I made a special point to extend my research to a specially selected group... The result confirmed Nature's supreme powers: σ fraction of the Nobel laureates are stupid.
I mean... okay. I would like to know both what the definition of "stupid" is here and what this study actually consists of. Also I'm pretty sure using "We all recollect occasions..." as your main supporting evidence is several logical fallacies rolled into one.
Is this satire? Am I missing the joke? If the main point is that stupidity is a product of nature and can't be changed by experience there needs to be a lot more evidence to back it up.
"A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses."
These are absolute laws, no need to see the studies =P
Not sure if I should take these laws seriously, but the difficulty is in defining a loss versus a gain.
For example, the old "I'm taking you down with me" is often driven out of spite or vindictiveness. Maybe it's stupid, but maybe not? If you get pleasure out of it, is it a loss?
I'td be in the lower bandit category (the personal gain is significantly less than loss to the other person). The definition of loss is intuitively simple I think: you would have preferred that nothing had happened instead. Vice versa for gains, and then its matter of degrees. With total gain/loss to society scaling the intelligence axis
The stupid man would take down the other without meaning to; he gets nothing out of the event, and he brought significant loss upon his neighbors. The key being that this was without intention; that is, he poses a threat to himself, and everyone around him, by virtue of his normal character.
Comments
I mean... okay. I would like to know both what the definition of "stupid" is here and what this study actually consists of. Also I'm pretty sure using "We all recollect occasions..." as your main supporting evidence is several logical fallacies rolled into one.
Is this satire? Am I missing the joke? If the main point is that stupidity is a product of nature and can't be changed by experience there needs to be a lot more evidence to back it up.
As defined by "The third (and golden) basic law":
"A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses."
These are absolute laws, no need to see the studies =P
Not sure if I should take these laws seriously, but the difficulty is in defining a loss versus a gain.
For example, the old "I'm taking you down with me" is often driven out of spite or vindictiveness. Maybe it's stupid, but maybe not? If you get pleasure out of it, is it a loss?
I'td be in the lower bandit category (the personal gain is significantly less than loss to the other person). The definition of loss is intuitively simple I think: you would have preferred that nothing had happened instead. Vice versa for gains, and then its matter of degrees. With total gain/loss to society scaling the intelligence axis
The stupid man would take down the other without meaning to; he gets nothing out of the event, and he brought significant loss upon his neighbors. The key being that this was without intention; that is, he poses a threat to himself, and everyone around him, by virtue of his normal character.