>The article defines stupidity in a very precise way: for the purposes of this essay, it's someone who causes harm to other people without any benefit or causing harm to themselves.
It's only precise in the abstract. When it comes to concrete information, it's a BS non-definition. In real life scenarios of any real importance (that is, non trivial examples of Dumb and Dumber style behavior), it quickly gets difficult to define if harm was caused, who caused it, whether they've benefited from it (especially as benefits are not just monetary or advancing one's position on some job or some such), and so on...
I disagree. It's very quantifiable and utilitarian. It doesn't descend into moral judgment or elitism or simple dislike for a person's starting assumptions. Stupidity is just judged by its results.
Unfortunately a great many people simply immediately and without thinking follow their feelings, never questioning the results before acting. And I'm not talking during a terror attack, or other high-tension situations where it might be understandable. Always, or very nearly always.
So the "advantage" people are after is often an immediate and tiny satisfaction of their feelings, a perceived slight increase in their social status. Most examples in the article, such as not stepping aside when something is in your way.
And, frankly, being "ready for that" to some extent is a great piece of advice. Unfortunately.
It's only precise in the abstract. When it comes to concrete information, it's a BS non-definition. In real life scenarios of any real importance (that is, non trivial examples of Dumb and Dumber style behavior), it quickly gets difficult to define if harm was caused, who caused it, whether they've benefited from it (especially as benefits are not just monetary or advancing one's position on some job or some such), and so on...