The Three Ways Stupidity Spreads Throughout a Society
Defining Stupidity vs. Foolishness
The 20th-century philosopher and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer,
known for his resistance against the Nazi system,
made the bold claim that stupidity is a greater threat
to civilization than evil itself.
However, to understand this,
it is crucial to recognize what Bonhoeffer meant by stupidity,
as it differs from our everyday use of the word.
Stupidity is not the same as foolishness,
which is doing something silly or reckless
(like putting diesel in a petrol car).
It is also not a lack of cognitive ability or ignorance,
which simply means not knowing a fact.
Ignorance can be resolved by learning,
whereas stupidity is defined by three specific elements.
Outsourcing Critical Thinking
The first element of stupidity is outsourcing our critical thinking
to a third party, such as a teacher, parent, social media influencer,
or increasingly, technology.
While it is generally accepted to outsource simple tasks
like navigation to Google Maps,
it becomes problematic when we outsource moral
and critical reasoning to AI.
Relying on applications to tell us right from wrong
or to make significant life decisions is exactly
what Bonhoeffer would classify as stupidity
because it involves giving up our capacity to think for ourselves.
Willful Ignorance (Amathia)
The second element of stupidity is willful ignorance,
referred to by the ancient Greeks as amathia.
While simple ignorance is not stupidity,
amathia is when a person continuously refuses to take steps
to resolve their lack of knowledge and even celebrates it.
This creates a dangerous contagion in society
where people no longer want to know things
and where there is an inverse elitism that mocks
and ridicules those who are educated or knowledgeable.
Conformity and Groupthink
The third element of stupidity is conformity.
Bonhoeffer observed intelligent,
educated individuals conforming to the Nazi system.
When people conform to groupthink,
they surrender their ability to perform critical thinking
and offload it to the group.
As philosopher Chris Rali points out in his work on indoctrination,
it is not what you believe, but how you keep those beliefs.
Indoctrinated individuals associate their beliefs with their identity
and close themselves off to alternative positions,
viewing any rival thought as a test of faith
or an attack on who they are.
Intelligent Stupidity vs. Ordinary Stupidity
Philosopher Robert Musil distinguished
between ordinary stupidity (a lack of cognitive ability in a specific area)
and intelligent stupidity.
Intelligent stupidity occurs when incredibly able, talented,
and erudite individuals use their abilities for foolish ends,
such as the educated individuals who propped up the Nazi regime.
Why Stupidity is More Dangerous Than Evil
Bonhoeffer argued that stupidity is worse than evil
because evil is a known problem with clear malicious intent.
When a clear evil emerges, the good people of the world
can rally around to resist and defeat it.
Stupidity, however, is much harder to identify
and is something society is often far too tolerant of.
It can exist within systems and institutions,
dragging them down and corrupting them from the inside.
The Problem of Epistemic Trespassing
Philosopher Nathan Ballantyne suggests that stupidity
can also take the form of “epistemic trespassing”
within academia and highly educated circles.
This is when an expert in one specific domain
(like an astrophysicist) assumes their expertise automatically
applies to an entirely different field (like political science).
This often stems from intellectual pride
and an overestimation of how well their transferable skills
(like data analysis) apply without needing broader context.
Three Ways to Combat Stupidity
If stupidity and willful ignorance pose the greatest threat to
civilization, there are three steps we can take to combat them:
- Personal Scrutiny: We must continually dig up, scrutinize, and analyze our own beliefs. Using Karl Popper’s idea of falsification, we should actively seek out arguments that challenge our closely held beliefs and read perspectives that oppose our own to escape our echo chambers.
- Interpersonal Warmth: When discussing beliefs with others, we must appreciate that beliefs are often tied to identity and that challenging them can feel like a personal attack. To foster healthy discussion, we must approach conversations with Socratic warmth, using open questions rather than confrontational attacks, so both parties can analyze their beliefs without feeling defensive.
- Fostering Institutional Dissent: At an institutional level, we must foster a culture of debate and welcome dissent. When opposition is delegitimized or treated as demonic, democratic structures and institutional health collapse. Following the idea of the “Aztec decision circle,” we should actively consult groups of people whose explicit purpose is to offer differing viewpoints and dissent.
