει πηγές για κάποια λεγόμενα ή παραπομπές σε άλλα βιβλία, εκτός και αν επρόκειτο για αποφθέγματα, για τα οποία πλήρως παραθέτει πληροφορίες εκτός σώματος κειμένου, λες και η επίκληση στην αυθεντία έχει κάποια αξία για έναν μη ηλίθιο άνθρωπο. Αλλά ίσως να μην πρέπει να το κρίνει κανείς σαν μια σοβαρή κοινωνιολογική αναφορά, από τη στιγμή που αν και ο συγγραφέας αναφέρεται σε έναν-δύο τεχνικούς όρους, από τη συλλογιστική του καταλαβαίνει κανείς ότι δεν έχει ιδέα τι εστί ακόμα και η λέξη "ποσοστό".
Ίσως να πρέπει να το κρίνουμε ασόβαρα, σαν ένα απλό χιουμοριστικό κειμενάκι για ένα διαχρονικό πρόβλημα του είδους μας. Τότε η εικόνα που δίνει ο συγγραφέας είναι εκείνη ενός ανθρώπου που αυθαίρετα ξεχωρίζει τον εαυτό του από τους ηλίθιους και τραβάει και τον αναγνώστη μαζί του σε μια παρωδία εγωπάθειας και υποβιβασμού ενός αόριστου "άλλου" σε μια κοινωνία. Τι εννοώ; Σε όλο το βιβλιαράκι υπάρχει μια υποδόρια ειρωνεία, ένα κοροϊδευτικό γελάκι που βλέπεις συνήθως σε ψώνια που νομίζουν ότι υπερέχουν από τους γύρω τους. Πόσο διασκεδαστικό λοιπόν μπορεί να είναι αυτό το χιουμοριστικό κειμενάκι για έναν "λογικό άνθρωπο", όταν φωνάζει ότι έχει γραφτεί από την υπερφίαλη κομπορρημοσύνη ενός μάλλον ηλίθιου ανθρώπου; Γιατί τον λέω ηλίθιο; Γιατί αυτό το βιβλίο κατά την γνώμη μου είναι είτε για ηλίθιους είτε για διαλεκτικά αναίσθητους είτε για φαντασμένους που νομίζουν ότι διαβάζοντας αυτό το βιβλίο "καταλαβαίνουν" τους γύρω τους - ηλίθιους. Ποιος είμαι εγώ που θα τον κρίνω; Κάποιος ο οποίος καταλαβαίνει ότι ακόμα και το καλό χιούμορ πρέπει να κρύβει κάποια ταπεινότητα.
Αλλά ας φέρω τη κριτική μου στα μέτρα του βιβλίου αυτού και των υπεραπλουστευτικών διαγραμμάτων για εν γένει περίπλοκες κοινωνίες. Ο συγγραφέας σκιαγραφώντας τους ηλίθιους και ωθώντας τον αναγνώστη να ψάχνει την ηλιθιότητα παντού γύρω του (βλέπε παράρτημα) και όχι μέσα του, δημιουργεί μια "κλίκα" στην οποία βάζει αναγνώστες και εαυτό, και μια άλλη κάστα άσημων ανθρώπων τους οποίους εξευτελίζει διαλεκτικά αναδεικνύοντας, αντιστρόφως ανάλογα, τη κλίκα του. Αυτός ο άνθρωπος θα περιγραφόταν από τη συλλογιστική του συγγραφέα με βάση το Διάγραμμα 1 ως διαλεκτικά και συναισθηματικά "κακοποιός". Επειδή όμως εγώ δεν είμαι ο συγγραφέας, και είπα αυτά που είπα παραπάνω, θα τον βάλω χωρίς αμφιβολία στους διαλεκτικά και συναισθηματικά ηλίθιους για τους εξής, πλέον ίσως προφανείς, λόγους:
1) κάνει τους ηλίθιους, σε μια κοινωνία κατ' αυτόν γεμάτη τέτοιους, να νομίζουν ότι είναι οι ίδιοι έξυπνοι
2) στα μάτια ενός έστω και μετρίως σκεπτόμενου ανθρώπου παρουσιάζεται αλαζόνας και ανασφαλώς ελιτιστής.
Κοινώς, δε κάνει καλό ούτε στην εικόνα του, ούτε στη κοινωνία.
Ας μην είμαι άδικος, σε ένα δύο σημεία υπάρχουν κάποιες εύστοχες φρασούλες. Θα αναφέρω μια, η οποία είναι και το μόνο πράγμα που θα ήθελα να μου μείνει από αυτή την, ευτυχώς συντομότατη, εκνευριστική ανάγνωση. Αυτή η μια είναι ο ορισμός του ηλίθιου, που δίνει με την ταμπέλα του Τρίτου Νόμου. Θεωρώ ότι είναι αρκετά λακωνικός και κάλυψε την αρχική απορία που είχα, πως μπορεί ο κύριος αυτός να κρίνει έστω και αόριστα τι καθιστά κάποιον ηλίθιο.
Δεν υποστηρίζω την παπάτζα του "μη κρίνεις για να μη κριθείς". Όλοι πρέπει να κρίνουμε γιατί όλοι πρέπει να κρινόμαστε. Αυτή η κριτική όμως δεν αξίζει μια αν είναι καταστρεπτική και όχι καλοπροαίρετη. Και ο λόγος είναι απλός. Η καταστρεπτική κριτική (επί του παρόντος, αυτή του συγγραφέα για τους ηλίθιους) επιφέρει με τη σειρά της καταστρεπτική κριτική (επί του παρόντος, τη δική μου για τον συγγραφέα). Έτσι οι κοινωνίες δεν προχωράνε, απλά ξεκατινιάζονται και γεμίζουν εγωπαθείς και οπαδικούς. Κοινώς, γίνονται κοινωνίες ηλιθίων.
Αν κανείς το κρίνει σοβαρά, αφιερώνει ένα 40λεπτο από τη ζωή του σε ένα κείμενο με βαρύγδουπες δηλώσεις και αναφορές χωρίς όμως να παρέχει πηγές για κάποια λεγόμενα ή παραπομπές σε άλλα βιβλία, εκτός και αν επρόκειτο για αποφθέγματα, για τα οποία πλήρως παραθέτει πληροφορίες εκτός σώματος κειμένου, λες και η επίκληση στην αυθεντία έχει κάποια αξία για έναν μη ηλίθιο άνθρωπο. Αλλά ίσως να μην πρέπει να το κρίνει κανείς σαν μια σοβαρή κοινωνιολογική αναφορά, από τη στιγμή που αν και ο συγγραφέας αναφέρεται σε έναν-δύο τεχνικούς όρους, από τη συλλογιστική του καταλαβαίνει κανείς ότι δεν έχει ιδέα τι εστί ακόμα και η λέξη "ποσοστό".
Ίσως να πρέπει να το κρίνουμε ασόβαρα, σαν ένα απλό χιουμοριστικό κειμενάκι για ένα διαχρονικό πρόβλημα του είδους μας. Τότε η εικόνα που δίνει ο συγγραφέας είναι εκείνη ενός ανθρώπου που αυθαίρετα ξεχωρίζει τον εαυτό του από τους ηλίθιους και τραβάει και τον αναγνώστη μαζί του σε μια παρωδία εγωπάθειας και υποβιβασμού ενός αόριστου "άλλου" σε μια κοινωνία. Τι εννοώ; Σε όλο το βιβλιαράκι υπάρχει μια υποδόρια ειρωνεία, ένα κοροϊδευτικό γελάκι που βλέπεις συνήθως σε ψώνια που νομίζουν ότι υπερέχουν από τους γύρω τους. Πόσο διασκεδαστικό λοιπόν μπορεί να είναι αυτό το χιουμοριστικό κειμενάκι για έναν "λογικό άνθρωπο", όταν φωνάζει ότι έχει γραφτεί από την υπερφίαλη κομπορρημοσύνη ενός μάλλον ηλίθιου ανθρώπου; Γιατί τον λέω ηλίθιο; Γιατί αυτό το βιβλίο κατά την γνώμη μου είναι είτε για ηλίθιους είτε για διαλεκτικά αναίσθητους είτε για φαντασμένους που νομίζουν ότι διαβάζοντας αυτό το βιβλίο "καταλαβαίνουν" τους γύρω τους - ηλίθιους. Ποιος είμαι εγώ που θα τον κρίνω; Κάποιος ο οποίος καταλαβαίνει ότι ακόμα και το καλό χιούμορ πρέπει να κρύβει κάποια ταπεινότητα.
Αλλά ας φέρω τη κριτική μου στα μέτρα του βιβλίου αυτού και των υπεραπλουστευτικών διαγραμμάτων για εν γένει περίπλοκες κοινωνίες. Ο συγγραφέας σκιαγραφώντας τους ηλίθιους και ωθώντας τον αναγνώστη να ψάχνει την ηλιθιότητα παντού γύρω του (βλέπε παράρτημα) και όχι μέσα του, δημιουργεί μια "κλίκα" στην οποία βάζει αναγνώστες και εαυτό, και μια άλλη κάστα άσημων ανθρώπων τους οποίους εξευτελίζει διαλεκτικά αναδεικνύοντας, αντιστρόφως ανάλογα, τη κλίκα του. Αυτός ο άνθρωπος θα περιγραφόταν από τη συλλογιστική του συγγραφέα με βάση το Διάγραμμα 1 ως διαλεκτικά και συναισθηματικά "κακοποιός". Επειδή όμως εγώ δεν είμαι ο συγγραφέας, και είπα αυτά που είπα παραπάνω, θα τον βάλω χωρίς αμφιβολία στους διαλεκτικά και συναισθηματικά ηλίθιους για τους εξής, πλέον ίσως προφανείς, λόγους:
1) κάνει τους ηλίθιους, σε μια κοινωνία κατ' αυτόν γεμάτη τέτοιους, να νομίζουν ότι είναι οι ίδιοι έξυπνοι
2) στα μάτια ενός έστω και μετρίως σκεπτόμενου ανθρώπου παρουσιάζεται αλαζόνας και ανασφαλώς ελιτιστής.
Κοινώς, δε κάνει καλό ούτε στην εικόνα του, ούτε στη κοινωνία.
Ας μην είμαι άδικος, σε ένα δύο σημεία υπάρχουν κάποιες εύστοχες φρασούλες. Θα αναφέρω μια, η οποία είναι και το μόνο πράγμα που θα ήθελα να μου μείνει από αυτή την, ευτυχώς συντομότατη, εκνευριστική ανάγνωση. Αυτή η μια είναι ο ορισμός του ηλίθιου, που δίνει με την ταμπέλα του Τρίτου Νόμου. Θεωρώ ότι είναι αρκετά λακωνικός και κάλυψε την αρχική απορία που είχα, πως μπορεί ο κύριος αυτός να κρίνει έστω και αόριστα τι καθιστά κάποιον ηλίθιο.
Δεν υποστηρίζω την παπάτζα του "μη κρίνεις για να μη κριθείς". Όλοι πρέπει να κρίνουμε γιατί όλοι πρέπει να κρινόμαστε. Αυτή η κριτική όμως δεν αξίζει μια αν είναι καταστρεπτική και όχι καλοπροαίρετη. Και ο λόγος είναι απλός. Η καταστρεπτική κριτική (επί του παρόντος, αυτή του συγγραφέα για τους ηλίθιους) επιφέρει με τη σειρά της καταστρεπτική κριτική (επί του παρόντος, τη δική μου για τον συγγραφέα). Έτσι οι κοινωνίες δεν προχωράνε, απλά ξεκατινιάζονται και γεμίζουν εγωπαθείς και οπαδικούς. Κοινώς, γίνονται κοινωνίες ηλιθίων.
July 30, 2021
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines stupid as “given to unintelligent decisions or acts,” or alternatively as “acting in an unintelligent or careless manner.” Stupid people cause both intentional and unintentional harm or loss to others, even while deriving no gains (or even suffering losses) themselves. While stupid individuals are not necessarily malevolent, they nevertheless cause damage and represent a threat to society.
Both a study of human history and reflection on one’s own personal experiences confirm that stupidity is not exactly in short supply—but does stupidity’s prevalence across time and space indicate that it operates according to basic universal laws? According to Italian economic historian and professor Carlo M. Cipolla, the answer is yes.
In The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity, Cipolla condenses years of related research into five iron laws of stupidity, which he claims are universal and independent of time and place. All five laws ultimately lead to Cipolla’s primary, disheartening conclusion: Regardless of who you associate with, you will always encounter the same proportion of stupid individuals in every group.
Let’s work through the five laws to see if this is a reasonable conclusion.
Law #1: The number of stupid individuals in circulation is always underestimated
The first law simply states that you will always underestimate the number of stupid individuals in which you must deal with. Since Cipolla does not present a numerical measure or estimate at this point in the book, the reader more or less has to take his word for it. I’m sure, however, that you can recall numerous instances of dealing with stupid individuals, and further, that you can recall examples of stupidity coming from unexpected places or from those once judged to be rational or intelligent.
If the amount of stupidity in your life has ever surprised you, then you have experienced the first law directly.
Law #2: Stupidity is independent of any other personal or professional characteristic
The second law states that stupidity is independent of race, class, gender, nationality, or education, and that the same proportion of stupid individuals is found in both blue-collar and white collar professions, whether in a group of janitors or in a group of Nobel laureates. Cipolla writes:
“Whether I considered a large university or a small college, a famous institution or an obscure one, I found that the same fraction of the professors were stupid. So bewildered was I by the results that I made a special point to extend my research to a specially selected group, to a real elite, the Nobel laureates. The result confirmed Nature’s supreme powers: [the same] fraction of the Nobel laureates were stupid.”
The problem for Cipolla is that, at this point in the book, “stupid” has not even been defined, let alone demonstrated. So when Cipolla states that a fraction of Nobel laureates are “stupid,” we don’t really know what he means, and further, we don’t know how his research methods were able to distinguish between “stupid Nobel laureates” versus “non-stupid Nobel laureates.” The reader is simply left guessing.
Later in the book, Cipolla will define a stupid person as one who creates losses for others while deriving no gains themselves, but if this is the case, the reader can ask the following question: Wouldn’t a Nobel laureate presumably be creating value for others through their work, or at least deriving personal gains, thus directly refuting Cipolla’s argument based on his own definiton of stupidity? This is something to think about as you move on to the third law.
Cipolla also makes references to experiments and research that confirm the idea that the proportion of stupid individuals is constant in every group, but we’re never made aware of what those studies are. It seems as if we’re just supposed to take his word for it, which makes for a rather weak, if not intuitively appealing, argument.
The second law, like the first, seems to hold intuitively, but we’re not given any empirical reasons to accept the claim, beyond vague references to “studies” conducted by the author that are never shared or elaborated on. So while I’m certain that Cipolla is correct in his assertion that stupidity is independent of race, gender, and nationality, his assertion that stupidity is genetic and uninfluenced by education is far more questionable.
Law #3: Stupid people cause losses for others while deriving no gains themselves
The following table outlines the four personality types to which you may, on average, belong:
Gains (You) Losses (You)
Gains (Others) Intelligent Helpless
Losses (Others) Bandit Stupid
According to the table, if your actions provide gains for yourself and for others, you are an intelligent and contributing member to society; if your actions provide gains to yourself and losses to others, you’re a bandit; if your actions provide losses to yourself and gains to others, you’re helpless (or altruistic); and if your actions produce losses to both yourself and others, you’re stupid.
We can all think of personal examples of individuals who go out of their way to cause us unnecessary difficulties, embarrassment, or harm, all while gaining nothing for themselves (other than perhaps psychological satisfaction). This person’s behavior is typically irrational and unpredictable, and can only be fairly described as stupid.
I see no problem in conceding to the truth of this law, but this does not in itself confirm the truth of the first or second laws, which ultimately make unsupported empirical claims, or, if they are supported, the reader is never told how.
Law #4: Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals
The fourth law states that non-stupid people consistently underestimate the damage stupid people can cause and falsely assume that stupid people will only harm themselves (like the helpless person in the table above). However, unlike the helpless person, the stupid person will create harm and losses for others, in addition to themselves, through unpredictable and irrational behavior. It is best, therefore, to deal with stupid people with caution, if at all.
Once again, history is replete with examples of stupid individuals creating incalculable harm, and one’s personal life is filled with similar examples of unexpected harm caused by sheer stupidity. We can safely conclude, therefore, that this law probably holds.
Law #5: A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person
The final law states that the stupid person is the most dangerous type of person, even more dangerous than the bandit. Recall that the bandit derives gains from the losses of others, which results in a transfer of wealth but not in an overall loss to society. Further, the bandits actions are rational (even if reprehensible), and therefore predictable. We can defend against the actions of bandits.
The stupid person, however, due to the unpredictability of their actions, is harder to defend against. Further, because they are creating losses for themselves and for others, the stupid person’s actions impoversh society as a whole.
The reader may question the legitimacy of this law. One need only think about the totalitarian dictators of twentieth-century history. By Cipolla’s own definition, these individuals are not stupid, they’re bandits. They orchestrated obscene levels of harm and destruction to benefit themselves by accumulating power, resources, and land. Of course, whether one defines someone as stupid or as a bandit is a matter of definition, so it could be said that the dictator who creates disproportional harm to others, compared to what they receive in personal gains, is therefore stupid. With this more inclusive definition, we can agree to the legitimacy of the fifth law.
Is stupidity genetically determined?
It’s admittedly very difficult to determine how seriously to take this book. Are we simply dealing with a tongue-in-cheek polemic, or a serious academic essay? The fact that the laws are based on Cipolla’s own academic research and the research of others suggests that it should be taken seriously. Additionally, the laws have an intuitive appeal and seem to match personal experience.
On the other hand, not one specific study is referenced. No examples are provided. And, most importantly, no explanation is offered as to how groups were formally analyzed to differentiate “stupid” from “non-stupid” people.
This is specifically a problem for the first two laws, and for Cipolla’s assertion that the fraction of stupid people will always remain constant, as this is genetically determined. In other words, if you’re born stupid, Cipolla is telling you that there is no amount of education that can ever change that fact.
I think this is almost certainly false. It’s highly unlikely that no one has ever gone from stupid (creating losses for others without any corresponding personal gains) to non-stupid through the pursuit of higher education or other morally-formative experiences. I’m sure you can think of personal examples yourself, fairly easily.
It’s disappointing to see Cipolla fall for the false dichotomy that is the nature/nurture debate. One’s beliefs and actions result from a complex mixture of genetics, environment, culture, and learning, and therefore any statement that places the blame for one’s actions or personality on either nature or nurture exclusively is almost certainly wrong.
Overall, Cipolla makes a strong intuitive case for the prevalence of stupidity and for the fact that stupid people are often dangerous and underestimated, and that a certain proportion of individuals are predisposed to stupidity. But the idea that education and culture have no role whatsoever to play in reforming stupidity on a person-by-person basis is far less persuasive.
Both a study of human history and reflection on one’s own personal experiences confirm that stupidity is not exactly in short supply—but does stupidity’s prevalence across time and space indicate that it operates according to basic universal laws? According to Italian economic historian and professor Carlo M. Cipolla, the answer is yes.
In The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity, Cipolla condenses years of related research into five iron laws of stupidity, which he claims are universal and independent of time and place. All five laws ultimately lead to Cipolla’s primary, disheartening conclusion: Regardless of who you associate with, you will always encounter the same proportion of stupid individuals in every group.
Let’s work through the five laws to see if this is a reasonable conclusion.
Law #1: The number of stupid individuals in circulation is always underestimated
The first law simply states that you will always underestimate the number of stupid individuals in which you must deal with. Since Cipolla does not present a numerical measure or estimate at this point in the book, the reader more or less has to take his word for it. I’m sure, however, that you can recall numerous instances of dealing with stupid individuals, and further, that you can recall examples of stupidity coming from unexpected places or from those once judged to be rational or intelligent.
If the amount of stupidity in your life has ever surprised you, then you have experienced the first law directly.
Law #2: Stupidity is independent of any other personal or professional characteristic
The second law states that stupidity is independent of race, class, gender, nationality, or education, and that the same proportion of stupid individuals is found in both blue-collar and white collar professions, whether in a group of janitors or in a group of Nobel laureates. Cipolla writes:
“Whether I considered a large university or a small college, a famous institution or an obscure one, I found that the same fraction of the professors were stupid. So bewildered was I by the results that I made a special point to extend my research to a specially selected group, to a real elite, the Nobel laureates. The result confirmed Nature’s supreme powers: [the same] fraction of the Nobel laureates were stupid.”
The problem for Cipolla is that, at this point in the book, “stupid” has not even been defined, let alone demonstrated. So when Cipolla states that a fraction of Nobel laureates are “stupid,” we don’t really know what he means, and further, we don’t know how his research methods were able to distinguish between “stupid Nobel laureates” versus “non-stupid Nobel laureates.” The reader is simply left guessing.
Later in the book, Cipolla will define a stupid person as one who creates losses for others while deriving no gains themselves, but if this is the case, the reader can ask the following question: Wouldn’t a Nobel laureate presumably be creating value for others through their work, or at least deriving personal gains, thus directly refuting Cipolla’s argument based on his own definiton of stupidity? This is something to think about as you move on to the third law.
Cipolla also makes references to experiments and research that confirm the idea that the proportion of stupid individuals is constant in every group, but we’re never made aware of what those studies are. It seems as if we’re just supposed to take his word for it, which makes for a rather weak, if not intuitively appealing, argument.
The second law, like the first, seems to hold intuitively, but we’re not given any empirical reasons to accept the claim, beyond vague references to “studies” conducted by the author that are never shared or elaborated on. So while I’m certain that Cipolla is correct in his assertion that stupidity is independent of race, gender, and nationality, his assertion that stupidity is genetic and uninfluenced by education is far more questionable.
Law #3: Stupid people cause losses for others while deriving no gains themselves
The following table outlines the four personality types to which you may, on average, belong:
Gains (You) Losses (You)
Gains (Others) Intelligent Helpless
Losses (Others) Bandit Stupid
According to the table, if your actions provide gains for yourself and for others, you are an intelligent and contributing member to society; if your actions provide gains to yourself and losses to others, you’re a bandit; if your actions provide losses to yourself and gains to others, you’re helpless (or altruistic); and if your actions produce losses to both yourself and others, you’re stupid.
We can all think of personal examples of individuals who go out of their way to cause us unnecessary difficulties, embarrassment, or harm, all while gaining nothing for themselves (other than perhaps psychological satisfaction). This person’s behavior is typically irrational and unpredictable, and can only be fairly described as stupid.
I see no problem in conceding to the truth of this law, but this does not in itself confirm the truth of the first or second laws, which ultimately make unsupported empirical claims, or, if they are supported, the reader is never told how.
Law #4: Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals
The fourth law states that non-stupid people consistently underestimate the damage stupid people can cause and falsely assume that stupid people will only harm themselves (like the helpless person in the table above). However, unlike the helpless person, the stupid person will create harm and losses for others, in addition to themselves, through unpredictable and irrational behavior. It is best, therefore, to deal with stupid people with caution, if at all.
Once again, history is replete with examples of stupid individuals creating incalculable harm, and one’s personal life is filled with similar examples of unexpected harm caused by sheer stupidity. We can safely conclude, therefore, that this law probably holds.
Law #5: A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person
The final law states that the stupid person is the most dangerous type of person, even more dangerous than the bandit. Recall that the bandit derives gains from the losses of others, which results in a transfer of wealth but not in an overall loss to society. Further, the bandits actions are rational (even if reprehensible), and therefore predictable. We can defend against the actions of bandits.
The stupid person, however, due to the unpredictability of their actions, is harder to defend against. Further, because they are creating losses for themselves and for others, the stupid person’s actions impoversh society as a whole.
The reader may question the legitimacy of this law. One need only think about the totalitarian dictators of twentieth-century history. By Cipolla’s own definition, these individuals are not stupid, they’re bandits. They orchestrated obscene levels of harm and destruction to benefit themselves by accumulating power, resources, and land. Of course, whether one defines someone as stupid or as a bandit is a matter of definition, so it could be said that the dictator who creates disproportional harm to others, compared to what they receive in personal gains, is therefore stupid. With this more inclusive definition, we can agree to the legitimacy of the fifth law.
Is stupidity genetically determined?
It’s admittedly very difficult to determine how seriously to take this book. Are we simply dealing with a tongue-in-cheek polemic, or a serious academic essay? The fact that the laws are based on Cipolla’s own academic research and the research of others suggests that it should be taken seriously. Additionally, the laws have an intuitive appeal and seem to match personal experience.
On the other hand, not one specific study is referenced. No examples are provided. And, most importantly, no explanation is offered as to how groups were formally analyzed to differentiate “stupid” from “non-stupid” people.
This is specifically a problem for the first two laws, and for Cipolla’s assertion that the fraction of stupid people will always remain constant, as this is genetically determined. In other words, if you’re born stupid, Cipolla is telling you that there is no amount of education that can ever change that fact.
I think this is almost certainly false. It’s highly unlikely that no one has ever gone from stupid (creating losses for others without any corresponding personal gains) to non-stupid through the pursuit of higher education or other morally-formative experiences. I’m sure you can think of personal examples yourself, fairly easily.
It’s disappointing to see Cipolla fall for the false dichotomy that is the nature/nurture debate. One’s beliefs and actions result from a complex mixture of genetics, environment, culture, and learning, and therefore any statement that places the blame for one’s actions or personality on either nature or nurture exclusively is almost certainly wrong.
Overall, Cipolla makes a strong intuitive case for the prevalence of stupidity and for the fact that stupid people are often dangerous and underestimated, and that a certain proportion of individuals are predisposed to stupidity. But the idea that education and culture have no role whatsoever to play in reforming stupidity on a person-by-person basis is far less persuasive.
July 11, 2016
Τα συγχαρητήρια μου στον άνθρωπο που μπόρεσε να ορίσει τόσο απλά, μαθηματικά και ουσιαστικά την ανθρώπινη ηλιθιότητα.
Από τα λίγα βιβλία που εκ των υστέρων συνειδητοποιώ ότι τα είχα υποτιμήσει. Το επαναφέρω σε συζητήσεις κάθε φορά που μου δίνεται η ευκαιρία. Απόλυτος οδηγός κατανόησης της βλακείας, εξαιρετικά χρήσιμο.
Από τα λίγα βιβλία που εκ των υστέρων συνειδητοποιώ ότι τα είχα υποτιμήσει. Το επαναφέρω σε συζητήσεις κάθε φορά που μου δίνεται η ευκαιρία. Απόλυτος οδηγός κατανόησης της βλακείας, εξαιρετικά χρήσιμο.
March 14, 2024
كتاب المؤرخ الاقتصادي الايطالي كارلو شيبولا عن أسوء مخاوفنا: يمكن للأغبياء أن يحكموا العالم
القوانين الأساسية لغباء الإنسان
➖ القانون الأساسي الأول:
الاغبياء لا حصر لهم
➖ القانون الأساسي الثاني:
احتمالية أن يكون شخص ما غبيا مستقلة عن أي سمة أخرى يتصف بها هذا الشخص.
الطبيعة هي المسؤول الأول عن الاختلاف بين البشر على كوكب الأرض و تحديدا توارث الغباء جينيا وليس لأية قوى أو عوامل ثقافية يد في ذالك.
وهو يتوزع توزعا متماثلا وفق نسبة ثابتة وعلى مر التاريخ. مهما اختلف العرق أو اللون أو و مهما كان الأزواج متطورين أو متخلفين فنسبة ولادة الإناث والذكور ثابتة في كل أنحاء العالم مع غلبة طفيفة للذكور (وهذا ما فاجأني به الكاتب لأن حسب معلوماتي نسبة الإناث هي الأكبر في العالم و ليس الذكور لكن الله أعلم)
كما سلط الكاتب الضوء على عدد من التجارب العلمية التي أجريت حول العالم في عدد من الجامعات أن حساب نسبة الغباء للطبقة العاملة و البسيطة باعتبارها طبقة لم تتلقى تعليم ذا جودة أو لم تتلقاه من الأساس بالإضافة لعامل الفقر، لكن المفاجأة أن نسبة الغباء ظلت ثابتة حتى بين الموظفين الذين تلقوا تعليمهم الجامعي في الجامعات.
بل شملت دراسة الغباء البشري عددا من أساتذة الجامعات المهمة و سواء كان الدراسة تهتم بجامعات كبيرة أو صغيرة و سواء كانت المعاهد معروفة أم لا فنفس نسبة الغباء ثابتة لا تتغير ، بل وصل جنون الكاتب بقياس الغباء البشري لنخبة الشخصيات حول العالم و هم الحائزين على جائزة نوبل في مختلف المجالات و كانت نسبة الاغبياء فيهم موجودة وثابتة أيضا كغيرها من الفئات.
فصل مهم جدا وهو فصل خاص بتعريف معنى الغباء البشري أصلا :
"يحقق كل منا فعلاً ما أو الامتناع عن فعل ما مكسبا أو خسارة وفي الوقت عينه يتسبب بتحقيق مكسب أو خسارة لشخص آخر ".
➖ القانون الثالث و الذهبي :
هناك أربع فئات من البشر
🟢 الأذكياء : Intelligent
تصرف الشخص يكسبه مكسب له ولك
🟠 قطاع الطرق : Bandit
تصرف الشخص يكسبه هو و يسبب خسارة لك.
🔵 المغلوبين على أمرهم: Helpless
التصرف الشخص يكبده خسارة و يحقق مكسبا لديك.
🔴الأغبياء: Stupid
تصرف الشخص يكبده خسارة له ولك.
ثم خصص الكاتب فصلا كاملا عن التوزع التكراري للأربع فئات فمن الممكن أن يكون شخص ما ذكيا في موقف معين و قاطع طرق أو مغلوب على أمره في موقف آخر.
💬 فصل آخر عن الغباء و السلطة
"على غرار جميع الكائنات البشرية يتباين الأغبياء تباينا شديدا في قدرتهم على التأثير في إخوانهم من البشر."
إلحاق الخسائر و الأضرار مروعة وواسعة النطاق ىشخص معين أو مجموعة من الأشخاص أو حتى جماعات و مجتمعات بأسرها هي حقيقة تولي الأغبياء كراسي السلطة.
العامل الوراثي و قوة وأهمية منصب السلطة لدى الشخص الغبي هما العاملان الأساسيان لتفشي خسائر جسيمة سببها الأغبياء ذوي سلطة و نفوذ.
💬 سلطة الغباء :
"الأغبياء خطرون و مضرون أ��اساً لأن العقلاء يجدون صعوبة في تصور السلوك غير المقبول وفهمه."
تصرفات مندفعة و غير عقلانية و مؤذية دون داعي أو سبب أو مكسب.
➖ القانون الأساسي الرابع:
"دائما ما يقلل غير الأغبياء من شأن قدرة الأغبياء على إلحاق الأذى. كما أن غير الأغبياء على وجه الخصوص ينسون باستمرار ان التعامل مع الأغبياء، في كل الأوقات والأماكن وفي ظل أي ظرف، و/أو مشاركتهم يتبين من دون أي شكأنه خطأ فادح."
الغبي لن يؤذي إلا نفسه وهذه صوره خاطئة جدا فهو يؤذي كل من يتعامل معهم.
➖ التحليل الكلي و القانون الأساسي الخامس:
"الشخص الغبي هو أشد أنواع الأشخاص خطراً."
والنتيجة المنطقية هي :
"الشخص الغبي أشد خطراً من قاطع الطريق."
كتاب مفيد ومهم به عدد من الأفكار و الملاحظات التي فعلا يجب الإنتباه لها في تعاملاتنا اليومية.
القوانين الأساسية لغباء الإنسان
➖ القانون الأساسي الأول:
الاغبياء لا حصر لهم
➖ القانون الأساسي الثاني:
احتمالية أن يكون شخص ما غبيا مستقلة عن أي سمة أخرى يتصف بها هذا الشخص.
الطبيعة هي المسؤول الأول عن الاختلاف بين البشر على كوكب الأرض و تحديدا توارث الغباء جينيا وليس لأية قوى أو عوامل ثقافية يد في ذالك.
وهو يتوزع توزعا متماثلا وفق نسبة ثابتة وعلى مر التاريخ. مهما اختلف العرق أو اللون أو و مهما كان الأزواج متطورين أو متخلفين فنسبة ولادة الإناث والذكور ثابتة في كل أنحاء العالم مع غلبة طفيفة للذكور (وهذا ما فاجأني به الكاتب لأن حسب معلوماتي نسبة الإناث هي الأكبر في العالم و ليس الذكور لكن الله أعلم)
كما سلط الكاتب الضوء على عدد من التجارب العلمية التي أجريت حول العالم في عدد من الجامعات أن حساب نسبة الغباء للطبقة العاملة و البسيطة باعتبارها طبقة لم تتلقى تعليم ذا جودة أو لم تتلقاه من الأساس بالإضافة لعامل الفقر، لكن المفاجأة أن نسبة الغباء ظلت ثابتة حتى بين الموظفين الذين تلقوا تعليمهم الجامعي في الجامعات.
بل شملت دراسة الغباء البشري عددا من أساتذة الجامعات المهمة و سواء كان الدراسة تهتم بجامعات كبيرة أو صغيرة و سواء كانت المعاهد معروفة أم لا فنفس نسبة الغباء ثابتة لا تتغير ، بل وصل جنون الكاتب بقياس الغباء البشري لنخبة الشخصيات حول العالم و هم الحائزين على جائزة نوبل في مختلف المجالات و كانت نسبة الاغبياء فيهم موجودة وثابتة أيضا كغيرها من الفئات.
فصل مهم جدا وهو فصل خاص بتعريف معنى الغباء البشري أصلا :
"يحقق كل منا فعلاً ما أو الامتناع عن فعل ما مكسبا أو خسارة وفي الوقت عينه يتسبب بتحقيق مكسب أو خسارة لشخص آخر ".
➖ القانون الثالث و الذهبي :
هناك أربع فئات من البشر
🟢 الأذكياء : Intelligent
تصرف الشخص يكسبه مكسب له ولك
🟠 قطاع الطرق : Bandit
تصرف الشخص يكسبه هو و يسبب خسارة لك.
🔵 المغلوبين على أمرهم: Helpless
التصرف الشخص يكبده خسارة و يحقق مكسبا لديك.
🔴الأغبياء: Stupid
تصرف الشخص يكبده خسارة له ولك.
ثم خصص الكاتب فصلا كاملا عن التوزع التكراري للأربع فئات فمن الممكن أن يكون شخص ما ذكيا في موقف معين و قاطع طرق أو مغلوب على أمره في موقف آخر.
💬 فصل آخر عن الغباء و السلطة
"على غرار جميع الكائنات البشرية يتباين الأغبياء تباينا شديدا في قدرتهم على التأثير في إخوانهم من البشر."
إلحاق الخسائر و الأضرار مروعة وواسعة النطاق ىشخص معين أو مجموعة من الأشخاص أو حتى جماعات و مجتمعات بأسرها هي حقيقة تولي الأغبياء كراسي السلطة.
العامل الوراثي و قوة وأهمية منصب السلطة لدى الشخص الغبي هما العاملان الأساسيان لتفشي خسائر جسيمة سببها الأغبياء ذوي سلطة و نفوذ.
💬 سلطة الغباء :
"الأغبياء خطرون و مضرون أ��اساً لأن العقلاء يجدون صعوبة في تصور السلوك غير المقبول وفهمه."
تصرفات مندفعة و غير عقلانية و مؤذية دون داعي أو سبب أو مكسب.
➖ القانون الأساسي الرابع:
"دائما ما يقلل غير الأغبياء من شأن قدرة الأغبياء على إلحاق الأذى. كما أن غير الأغبياء على وجه الخصوص ينسون باستمرار ان التعامل مع الأغبياء، في كل الأوقات والأماكن وفي ظل أي ظرف، و/أو مشاركتهم يتبين من دون أي شكأنه خطأ فادح."
الغبي لن يؤذي إلا نفسه وهذه صوره خاطئة جدا فهو يؤذي كل من يتعامل معهم.
➖ التحليل الكلي و القانون الأساسي الخامس:
"الشخص الغبي هو أشد أنواع الأشخاص خطراً."
والنتيجة المنطقية هي :
"الشخص الغبي أشد خطراً من قاطع الطريق."
كتاب مفيد ومهم به عدد من الأفكار و الملاحظات التي فعلا يجب الإنتباه لها في تعاملاتنا اليومية.
August 23, 2016
Υποτίθεται θα το διάβαζα για να περάσω την ώρα μου και τελικά να που έμαθα τοσα πραγματα απο μία επισταμένη ερευνα επανω στην ηλιθιότητα. Αξίζει να το πάρει κανείς στα σοβαρά!
September 1, 2020
"Νόμος 1. Πάντα υποτιμούμε τον πραγματικό αριθμό των ηλίθιων γύρω μας.
Άσχετα με το πόσοι ηλίθιοι νομίζετε ότι υπάρχουν γύρω σας, να ξέρετε ότι είναι πάντα παραπάνω. Αυτό προκύπτει από το γεγονός ότι κάποιους τους θεωρούμε αυτόματα έξυπνους λόγω σπουδών ή δουλειάς. Δεν είναι. "
Σε αυτη τη σύντομη μελέτη του 1976, ο Κάρλο Μ. Τσιπόλα, καθηγητής οικονομικής ιστορίας στο Πανεπιστήμιο του Μπέρκλεϋ, υποστηρίζει με επιχειρήματα ότι η δύναμη που αποτελεί την μεγαλύτερη απειλή για την ανθρωπότητα είναι η Ηλιθιότητα.
Ποιος είναι όμως ο ορισμός του Ηλίθιου σύμφωνα με τον Τσιπόλα: Ένας ηλίθιος άνθρωπος είναι ένας άνθρωπος που προκαλεί απώλειες σε άλλους ανθρώπους, παρόλο που εκείνος δεν αποκομίζει τίποτα ή μπορεί και ο ίδιος να έχει απώλειες.
Η θεωρία του συνοψίζεται σε 5 Νόμους της ανθρώπινης ηλιθιότητας που σίγουρα διαβάζοντάς τους θα δεις να αντικατοπτρίζεται ξεκάθαρα η σημερινή κοινωνική πραγματικότητα!
Άσχετα με το πόσοι ηλίθιοι νομίζετε ότι υπάρχουν γύρω σας, να ξέρετε ότι είναι πάντα παραπάνω. Αυτό προκύπτει από το γεγονός ότι κάποιους τους θεωρούμε αυτόματα έξυπνους λόγω σπουδών ή δουλειάς. Δεν είναι. "
Σε αυτη τη σύντομη μελέτη του 1976, ο Κάρλο Μ. Τσιπόλα, καθηγητής οικονομικής ιστορίας στο Πανεπιστήμιο του Μπέρκλεϋ, υποστηρίζει με επιχειρήματα ότι η δύναμη που αποτελεί την μεγαλύτερη απειλή για την ανθρωπότητα είναι η Ηλιθιότητα.
Ποιος είναι όμως ο ορισμός του Ηλίθιου σύμφωνα με τον Τσιπόλα: Ένας ηλίθιος άνθρωπος είναι ένας άνθρωπος που προκαλεί απώλειες σε άλλους ανθρώπους, παρόλο που εκείνος δεν αποκομίζει τίποτα ή μπορεί και ο ίδιος να έχει απώλειες.
Η θεωρία του συνοψίζεται σε 5 Νόμους της ανθρώπινης ηλιθιότητας που σίγουρα διαβάζοντάς τους θα δεις να αντικατοπτρίζεται ξεκάθαρα η σημερινή κοινωνική πραγματικότητα!
October 5, 2020
อ่านจบไปด้วยความไวเเสง เพราะตัวเล่มบางเฉียบ เเละเนื้อหาสนุกเฮฮา อ่านง่ายดี
ไม่รู้จะจำกัดความหนังสือเเนวนี้ว่ายังไง เลยตั้งเองเล่นๆว่า Parody Science คือหนังสือเเบบอธิบายเนื้อหาเเบบซีเรียสๆเลยนะ มีหลักการวิทยาศาสตร์รองรับ เเต่จริงๆคือ พี่จะเสียดสีจะ Parody อะครับ จนไปๆมา ไอ้หลักการที่พี่อธิบายเนี่ยจริงป่าวว้า 555 (ถ้าใครนึกไม่ออกลองนึกถึงการอธิบายวิชาต่อสู้ในเรื่อง โรงเรียนลูกผู้ชายอะครับ)
ตัวเล่มก็ชัดเจนครับ พูดถึงคนโง่ คนโง่ในที่นี้ไม่ได้หมายถึงคนเรียนไม่เก่งนะครับ เเต่พูดถึงคนที่ทำอะไรโง่ๆ โดยเเสดงให้เห็นถึงหลักการ 5 ข้อที่ควรรู้เกี่ยวกับคนโง่ หลักใหญ่ๆเลยเนี่ยคือข้อ 3 ที่บอกว่า”คนโง่คือคนที่ทำความเสียหายให้เเก่คนอื่น เเล้วตัวเองก็ไม่ได้ประโยชน์ เเถมๆบางครั้งตัวเองจะเสียประโยชน์ไปอีกเเหนะ” ซึ่งพอเราหันมองซ้ายขวา ผมว่าเรานาจะเจอคนเเบบนี้บางซักคนสองคน หรือบางทีก็เป็นตัวเราเองนี่เเหละที่บางครั้งก็ทำอะไรเเบบนี้ (อย่างเศร้า)
หนังสือไม่ได้บอกวิธีรับมือ สาเหตุความเป็นมาใดๆทั้งนั้น เเต่จะมาด่าคนโง่ล้วนๆ เเต่ด่าตรงๆมันไม่เเนวนะ ต้องด่าเเบบวิทยาศาสตร์ วิชาการ จิกกัดเจ็บเเสบ ซึ่งทำให้มันด่าเเบบสนุก จี๊ดใจเลย
สุดท้ายเเล้วในหนังสือคอยย้ำเราว่า คนโง่มีอยู่ทุกที่ครับ ไม่ว่าที่ไหนๆ ตำเเหน่งอะไรก็ตาม ฉะนั้นหลีกเลี่ยงคนพวกนี้เป็นเรื่องที่ยากเย็น โดยเฉพาะถ้าคนโง่ๆนี่อยู่ตำเเหน่งสูงๆเเล้วละก็ หนีก็ไม่ได้ อยู่ร่วมกันก็ไม่ไหว เราจะทำยังไงดีละครับเนี่ย...
ไม่รู้จะจำกัดความหนังสือเเนวนี้ว่ายังไง เลยตั้งเองเล่นๆว่า Parody Science คือหนังสือเเบบอธิบายเนื้อหาเเบบซีเรียสๆเลยนะ มีหลักการวิทยาศาสตร์รองรับ เเต่จริงๆคือ พี่จะเสียดสีจะ Parody อะครับ จนไปๆมา ไอ้หลักการที่พี่อธิบายเนี่ยจริงป่าวว้า 555 (ถ้าใครนึกไม่ออกลองนึกถึงการอธิบายวิชาต่อสู้ในเรื่อง โรงเรียนลูกผู้ชายอะครับ)
ตัวเล่มก็ชัดเจนครับ พูดถึงคนโง่ คนโง่ในที่นี้ไม่ได้หมายถึงคนเรียนไม่เก่งนะครับ เเต่พูดถึงคนที่ทำอะไรโง่ๆ โดยเเสดงให้เห็นถึงหลักการ 5 ข้อที่ควรรู้เกี่ยวกับคนโง่ หลักใหญ่ๆเลยเนี่ยคือข้อ 3 ที่บอกว่า”คนโง่คือคนที่ทำความเสียหายให้เเก่คนอื่น เเล้วตัวเองก็ไม่ได้ประโยชน์ เเถมๆบางครั้งตัวเองจะเสียประโยชน์ไปอีกเเหนะ” ซึ่งพอเราหันมองซ้ายขวา ผมว่าเรานาจะเจอคนเเบบนี้บางซักคนสองคน หรือบางทีก็เป็นตัวเราเองนี่เเหละที่บางครั้งก็ทำอะไรเเบบนี้ (อย่างเศร้า)
หนังสือไม่ได้บอกวิธีรับมือ สาเหตุความเป็นมาใดๆทั้งนั้น เเต่จะมาด่าคนโง่ล้วนๆ เเต่ด่าตรงๆมันไม่เเนวนะ ต้องด่าเเบบวิทยาศาสตร์ วิชาการ จิกกัดเจ็บเเสบ ซึ่งทำให้มันด่าเเบบสนุก จี๊ดใจเลย
สุดท้ายเเล้วในหนังสือคอยย้ำเราว่า คนโง่มีอยู่ทุกที่ครับ ไม่ว่าที่ไหนๆ ตำเเหน่งอะไรก็ตาม ฉะนั้นหลีกเลี่ยงคนพวกนี้เป็นเรื่องที่ยากเย็น โดยเฉพาะถ้าคนโง่ๆนี่อยู่ตำเเหน่งสูงๆเเล้วละก็ หนีก็ไม่ได้ อยู่ร่วมกันก็ไม่ไหว เราจะทำยังไงดีละครับเนี่ย...
September 12, 2020
Τόσες περγαμηνές έχει ο Τσιπολα. Πώς έγραψε κάτι τέτοιο και πώς συμβάλλει, έστω με ένα λιθαράκι, στον κόσμο; Με μία πρόταση, όπως έκανε ο Αϊνστάιν για τη βλακεία, θα μπορούσε να πει την άποψή του για την ηλιθ��ότητα χωρίς να χρειάζεται όλες αυτές τις σελίδες και τα διαγράμματα. Επιπλέον, πού στηρίζεται για αυτές τις παρατηρήσεις;
December 28, 2020
- L'umorismo è la capacità intelligente e sottile di rilevare e rappresentare l'aspetto comico della realtà. -
La pubblicazione di questi due scritti inizialmente composti per una ristretta cerchia di amici dell'autore comincia con una bella introduzione dedicata all'umorismo e alla sua funzione di aggregatore sociale, e sembra fornire al pubblico una ideale chiave di lettura. Una lettura che comunque il titolo suggerisce di prendere alla leggera, "ma non troppo".
Il primo scritto, del 1973, tratta della rinascita economica dell’Europa a seguito del crollo dell'impero romano, che passa dal commercio del pepe alle cinture di castità, dalle crociate alla guerra del vino, ed è davvero molto intrigante... Ma quarant'anni fa forse ancora non era stato appurato che l'esistenza delle cinture di castità nel medioevo è un falso storico inventato nel Rinascimento, e quindi rimane un piacevole gioco intellettuale (ma chi sono mai io per contestare Carlo M. Cipolla?).
Il secondo scritto, del 1976, è davvero qualcosa che vale la pena di leggere, anche se di questi tempi prevale decisamente l'aspetto tragico su quello comico. Le cinque Leggi fondamentali della stupidità umana, corredate da un grafico sul quale ognuno può riportare i casi personali, hanno un potere illuminante proprio per la loro sintesi e il tono ironico. Sarà credo impossibile non pensare a certi leader politici e a chi li sostiene, oppure a chi (e qui dichiaro la mia posizione in merito) contesta ottusamente i vaccini e le disposizioni sanitarie utili a limitare la diffusione del virus. A titolo di esempio, riporto di seguito la Terza (ed aurea) Legge Fondamentale, perché andrebbe copincollata compulsivamente nella maggior parte dei commenti sui popolari social network:
Una persona stupida è una persona che causa un danno ad un'altra persona o gruppo di persone senza nel contempo realizzare alcun vantaggio per sé od addirittura subendo una perdita.
A proposito di stupidità e potere, un interessante parallelo potrebbe esserci con Psicopatici al potere. Viaggio nel cuore oscuro dell'ambizione, nel quale si dà alla componente narcisistica un ruolo cruciale.
Ma potrei aver preso il tutto con eccessiva gravitas e prendermi dal fantasma dell'autore giustamente dello stupido.
January 14, 2022
8 out of 10
What a genius book and concept. This book tries to explain human behavior, (irrational human behavior) by dividing people up into four groups. The Helpless, The Intelligent, The Bandit, and of course, The Stupid. The author sets up a series of laws/rules on how people ought to be sorted out and explains misconceptions about the entire process, (and how many people don't realize how many stupid people are out there).
The genius of this book is that it is obviously a satire but also presents the concept as if it is completely legitimate, whilst also providing rational reasons as to why this concept could be applied in the real world. This book has you questioning whether it is satirical or not. The concept is out-there for sure, but the reasons presented in the book make sense.
I thought the book was enjoyable. I will admit that it took me a while to get into it, but it had me by the second half. I was surprised by the presentation of the book, and by how plausible this concept was, and I thought it was great. Could recommend.
What a genius book and concept. This book tries to explain human behavior, (irrational human behavior) by dividing people up into four groups. The Helpless, The Intelligent, The Bandit, and of course, The Stupid. The author sets up a series of laws/rules on how people ought to be sorted out and explains misconceptions about the entire process, (and how many people don't realize how many stupid people are out there).
The genius of this book is that it is obviously a satire but also presents the concept as if it is completely legitimate, whilst also providing rational reasons as to why this concept could be applied in the real world. This book has you questioning whether it is satirical or not. The concept is out-there for sure, but the reasons presented in the book make sense.
I thought the book was enjoyable. I will admit that it took me a while to get into it, but it had me by the second half. I was surprised by the presentation of the book, and by how plausible this concept was, and I thought it was great. Could recommend.
August 29, 2019
Πρέπει να είχα δει περιλήψεις του συγκεκριμένου βιβλίου στο YouTube (δεν είναι και δύσκολο, 5 πράγματα λέει όλα κι όλα) και το βρήκα διασκεδαστικά ενδιαφέρον αλλά τίποτα παραπάνω. Η μεγαλύτερη μου ένσταση όσον αφορά τέτοιου είδους αναγνώσματα δεν είναι τόσο η εξυπνακίστικη διάθεση του συγγραφέα όσο οι μέθοδοι που επιστατεύτηκαν για να φτάσουμε στα στατιστικά στοιχεία που παραθέτονται ως αξιόπιστα, ειδικά αν θέλει να δώσει στο έργο του ένα στρώμα "επιστημονικότητας". Συγγνώμη, όμως προσωπικά δεν πείστηκα.
2/5 γιατί τουλάχιστον διαβάζεται γρήγορα.
2/5 γιατί τουλάχιστον διαβάζεται γρήγορα.
February 23, 2020
Brilliant! I thought it was satire but the fact that its not makes it funnier.
January 18, 2012
Qualche prerequisito questo libro lo richiede: un po' di matematica e geometria, quella della scuola media può bastare, perché le leggi sulla stupidità umana ruotano intorno ad un piano cartesiano i cui assi x e y determinano quattro quadranti in cui l'autore colloca altrettante tipologie di soggetti.
Ciascuno di noi potrebbe disporre se stesso o altri in un punto dell'area all'interno di uno dei quadranti, ma si sappia che la posizione non è determinata e permanente; ogni situazione vissuta o di relazione potrebbe creare migrazioni e, nel caso in cui ci si metta nell'area degli Intelligenti, non si pecchi di presunzione di fronte al suo opposto, la Stupidità, perché questa colpisce all'insaputa, senza regole e in quantità, oserei dire, industriali.
Procedendo nell'enunciazione delle leggi, la questione sulla stupidità si fa complessa, sia per la correlazione fra i "tipi", sia per la trasposizione per induzione dei casi individuali estesi all'intera società.
Da leggere, un paio d'ore spese bene.
Ciascuno di noi potrebbe disporre se stesso o altri in un punto dell'area all'interno di uno dei quadranti, ma si sappia che la posizione non è determinata e permanente; ogni situazione vissuta o di relazione potrebbe creare migrazioni e, nel caso in cui ci si metta nell'area degli Intelligenti, non si pecchi di presunzione di fronte al suo opposto, la Stupidità, perché questa colpisce all'insaputa, senza regole e in quantità, oserei dire, industriali.
Procedendo nell'enunciazione delle leggi, la questione sulla stupidità si fa complessa, sia per la correlazione fra i "tipi", sia per la trasposizione per induzione dei casi individuali estesi all'intera società.
Da leggere, un paio d'ore spese bene.
August 14, 2021
O carte subțirică.
Sigur, autorul are perfectă dreptate cu legile sale fundamentale, pe care le-a elaborat în privința imbecililor, care împânzesc Pământul și ne face viața mai complicată (poate exagerez, sigur sunt și eu unul dintre ei :D ). În concepția sa, imbecilii (sau proștii) sunt acele persoane care fac năzbâtii, provoacă daune altora, dar fără să obțină niciun avantaj. Spre deosebire, de exemplu, de răufăcători, care obțin și avantaje. Pentru a-i înțelege mai bine pe imbecili, Cipolla „a inventat” cinci legi fundamentale, explicate în acest volum pe scurt, inclusiv cu grafice, plecând de la „există pe lume mai mulți proști decât crezi”. Cea mai simpatică și realistă pare însă aceea de a te asocia niciodată cu ei, pentru că vei avea sigur de suferit.
Un caz atipic în care prefața cărții (semnată de Radu Paraschivescu) e mai bună decât conținutul ei, subțirel, cum spuneam. Părerea mea.
Sigur, autorul are perfectă dreptate cu legile sale fundamentale, pe care le-a elaborat în privința imbecililor, care împânzesc Pământul și ne face viața mai complicată (poate exagerez, sigur sunt și eu unul dintre ei :D ). În concepția sa, imbecilii (sau proștii) sunt acele persoane care fac năzbâtii, provoacă daune altora, dar fără să obțină niciun avantaj. Spre deosebire, de exemplu, de răufăcători, care obțin și avantaje. Pentru a-i înțelege mai bine pe imbecili, Cipolla „a inventat” cinci legi fundamentale, explicate în acest volum pe scurt, inclusiv cu grafice, plecând de la „există pe lume mai mulți proști decât crezi”. Cea mai simpatică și realistă pare însă aceea de a te asocia niciodată cu ei, pentru că vei avea sigur de suferit.
Un caz atipic în care prefața cărții (semnată de Radu Paraschivescu) e mai bună decât conținutul ei, subțirel, cum spuneam. Părerea mea.
June 15, 2020
Err this isn't so much a *book* as it is a Medium article? HOW did they stretch it to 96 pages? I'm half convinced what I got from NetGalley was missing pages? I'm so confused.
Apparently this was an essay (yes, called an essay in the foreword) written in 1976 by an Italian, originally in English, but never formally published in English. So now a Big 5 is publishing it as a "book." Is it meant to be a joke book? A coffee table book? It's... not really a book? It's a series of assertions about stupid people with some light wit, a chart or two, and little depth. I mean, fine, but like... I guess looking at the cover and the description on NetGalley I was expecting a proper piece of non-fiction. Oh well. It only took me approximately 20 minutes to read, so there's that!
Apparently this was an essay (yes, called an essay in the foreword) written in 1976 by an Italian, originally in English, but never formally published in English. So now a Big 5 is publishing it as a "book." Is it meant to be a joke book? A coffee table book? It's... not really a book? It's a series of assertions about stupid people with some light wit, a chart or two, and little depth. I mean, fine, but like... I guess looking at the cover and the description on NetGalley I was expecting a proper piece of non-fiction. Oh well. It only took me approximately 20 minutes to read, so there's that!
January 19, 2020
Un saggio divertente, ma non sciocco e profondamente attuale che si legge in un soffio. Con arguzia e ironia, Cipolla ci mette in guardia: contro gli stupidi non c'è via di scampo.
May 16, 2017
Tenía este libro guardado desde el año pasado, como una esperanza. Me gusta reír. Suelo prevenirme un poco cuando se define un libro o una película como “humor inteligente”, porque por una desconocida razón para mí, se me traduce en “gags para intelectuales” o “apuntes excluyentes”; como si fueran obras escritas para el autor y sus amigos o para un grupo de eruditos, o que al menos creen serlo. ¡Qué bueno fue no hacerme caso! ¡Qué bueno fue equivocarme! Aprovechando el aguacero que se iba tirando la electricidad en Bogotá -y en sí a la ciudad- el domingo pasado, leí este libro, que en realidad son dos ensayos del calibre de “El papel de las especias (y la pimienta en particular) en el desarrollo económico de la Edad Media”; bueno, así se titula el primer ensayo que es muy divertido. El segundo, que me pareció una total genialidad es “Las Leyes Fundamentales de la Estupidez Humana”, simplemente desternillante, campeón!. Definitivamente, el libro no es excluyente porque el autor (historiador de economía) sabe hilar y llevar muy bien al lector por los acontecimientos y las hipótesis.
Un libro diferente dentro de lo que he leído y diferente dentro de los géneros y categorías en que pueda clasificarse. Alrededor de dos horas de risa y complicidad. Lo recomiendo!
Un libro diferente dentro de lo que he leído y diferente dentro de los géneros y categorías en que pueda clasificarse. Alrededor de dos horas de risa y complicidad. Lo recomiendo!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,013 reviews