Carlo M. Cipolla (August 15, 1922 鈥� 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.
Nu-mi plac c膬r葲ile care vorbesc despre c卯t de pro葯ti s卯nt ceilal葲i 葯i c卯t de 鈥瀌膬葯tep葲i鈥� s卯nt autorii lor. Trebuie s膬 ai umorul 葯i inteligen葲a s膬 te incluzi 葯i pe tine 卯n masa celor sorti葲i dispre葲ului, massa damnata.
Cipolla formuleaz膬 5 legi fundamentale:
1. 脦n societate, num膬rul imbecililor e constant 葯i 卯ntotdeauna mai mare dec卯t cel estimat de speciali葯ti. 2. Prostia e un 鈥瀙rivilegiu aleatoriu鈥�, un dat al Providen葲ei inscrutabile. Nu poate fi remediat膬 prin educa葲ie 葯i cultur膬. Prostia e din n膬scare 葯i nu are leac. 3. O defini葲ie: imbecilul provoac膬 necontenit pierderi celorlal牛i, f膬r膬 s膬 c卯葯tige nimic 卯n schimb. 4. Capacitatea imbecilului de a face r膬u 卯ntrece orice 卯nchipuire. 5. Dintre toate tipurile umane, imbecilul e cel mai periculos.
脦n concluzie, imbecilul are un comportament haotic 葯i nu g卯nde葯te ra葲ional. Din acest motiv e imprevizibil.
Probabil c膬 eseul lui Cipolla este ironic. Cel mai mult mi-au pl膬cut graficele 葯i tonul pedant, sobru, obiectiv, 鈥炄檛iin葲ific鈥�. L-am citit 葯i nu 葯tiu dac膬 am dat dovad膬 de inteligen葲膬.
M膬car 卯n parte, opiniile mele difer膬 de cele ale istoricului italian. 脦ntre pro葯ti 葯i iste葲i v膬d o disjunc葲ie inclusiv膬 (sau/葯i). Consider c膬 inteligen葲a e intermitent膬, ca firul de ap膬 卯n de葯ert. Nimeni nu este iste葲 24 de ore din 24, 7 zile din 7. Omul e mai degrab膬 prost dec卯t iste葲 (23h din 24h). Prin urmare, prostia e regula, geniul - excep葲ia. Nu exist膬 geniu pur, nu exist膬 imbecil pur. Exist膬, din fericire pentru to葲i, grade, trepte, o suav膬 combina葲ie.
George Bernard Shaw: 鈥濷amenii g卯ndesc cam o dat膬 pe an. Faptul c膬 eu g卯ndesc de dou膬 ori pe s膬pt膬m卯n膬 mi-a adus o notorietate nemeritat膬鈥�.
Aunque me gust贸 mucho m谩s el art铆culo de las leyes de la Estupidez, el m谩s famoso, desde que le铆 鈥淓l papel de las especias鈥︹€� he intentado sustituir en mi dieta la sal por la pimienta y no puedo quejarme de los resultados... y alguien m谩s tampoco.
Ok, this is not a book, precisely, but a pamphlet. Which doesn't preclude the book from being a classic, on par with and .
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 蟽 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鈥檚 supreme powers: 蟽 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鈥攚hich 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鈥攐r 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)
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鈥攚hich percentage (in accordance with the First Law) will always surpass your expectations."
"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...".
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines stupid as 鈥済iven to unintelligent decisions or acts,鈥� or alternatively as 鈥渁cting in an unintelligent or careless manner.鈥� 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鈥檚 own personal experiences confirm that stupidity is not exactly in short supply鈥攂ut does stupidity鈥檚 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鈥檚 primary, disheartening conclusion: Regardless of who you associate with, you will always encounter the same proportion of stupid individuals in every group.
Let鈥檚 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鈥檓 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:
鈥淲hether 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鈥檚 supreme powers: [the same] fraction of the Nobel laureates were stupid.鈥�
The problem for Cipolla is that, at this point in the book, 鈥渟tupid鈥� has not even been defined, let alone demonstrated. So when Cipolla states that a fraction of Nobel laureates are 鈥渟tupid,鈥� we don鈥檛 really know what he means, and further, we don鈥檛 know how his research methods were able to distinguish between 鈥渟tupid Nobel laureates鈥� versus 鈥渘on-stupid Nobel laureates.鈥� 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鈥檛 a Nobel laureate presumably be creating value for others through their work, or at least deriving personal gains, thus directly refuting Cipolla鈥檚 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鈥檙e never made aware of what those studies are. It seems as if we鈥檙e 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鈥檙e not given any empirical reasons to accept the claim, beyond vague references to 鈥渟tudies鈥� conducted by the author that are never shared or elaborated on. So while I鈥檓 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鈥檙e a bandit; if your actions provide losses to yourself and gains to others, you鈥檙e helpless (or altruistic); and if your actions produce losses to both yourself and others, you鈥檙e 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 own definition, these individuals are not stupid, they鈥檙e 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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 鈥渟tupid鈥� from 鈥渘on-stupid鈥� people.
This is specifically a problem for the first two laws, and for Cipolla鈥檚 assertion that the fraction of stupid people will always remain constant, as this is genetically determined. In other words, if you鈥檙e 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鈥檚 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鈥檓 sure you can think of personal examples yourself, fairly easily.
It鈥檚 disappointing to see Cipolla fall for the false dichotomy that is the nature/nurture debate. One鈥檚 beliefs and actions result from a complex mixture of genetics, environment, culture, and learning, and therefore any statement that places the blame for one鈥檚 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.
Una dintre cele mai scurte c膬r葲i citite vreodat膬,dar una dintre cele mai directe 葯i pline de adev膬r. Cu o rigoare matematica 葯i cu o subtilitate ,dar mai ales cu o elegan葲膬 ie葯ite din comun ,Carlo Cipolla realizeaz膬 o hart膬-ghid al vie葲ii 葯i al oamenilor pe care to葲i ar trebui s膬 o citim 葯i purta 卯n permanen葲膬 cu noi. Nu sunt prea multe de zis despre aceast膬 carte pentru c膬 ea trebuie citit膬 葯i povestit膬.
- L'umorismo 猫 la capacit脿 intelligente e sottile di rilevare e rappresentare l'aspetto comico della realt脿. -
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鈥橢uropa a seguito del crollo dell'impero romano, che passa dal commercio del pepe alle cinture di castit脿, dalle crociate alla guerra del vino, ed 猫 davvero molto intrigante... Ma quarant'anni fa forse ancora non era stato appurato che l'esistenza delle cinture di castit脿 nel medioevo 猫 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, 猫 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 stupidit脿 umana, corredate da un grafico sul quale ognuno pu貌 riportare i casi personali, hanno un potere illuminante proprio per la loro sintesi e il tono ironico. Sar脿 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, perch茅 andrebbe copincollata compulsivamente nella maggior parte dei commenti sui popolari social network: Una persona stupida 猫 una persona che causa un danno ad un'altra persona o gruppo di persone senza nel contempo realizzare alcun vantaggio per s茅 od addirittura subendo una perdita.
A proposito di stupidit脿 e potere, un interessante parallelo potrebbe esserci con , nel quale si d脿 alla componente narcisistica un ruolo cruciale.
Ma potrei aver preso il tutto con eccessiva gravitas e prendermi dal fantasma dell'autore giustamente dello stupido.
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.
Ten铆a este libro guardado desde el a帽o pasado, como una esperanza. Me gusta re铆r. Suelo prevenirme un poco cuando se define un libro o una pel铆cula como 鈥渉umor inteligente鈥�, porque por una desconocida raz贸n para m铆, se me traduce en 鈥済ags para intelectuales鈥� o 鈥渁puntes excluyentes鈥�; como si fueran obras escritas para el autor y sus amigos o para un grupo de eruditos, o que al menos creen serlo. 隆Qu茅 bueno fue no hacerme caso! 隆Qu茅 bueno fue equivocarme! Aprovechando el aguacero que se iba tirando la electricidad en Bogot谩 -y en s铆 a la ciudad- el domingo pasado, le铆 este libro, que en realidad son dos ensayos del calibre de 鈥淓l papel de las especias (y la pimienta en particular) en el desarrollo econ贸mico de la Edad Media鈥�; bueno, as铆 se titula el primer ensayo que es muy divertido. El segundo, que me pareci贸 una total genialidad es 鈥淟as Leyes Fundamentales de la Estupidez Humana鈥�, simplemente desternillante, campe贸n!. Definitivamente, el libro no es excluyente porque el autor (historiador de econom铆a) sabe hilar y llevar muy bien al lector por los acontecimientos y las hip贸tesis.
Un libro diferente dentro de lo que he le铆do y diferente dentro de los g茅neros y categor铆as en que pueda clasificarse. Alrededor de dos horas de risa y complicidad. Lo recomiendo!
Qualche prerequisito questo libro lo richiede: un po' di matematica e geometria, quella della scuola media pu貌 bastare, perch茅 le leggi sulla stupidit脿 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 猫 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 厂迟耻辫颈诲颈迟脿, perch茅 questa colpisce all'insaputa, senza regole e in quantit脿, oserei dire, industriali.
Procedendo nell'enunciazione delle leggi, la questione sulla stupidit脿 si fa complessa, sia per la correlazione fra i "tipi", sia per la trasposizione per induzione dei casi individuali estesi all'intera societ脿.
O carte sub葲iric膬. Sigur, autorul are perfect膬 dreptate cu legile sale fundamentale, pe care le-a elaborat 卯n privin葲a imbecililor, care 卯mp芒nzesc P膬m芒ntul 葯i ne face via葲a mai complicat膬 (poate exagerez, sigur sunt 葯i eu unul dintre ei :D ). 脦n concep葲ia sa, imbecilii (sau pro葯tii) sunt acele persoane care fac n膬zb芒tii, provoac膬 daune altora, dar f膬r膬 s膬 ob葲in膬 niciun avantaj. Spre deosebire, de exemplu, de r膬uf膬c膬tori, care ob葲in 葯i avantaje. Pentru a-i 卯n葲elege mai bine pe imbecili, Cipolla 鈥瀉 inventat鈥� cinci legi fundamentale, explicate 卯n acest volum pe scurt, inclusiv cu grafice, plec芒nd de la 鈥瀍xist膬 pe lume mai mul葲i pro葯ti dec芒t crezi鈥�. Cea mai simpatic膬 葯i realist膬 pare 卯ns膬 aceea de a te asocia niciodat膬 cu ei, pentru c膬 vei avea sigur de suferit. Un caz atipic 卯n care prefa葲a c膬r葲ii (semnat膬 de Radu Paraschivescu) e mai bun膬 dec芒t con葲inutul ei, sub葲irel, cum spuneam. P膬rerea mea.