There is a contradiction here. By this definition, if you select for attainment of any kind that would be sabotaged by the harm, you had better start seeing less stupidity. If you don't, it's a hint that your model of stupidity is wrong. Indeed, his model is wrong, but instead of taking the hint the author simply chalks the pile of contradictory evidence up to chance and sticks with his bad model: "Nature seems indeed to have outdone herself." No, dude -- the problem is not with nature, it's with your model.
> By this definition, if you select for attainment of any kind that would be sabotaged by the harm, you had better start seeing less stupidity.
That's kind of the point: you might expect that, and maybe it's true to some extent, but if you think there's some group of people somewhere that has some reliable method of excluding people who act in irrational and self-destructive ways, you're probably going to react the wrong way if you encounter such a person. The usual response is to assume some sort of nefarious plan. Maybe that person is executing a clever strategy to gain some sort of advantage? In actuality that person might not have any plan at all, they're just engaging in ordinary self-destruction and bringing everyone else along for the ride. Not recognizing that is a cognitive blind spot that people who don't do those sorts of things tend to have have.
Cipola does mention that while he considers the proportion of stupid people in circulation to be constant, a properly-functioning society will tend to give less agency to those people than a well-functioning one.
> It would be a profound mistake to believe the number of stupid people in a declining society is greater than in a developing society. Both such societies are plagued by the same percentage of stupid people. The difference between the two societies is that in the society which performs poorly:
>
> a) the stupid members of the society are allowed by the other members to become more active and take more actions; b) there is a change in the composition of the non-stupid section with a relative decline of populations of areas I, H1 and B1 and a proportionate increase of populations H2 and B2.
> if you think there's some group of people somewhere that has some reliable method of excluding people who act in irrational and self-destructive ways
Yes, successful people, for many any definition of succesful that you respect. If one is successful, one clearly wasn't meaningfully self-destructive. If one is self-destructive, one expects to be systematically less successful. On average, in expectation, and with time lag. This isn't an observational trend, it's a definitional link.
Let's be concrete: if a professor makes a great discovery and then Cipola writes them off as stupid because he sees them struggling to tie their shoes, Cipola's model of stupidity is invalidated by the reality of the professor's useful contribution to society.
I've seen this happen.
> The usual response is to assume some sort of nefarious plan.
Cibola blamed the failure of his model on chance. He could also have chosen to blame it on conspiracy. He would still be wrong -- it's just a poor model.
> Not recognizing [self-destruction] is a cognitive blind spot that people who don't do those sorts of things tend to have have.
Sure, but this guy has enshrined Fundamental Attribution Error into a philosophy. It's not a blind spot, it's a blindfold.
3rd law: stupidity causes harm (definition)
There is a contradiction here. By this definition, if you select for attainment of any kind that would be sabotaged by the harm, you had better start seeing less stupidity. If you don't, it's a hint that your model of stupidity is wrong. Indeed, his model is wrong, but instead of taking the hint the author simply chalks the pile of contradictory evidence up to chance and sticks with his bad model: "Nature seems indeed to have outdone herself." No, dude -- the problem is not with nature, it's with your model.