Stupid is as stupid does

How stupid one is rarely seems to occur to the mainly stupid or. As Idries Shah pithily wrote, “The stupidest man I ever met had a favourite saying- what do you think I am, stupid or something?”

In other words, casting doubt on one’s own ‘smartness’ automatically bars one from the lowest rung of stupidity. Stupidity, then, carries the need for a lack of self-awareness. When someone, say a top barrister, makes a colossal error because their ego gets in the way, we don’t always call it stupid but of course it is. Or the super intelligent academic who cheats on his wife and is surprised she wants a divorce. ‘He thought he could get away with it,’ we opine, but of course he didn’t. He lacked foresight though some, overawed by his academic credentials may say he simply lost a gamble.

But stupidity seems to often accompany a serious lack of foresight. A man of low academic intelligence, perhaps illiterate, who manages a scrap metal yard and becomes a millionaire would rarely be called stupid, though in fact he could simply be energetic and cunning. In our culture money makers are considered ‘smart’. I was once at a dinner in Cairo and a long faced ex-pat said, “Well we can’t be that smart or we wouldn’t be here.” The assumption being that smartest people don’t have to work abroad they can rise to the top in their own country.

Realising one has done something stupid, head smackingly stupid, rarely leads to a conclusion that one ‘is stupid’ in totality. It is something we ascribe to actions rather than our identity. Though I worked with a secretary who told me because she went to a secondary modern school for people who failed the 11 plus exam (a SAT type intelligence test) she spent twenty years thinking she was ‘less intelligent’ than other people. By the time she was thirty and had worked alongside Cambridge Law graduates she had changed her mind. Being able to get things done in the real world seemed a reasonable enough definition of being not-stupid.

Children can be labelled stupid or thick by teachers. I’ve heard teachers refer to one class as ‘the thickies class’. And if people can’t read very well and show no interest in the subject they are certainly academically stupid. But again, once they start to have to actually do things the label of stupid sticks less well.

We are entitled to think of ourselves as stupid if we are unable to learn. If we repeatedly fail to learn something then we must be a bit stupid. To keep making the same mistakes seems stupid. It is said that providing the same inputs but expecting a different result is a sign of madness- surely it is more like the kind of wishful thinking that accompanies stupidity. 

The other day I saw someone accused of asking a stupid question, in fact the questioned man refused to ‘dignify it with an answer’. I think we react like that when the question is faux naïve and really is aimed at exposing an assumption of the person questioned. But it could also be the case that the questioned resents the kind of powertrip that asking naïve questions implies. The super rich ask childish questions because they know people will fear being rude and refusing to answer. The super smart- people like physicist Richard Feynman revelled in asking naïve sounding questions because they exposed assumptions. Once I was asked by a tech forecaster that maybe written materials had had their day. I told him, more or less, it was a stupid question. And the reason was the question – if I took it seriously – undermined my job and self-image as a writer. My goodness me- if he was right then I was wasting my time. But I was the one being stupid because I couldn’t detach and see that the question raised a lot of interesting points about the future of written materials in a video and audio obsessed world.

If people are used to being mocked and have grown to suspect it at every turn, then pointing out a stupid question is a way to retain a shred of dignity. If people are in a power position then saying a question is stupid reinforces their power. In cultures like Japan where people don’t question so much, preferring to learn by watching these kind of situations don’t seem to arise so often.

The odd thing is, being faux naïve, Colombo style, which is an English and American thing, is rejected by Europeans who prefer a more aristocratic notion of being intelligent. You don’t have to hide being smart in Europe so much. But then again, anyone who has spent time with the supremely intelligent in academic terms knows that playing high status leaves you spectacularly open to ego blindness.

Hold a coin in front of your eye and it will occlude the sun; ego makes us blind and it makes us deaf. How so? One way is when we divide people into those ‘worth listening to’ and ‘the little people, the ones who don’t count’. Just like in the story of the Emperor’s new clothes, the littles people may also be the most perspicacious. Everyone, including the ego blinded is nodding along with this; it is much harder to put it into practice.

The desire to teach others and the desire to ‘know best’, which are connected, lead one into ego competition with others. An interesting assertion is treated as an attack rather than what it really is. If intellectuals treat their ‘field’ as a kind of real estate (for some it really is how they make an income) then any trespassing will be stoutly punished. Are they being stupid to do so? Well they are deceived as to what they are doing- defending turf rather than advancing knowledge.

Any question which looks like a turf invasion will be called out as stupid if the one invaded stupidly assumes they are under real attack. But really, is asserting status stupid? Yes, if other, better things, are on offer.

Courageous people are often called ‘stupid’. They risk their lives to help others and if they fail it was a foolish attempt we are inclined to say. Those who do risky things like climb mountains are called stupid, even if they succeed and don’t fall off. But assessing risky ventures from a position of ignorance, from the outside is risky too. Often one is unaware of how careful a climber, say, is in reducing risk in a risky looking venture. For YOU it would be stupid, but not for him. ‘Stupidity’ here is a kind of insult levelled at the courageous, out of shame perhaps.

If you ‘own stupidity’ then it ceases to be stupid. One top cartoonist writes that ‘drawing stupid’ is how to make people laugh- and this formula has made him a good living for years. Films like ‘dumb and dumber’ portray idiotic behaviour that somehow leads to victory, of a sort. They tread similar ground to Don Quixote- who is profoundly out of touch with modernity and therefore appears either mad or stupid. The reason we are so sensitive to being called stupid is that village idiocy, exceptionally low learning ability, is termed both as stupidity and mental disability- linking the two. So by being called stupid we suspect we are being accused of something permanent.

We all do stupid things. When we rush in without thinking. When we make unwarranted assumptions. Over time we learn patience and the kind of informed scepticism called judgement. And it is verifiably certain that some people have better judgement than others.

One area of stupidity is in the kind of company one keeps. Often highly intelligent people imagine their intellect protects them from the real world contamination of hanging around people of dubious character. Everything in a salt mine becomes salt as the saying goes.

Can faux naivity, the kind we are used to in modern art, be considered a form of being stupid? Is deliberately doing a bad drawing and hoping people will think it is ‘art’ a kind of stupidity? Or is it really just a sort of hopeful gesture, a gamble?

Forest Gump plays the archetypal American dumbass village idiot (as Chauncy Gardener did in Being There) and memorably states ‘stupid is as stupid does’, implying the real test of stupidity is not the superficial one of what a man says or even thinks, but what he does. Someone endowed with considerable luck might therefore escape the dulling accusation of being terminally stupid.

For isn’t ‘bad luck’ a form of stupidity if it isn’t recognised?

Missed opportunities are often reviewed in later life and ascribed to youthful folly or stupidity. Growing up implies but does not guarantee a reduction in stupidity. The growth of ego, as I’ve already written, is one area where colossal blunders can occur in the years when one is most supposed to be wise.

The left brain, dry, logical, abstract notion of intelligence calls ‘stupid’ people who don’t ‘get it’, catch on fast, learn the detail. But being not-stupid is a more right brain engagement, a more holistic, more real-world, less abstract and rushed version of life. In the long run the right brain is less stupid.

Calling out stupidity which is caused by ego blindness is no doubt a worthwhile activity. But our main aim should surely be aimed at making ourselves less stupid, this means a cool appraisal of our real talents- as cool as one can make it. Imagine looking at yourself as if you were another person. As for becoming less stupid that must mean improving the way one learns from experience and from the experience of others. They say a fool learns from experience and a wise man learns from the experience of others. This must be another way to reduce stupidity.

We call politicians and world leaders stupid because we see them lying and posturing in order to stay in power. They are performing a kind of grotesque dance that we don’t know the half of. But can we call them stupid if their real aim is to stay in power rather than serve us? And as anyone who has studied politics in a democracy knows- the more centralised the system the more you spend time getting elected and hanging on to power than actually doing anything useful. Policies are simply tools for getting elected. But politicians fulfil other needs and roles, such as keeping the civil service accountable so we do need them and this aspect of the job is dull and unglamorous. Perhaps we are doomed to having ‘stupid’ leaders for as long as journalism provides our daily entertainment.

Which brings me to ‘the news’ which is also seen as stupid. Reporting things in a superficial way, making an event conform to the format of ‘a story’- all this is done to make the news watchable and sellable but surely we are the stupid ones if we believe it? The avalanche of doctored pictures and videos on facebook and Youtube is perhaps making us less credulous- which is a form of stupidity. A new way of being smart is the ability to spot fake news and doctored photos. 

Phineas T. Barnum claimed that the great American public liked to be hoodwinked, conned essentially. That they deep down admired a man- snake oil salesman or fairground barker- who could con them into parting with money for an experience which was less than they hoped for or imagined. I think he was confusing greed and pride for a real liking of being bilked. When a man has been conned he often remains quiet out of shame of being so easily taken. Or he enjoins others to experience the same thing, being conned in company isn’t quite as bad.

I wonder what a class in ‘stupidity’ would look like at school. Could we introduce the idea of ego and status to the young? Maybe when they were ten or so. The idea of ‘knowing thyself’ might be introduced alongside the idea of foresight, which of course also requires courage.