Stupidity and humour
Humour is to stupidity what freedom is to cancel culture
“Silly people say stupid things, clever people do them.”
—Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach (1830-1916), Austrian writer 1
There are two major works on stupidity: the “Theory of Stupidity” by Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the "Basic Laws of Human Stupidity" by Carlo Cipolla.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-45), the German theologian, provided an incisive analysis of stupidity, particularly in his letters from prison during World War II, which remain relevant in understanding this perplexing human condition. Stupidity, often dismissed as a mere lack of intelligence or simple ignorance, is a multifaceted phenomenon that permeates human behaviour and societal interactions. Its impact on society can profoundly shape decisions, influence politics, and affect everyday life. It, therefore, is highly relevant when managing risk.
“We spend a great deal of time studying history, which, let's face it, is mostly the history of stupidity.”
—Stephen Hawking 2
According to Bonhoeffer, stupidity is more than a deficiency in cognitive abilities. It encompasses a willful blindness to truth, a stubborn adherence to misconceptions, and an incapacity to self-reflect. Unlike ignorance, which can be remedied through education and awareness, stupidity is often immune to reason and evidence. It is characterized by a closed-mindedness that resists enlightenment.
“Single-mindedness is all very well in cows or baboons, in an animal claiming to belong to the same species as Shakespeare it is simply disgraceful.”
—Aldous Huxley 3
Dietrich Bonhoeffer provided a profound exploration of the nature of stupidity, particularly within the context of Nazi Germany. Bonhoeffer distinguishes stupidity from malice, noting that while evil can be confronted and resisted, stupidity is a more insidious and pervasive problem. He observes that stupidity often arises not from a lack of intellect but from a moral failing and a failure to engage critically with the world.
“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.”
—Napoleon Bonaparte 4
Bonhoeffer's analysis suggests that stupidity is a social and political problem as much as a personal one. He argues that stupidity can be cultivated and amplified within a society, especially under authoritarian regimes where propaganda, conformity, and the suppression of dissent create an environment where critical thinking is stifled. The current cancel culture is an example of such an environment. In such contexts, people become complicit in stupidity, not through deliberate choice but through gradually eroding their capacity for independent thought.
“Strange as it may seem, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and formal education positively fortifies it.”
—Stephen Vizinczey (1933-2021), Hungarian writer 5
One of Bonhoeffer's key insights is the relationship between stupidity and authority. He notes that people under the influence of authoritarian regimes tend to relinquish their autonomy and critical faculties, becoming passive recipients of propaganda. This creates a form of collective stupidity, where individuals no longer think for themselves but accept the doctrines imposed by those in power.
"Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice."
—Dietrich Bonhoeffer 6
In Bonhoeffer’s view, stupidity becomes a tool of oppression, facilitating a manipulative elite's control of the masses. The danger lies not only in the actions of the stupid but also in the societal structures that perpetuate and reinforce stupidity. A cancel culture, therefore, can become an authoritarian instrument of control.
“Earnestness is stupidity sent to college.”
—P. J. O'Rourke (1947-2022), American political satirist and journalist 7
Stupidity, according to Bonhoeffer, is often rooted in social dynamics and group behaviour. People are susceptible to stupidity when they conform uncritically to group norms, especially in environments where questioning and dissent are discouraged. This phenomenon can be observed in various contexts, from totalitarian regimes to US university campuses . In such settings, individuals may adopt irrational beliefs and behaviours because they align with the prevailing groupthink.
“In individuals, insanity is rare, but in groups, parties, nations and epochs it is the rule.”
—Friedrich Nietzsche 8
Theodor W. Adorno (1903-69), the German social theorist and a member of the Frankfurt School, argued that mass culture manipulates and pacifies the masses, contributing to societal conformity and preventing critical thinking. Adorno explored how emotional manipulation is a tool commonly used by fascist regimes to consolidate power and control the masses. He argued that fascist propaganda tends to exploit fear, resentment, and other negative emotions to mobilize support and justify authoritarian measures. Adorno's critique of what he called the culture industry and Bonhoeffer's analysis of stupidity address how societal forces can lead individuals to conform without questioning. While Adorno and Bonhoeffer operated in different intellectual and disciplinary traditions, their work converges on the critique of societal conformity, the dangers of uncritical thinking, and the importance of moral responsibility.
“Appeal to emotion belongs to those who strive in the direction of fascism, while democratic propaganda must limit itself to reason and restraint. Fear and destructiveness are the major emotional sources of fascism, eros belongs mainly to democracy.”
—Theodor W. Adorno 9
The social aspect of stupidity also manifests in how it spreads and is reinforced. Bonhoeffer's reflections highlight the contagious nature of stupidity, where uncritical acceptance of ideas by some can lead to broader societal acceptance. This can result in normalising absurd or harmful beliefs, which become difficult to challenge or reverse.
“The desire of the clergy in all times has been to be powerful and opulent. By what method can it satisfy this desire? By selling hope and fear. The priests, wholesale dealers in these commodities, were sensible that this sale would be assured and lucrative... The power of the priest depends upon the superstitions and stupid credulity of the people. It is of little worth to him that they be learned, the less they know, the more docile they will be to his dictates.”
—Claude Adrien Helvétius (1715–71), French philosopher 10
Addressing the problem of stupidity requires more than just intellectual engagement; it necessitates a moral and ethical awakening. Bonhoeffer emphasizes the importance of education, not merely as the transmission of knowledge but as the cultivation of critical thinking and moral integrity. He advocates for an education that encourages individuals to question, to seek truth, and to resist the pressures of conformity.
“I remained a socialist for several years, even after my rejection of Marxism; and if there could be such a thing as socialism combined with individual liberty, I would be a socialist still. For nothing could be better than living a modest, simple, and free life in an egalitarian society. It took some time before I recognized this as no more than a beautiful dream; that freedom is more important than equality; that the attempt to realize equality endangers freedom; and that, if freedom is lost, there will not even be equality among the unfree. The encounter with Marxism was one of the main events in my intellectual development. It taught me a number of lessons which I have never forgotten. It taught me the wisdom of the Socratic saying, “I know that I do not know”. It made me a fallibilist, and impressed on me the value of intellectual modesty. And it made me most conscious of the differences between dogmatic and critical thinking.”
—Karl Popper 11
Combating stupidity involves fostering a culture that values truth and transparency. This includes supporting free speech, protecting dissent, and promoting an environment where individuals can think independently and critically. It also requires vigilance against the forces that seek to manipulate and deceive, whether they be political, economic, religious, or cultural.
“You can say Earth is flat because we have free speech, but our Constitution doesn't grant that anything you say is correct.”
—Neil deGrasse Tyson (b. 1958), American astrophysicist 12
Carlo Cipolla (1922-2000), the Italian economic historian, outlined his laws of stupidity in an essay titled "The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity," originally intended for distribution among his friends. Cipolla's work is a humorous yet insightful exploration of human behaviour. He defines stupidity in terms of its impact on individuals and society. The five basic laws are:
“Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.”
“The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.” Stupidity is a trait found in people regardless of their background, education, ethnicity, religion, or profession.
“A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses himself.” Cipolla's most famous law defines stupidity as the harm caused to both others and the stupid individual themselves.
“Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals.”
“A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.” Stupid people are more dangerous than what he calls bandits because their actions are unpredictable, and they cause harm without any logical gain. 13
Mainly, laws 3 and 5 relate to risk and risk management.
Bonhoeffer’s perspective on stupidity is more philosophical and moralistic. While Cipolla’s laws focus on stupidity's economic and social impact and categorize behaviours based on outcomes, Bonhoeffer’s reflections delve into the moral and philosophical dimensions, emphasizing stupidity's societal and ethical implications. Cipolla takes a more analytical and humorous approach, whereas Bonhoeffer offers a grave and cautionary perspective, particularly relevant to his time's political and social dynamics. There is a link between stupidity and humour, or the lack thereof.
“Humor is the insight that nothing is as serious as it seems… Humor combines reason and serenity. It testifies to knowledge, insight and judgment and a developed mind. Humor is a character trait, a virtue, comparable with courage, honesty or modesty. Humor allows a wider perspective. It strengthens the ability to see things the way they are.
Humorlessness sits in the anteroom of violence. Humorlessness is the sister of intolerance and the aunt of racism.”
—Andreas Thiel (b. 1971), Swiss satirist 14
Humour, like stupidity, is an essential aspect of the human experience. Humour, unlike stupidity, serves various purposes, from relieving stress to fostering social bonds which allow us to cooperate when solving problems. However, its role and acceptance can vary significantly across cultural and ideological frameworks. One such framework where humour often finds itself in conflict is collectivist ideology. Collectivism prioritises the group's needs, values, and goals over those of the individual, emphasising conformity, social harmony, and the suppression of dissent. There is an argument that humour, which frequently relies on individual expression, subversion, and critique, is almost inherently incompatible with collectivist ideology.
“Left-leaning comedians are rarely funny because it’s hard to make people laugh when you are consumed by bitterness, envy and anger.”
—Jeremy Clarkson (b. 1960), British car enthusiast15
Humour often thrives on individualism and the subversion of norms, directly contrasting the collectivist emphasis on conformity and social harmony. For instance, stand-up comedy, a form of humour that relies heavily on the comedian's observations and experiences, often challenges societal norms and conventions.
“A Christian telling an atheist they're going to hell is as scary as a child telling an adult they're not getting any presents from Santa.”
—Ricky Gervais (b. 1961), English comedian
In collectivist societies, where the pressure to conform and maintain social harmony is intense, such humour can be seen as disruptive. The experience of comedians in China provides a poignant example. In a country where collectivist values are deeply ingrained, and the government exercises stringent control over public discourse, comedians often face censorship or punishment when their jokes touch on sensitive political or social issues. The 2013 case of Chinese comedian Zhou Libo (b. 1967), known for his satirical take on social and political issues, highlights this tension. Zhou's humour, which resonated with many due to its critical edge, eventually led to his performances being curtailed by authorities who deemed them inappropriate for promoting societal harmony.
“There is no humorist like history.”
—Will Durant 16
Collectivist ideologies often necessitate the suppression of dissent and criticism, both essential components of many forms of humour. Satire, for example, thrives on the ability to criticise and mock those in power, institutions, or societal norms. In collectivist regimes, such as the former Soviet Union, satire that targeted the state or its leaders was strictly prohibited. The case of Soviet satirist Mikhail Zoshchenko (1894-1958) is illustrative. Zoshchenko's works, which humorously depicted the absurdities of Soviet life, were initially popular but eventually led to his censure and persecution by the state. The Soviet regime, which prioritised the collective good as defined by the Communist Party, viewed Zoshchenko's satire as threatening its authority and the social order it sought to maintain.
“Every joke is a tiny revolution. If you have to define humour in a single phrase, you might define it as dignity sitting on a tintack.”
—George Orwell 17
The “revolution” suggests that humour has a subversive quality. Jokes often challenge the status quo, social norms, or the seriousness of life. By making light of something, a jest can momentarily disrupt how things are supposed to be, creating a small-scale rebellion against conventional wisdom or authority. A "tintack" is a small nail or tack. The image of "dignity" (something that is usually associated with seriousness, respect, and composure) sitting on a tintack juxtaposes something noble with something trivial and potentially uncomfortable. This visual creates an absurd scenario where the solemnity of dignity is undermined by the physical discomfort of sitting on a tack. This is why my research sometimes includes a “trivia” section. Humour is part of truth-seeking.
“It is my belief, you cannot deal with the most serious things in the world unless you understand the most amusing.”
—Winston Churchill 18
Thomas Sowell (b. 1930), the American economist, is perceived as a witty social philosopher and political commentator. One of Sowell's relevant works in this context is The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy. In this book, Sowell critiques what he calls "the anointed" – a term he uses to describe intellectuals and policymakers who, despite lacking practical experience, impose their visions and solutions on society. Sowell argues that these individuals often operate based on a sense of moral superiority and intellectual arrogance, leading to counterproductive policies that are disconnected from reality. This aligns with the idea of "stupidity" as defined by Cipolla – actions that cause harm to others and oneself, often due to ignorance or arrogance. Sowell lives in California:
“The welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. It is about the egos of the elites….
The next time you see a bum leaving drug needles in a park where children play or urinating in the street, you are seeing your tax dollars at work and the end result of the vision of the anointed.”
—Thomas Sowell 19
In The Vision of the Anointed, Sowell discusses how these policymakers and intellectuals ignore empirical evidence and practical outcomes, instead prioritizing their idealistic visions. He critiques their resistance to feedback and tendency to double down on failed policies rather than reconsider their assumptions. This exploration of cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, and the dismissal of contrary evidence can be seen as examining stupidity in a systemic and ideological context.
“Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.“
—Thomas Sowell 20
While Sowell might not explicitly label these behaviours as "stupidity," his analysis of the consequences of these actions aligns with the broader understanding of the term as presented by Cipolla and Bonhoeffer. Sowell’s work highlights the dangers of ignoring reality and the costs of policy decisions driven by arrogance and a lack of accountability.
“Skin in the game keeps human hubris in check.”
—Nassim Taleb 21
Nassim Taleb (b. 1960), the Lebanon-born American risk analyst and author, introduced the concept of Intellectual Yet Idiot (IYI) in 2016. IYI can be connected to Bonhoeffer and Cipolla's work on stupidity and Sowells’s work of the anointed in several ways. All four thinkers critique the negative impacts of a certain kind of intellectual arrogance or ignorance despite different terminologies and contexts.
“Not only do general intelligence and academic education fail to protect us from various cognitive errors; smart people may be even more vulnerable to certain kinds of foolish thinking.
Intelligent and educated people are less likely to learn from their mistakes, for instance, or take advice from others.”
—David Robson (b. 1985), British science writer 22
Nassim Taleb introduced the term IYI to describe highly educated individuals who, despite their academic and intellectual achievements, lack practical wisdom and often promote policies or ideas that are disconnected from reality. According to Taleb, IYIs tend to overvalue theoretical knowledge and underappreciate practical, experiential knowledge. They often fail to consider the unintended consequences of their actions and policies, leading to results that can be harmful or counterproductive.
“To truly understand something, you must experience it—get it under your fingertips.”
—Benoit Mandelbrot 23
Taleb’s IYI is consistent with the famous hoax by Alan Sokal (b. 1955), the American professor of mathematics, to ridicule postmodernism in academia, now known as the Sokal affair or Sokal hoax. Sokal submitted a parody of the type of work that had proliferated in the 1990s to an academic journal titled “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” to see whether the journal would publish it. The article was accepted and published. The hoax was that the content was completely nonsense. Sokal’s experiment concluded that one could easily contribute to contemporary academic “thinking” as long as it fits the postmodern narrative.
Connecting Sokal's critique to Bonhoeffer's stupidity argument, one can see a parallel in the idea that uncritical acceptance and misuse of concepts—be they scientific or ideological—can lead to intellectual and moral failings. Both Sokal and Bonhoeffer highlight the dangers of abandoning rigorous critical thought. Sokal's critique focuses on intellectual laziness and lack of rigour in academia, which can lead to the propagation of nonsensical ideas. As mentioned earlier, Bonhoeffer emphasized how such intellectual shortcomings can have grave moral consequences, as individuals become susceptible to manipulation and complicit in evil. In both cases, the failure to engage critically and responsibly with knowledge leads to significant negative outcomes, whether in the realm of academia or society at large.
“The learned Fool writes his Nonsense in better Language than the unlearned; but still 'tis Nonsense.”
—Benjamin Franklin 24
Taleb’s IYI is also related to dysrationalia, a psychological concept first introduced by Keith Stanovich (b. 1950), the American psychologist, in the 1990s. Dysrationalia is the inability to think and act rationally despite having adequate intelligence. People with dysrationalia can possess high IQs and perform well on standardized tests, but they struggle with reasoning and making logically sound decisions in their best interest. While both stupidity and dysrationalia impact cognitive functioning, they do so in different ways. Stupidity is more related to a lack of intellectual ability, whereas dysrationalia involves failing to apply one’s intelligence rationally and effectively. Understanding and addressing dysrationalia requires targeted strategies to enhance critical thinking and awareness of cognitive biases.
“Mediocre men often have the most acquired knowledge.”
—Claude Bernard (1813-1878), French physiologist 25
Taleb’s IYI is also loosely related to Karl Popper's philosophy of critical rationalism. Karl Popper's critical rationalism is a philosophy that emphasizes the importance of critical scrutiny and falsifiability in scientific and intellectual pursuits. According to Popper, knowledge advances through conjectures and refutations, meaning that theories should be subjected to rigorous testing and criticism. Popper was critical of dogmatic thinking and advocated for an open society where ideas could be freely challenged and debated.
“The open society is one in which men have learned to be to some extent critical of taboos, and to base decisions on the authority of their own intelligence.”
—Karl Popper 26
Both Taleb and Popper critique the overconfidence of intellectuals, the anointed in Sowell’s words. Taleb's IYI is a modern critique of intellectuals who, despite their knowledge, fail to engage with practical realities. Similarly, Popper was wary of intellectuals who became dogmatic and resistant to criticism, stifling intellectual progress. While Taleb and Popper come from different intellectual traditions and focus on different aspects of intellectual criticism, their ideas intersect in their mutual concern about the dangers of intellectual arrogance and the importance of remaining open to criticism and grounded in practical reality. At one level, cancel culture is the opposite of an open society where ideas move freely.
“A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.”
—Frank Zappa 27
Humour has the potential to highlight individual differences and idiosyncrasies that can be at odds with the collectivist ideal of unity and homogeneity. Humourlessness, therefore, is a red flag to the risk manager. Repression and expropriation are just stepping stones that follow a cancel culture on the road to serfdom. Collectivist regimes often emphasise suppressing individual traits that might disrupt group cohesion. Humourists and satirists who push these boundaries often find themselves at odds with cultural expectations. In an extreme form of cancel culture, the Gulag awaits them.
“Humility is the distinguishing virtue of the believer in freedom; arrogance, of the paternalist.”
—Milton Friedman 28
Taleb, Sowell, Popper, Cipolla, and Bonhoeffer use different frameworks and terminologies. However, they all critique the dangers of a certain kind of harmful and irrational behaviour that can be exacerbated by intellectual arrogance, social manipulation, and moral failings. Their work collectively underscores the importance of applied wisdom, moral integrity, and awareness of the broader consequences of one’s actions.
If you live in a cancel culture, good luck to you and your loved ones. In any case, thanks for reading.
Aphorisms (1880/1893), as translated by D. Scrase and W. Mieder (Riverside, California: 1994). Original: “Alberne Leute sagen Dummheiten. Gescheite Leute machen sie.”
Hawking, Stephen (2018) "Brief answers to the big questions," London: John Murray (Publishers), p. 189-190.
Aldous Huxley, Do What You Will (1929).
Variant: "In politics, an absurdity is not a handicap. " - In French: "En politique, une absurdité n'est pas un obstacle." As quoted in: L'Opinion, Volume 5, Issue 1 (1912), p. 173. And also in: La Revue bibliographique, Volume 1 (A. Dewit, 1920), p. 351. From izquotes.com, 15 May 2015. Google translate (15 May 2015) suggests: "In politics, an absurdity is not an obstacle."
As quoted in the Sunday Telegraph, 2 March 1975.
Letters and papers from prison
P.J. O’Rourke, Holidays in Hell, 1989.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, 1886.
Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford, The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950), 976. Edits in the original.
Durant, Will (1965) The Story of Civilization, Volume 9, The Age of Voltaire, referencing Helvetius, Claude Adrien (1777), Treatise on Man (De l'Homme), I, ix.
Karl Popper, Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1974), Chapter 8: A crucial year: Marxism; Science and pseudoscience.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, @neiltyson, Twitter, 22 April 2017.
"The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity" was written by Cipolla in 1976 when he was a professor of economic history at the University of California, Berkeley.
Andreas Thiel, Humor – Das Lächeln des Henkers (Thun: Werd Verlag, 2015), 33. Translation is my own.
Jeremy Clarkson, X, 29 January 2024.
Durant, Will (1935, 1992) “The Story of Civilization – Our Oriental Heritage,” Norwalk: Easton Press. First published 1935 with Simon & Schuster, Inc.
George Orwell, “Funny, But Not Vulgar,” essay, Leader, 1945.
As quoted in “Irrepressible Churchill: A Treasury of Winston Churchill's Wit,” edited by Kay Halle, Robson, 1966.
Thomas Sowell, The Thomas Sowell Reader (New York: Basic Books, 2011), 23.
Thomas Sowell, The Thomas Sowell Reader (New York: Basic Books, 2011) 144. Originally in Forbes magazine, "The survival of the left," 8 September 1997.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Skin in the game – Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life (UK: Allen Lane, 2018), 15.
David Robson, The Intelligence Trap – Revolutionise your thinking and make wiser decisions (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2019), 3. Edits in the original.
Benoit Mandelbrot and Richard Hudson, The Misbehavior of Markets: A Fractal View of Financial Turbulence (New York: Basic Books, 2004).
Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1754.
Claude Bernard, Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine, 1865.
Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, 1945.
I couldn’t find the original source of this quote. A variant of the quote is attributed to Thomas Dewar (1864-1930), a Scottish whisky distiller. While Zappa was known for his witty and insightful remarks, the precise origin of this quote remains unclear.
Friedman, Milton (1962, 2009) “Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition,” University of Chicago Press, p.188. First published in 1962.