Carlo M. Cipolla

The Basic Lawsof Human Stupidity

il Mulino

rsBN 978-88-15-23381-3

Copvright O 2011 bv Societi editrice il Mulino" Bologna.All rights reserved. No part of this publication mav bereproduced. stored in a retrieval svstern. or transmitted. in anvform or by anv rneans" withorrt the prior permission in w-ritingof Societi editrice il Nlulino. For further infonnatiorr seewww.mulino .it/ edizioni / fotocopie

Index

Publisher's Note

The Mad Millers to the Reader

Introduction

I. The First Basic LawII. The Second Basic Lawru. A Technical InterludeIV. The Third (and Golden) Basic Law\'. Frequency DistributionVI. Stupidity and PowerVII. The Power of StupiditvVIII. The Fourth Basic LawIX. Macro Analysis and the

Fifth Basic Law

Appendix

p. 7

9

15

1.9

23

29

J)17

47

51

55

59

67

Publisher's Note

Originally written in English, The BasicLauts of Human Stupidity *'as published forthe first time in 1,976 in a numbered andprivate edition bearing the unlikelv imprint ofuMad Millersu.

The author believed that his short essay couldonly be fully appreciated in the language inwhich it had been written. He consequently longdeclined any proposal to have it translated. Onll'in 19BB did he accept the idea of its publicationin an Italian version as part of the volume en-titled Allegro mo non troppo, together with theessav Pepper, |[/ine (and Wool) as the DynamicFactors of the Social and Economic Deaelopmentof the Middle Ages, also originallv written inEnglish and published privatelv by Mad Millersfor Christmas 1973.

Allegro mo non troppo has been a bestseller bothin Italv and in all the countries where translatedversions have appeared. Yet, with an ironv thatthe author of these laws would have appreciated,it has never been published in the language inwhich it was first written.

Thus. almost a quarter of century since publica-tion of Allegro ma non troppo, this in fact is thefirst edition that makes The Basic Laus of HumartStupidity available in its original version.

The Mad Millers to the Reader

The priuate edition of 1976 utas preceded bythe follotaing publisher's note utritten by the au-thor himself:

The Mad Millers printed onlv a limited numberof copies of this book which addresses itself not tostupid people but to those who on occasion have todeal with such people. To add that none of thoseu'ho u,'ill receive this book can possiblv fall in areaS of the basic graph (figure 1) is therefore a r,'orkof supererogation. Nevertheless. like most works ofsupererogation, it is better done that left undone.For, as the Chinese philosopher said: uEruditionis the source of universal q,'isdom: but that doesnot prevent it from being an occasional cause ofmisunderstanding between friendsr.

lntroduction

fJrrrutr affairs are admittedly in a deplorableI Istate. This, however, is no novelty. As ?ar backas we can r""" hu-un afiairs have alwavs been ina deplorable state. The heavv load of tro.,bles andmiseries that human beings have to bear as indi-viduals as well as members of organized societiesis basicallv a bv-product of the most improbable-

and I would dare say, stupid -

way in whichlife u'as set up at its very inception.

After Darwin we know that we share our originwith the lower members of the animal kingdom.and worms as well as elephants have to bear theirdailv share of trials, predicaments. and ordeals.Human beings, however. are privileged in so faras thev have to bear an extra load

-

an extradose of tribulations originated dailv by a groupof people within the human race itself. Thisgroup is much more powerful than the Mafia, orthe Militarv Industrial Complex" or InternationalCommunism

-

it is an unorganized uncharteredgroup which has no chief, no president, no bv-lawsand vet manages to operate in perfect unison, asif guided by an invisible hand, in such a way that

15

the activity of each member powerfullv contributesto strengthen and amplif--v the effectiveness of theactivitv of all other members. The nature. characterand behaviour of the members of this group arethe subject of the following pages.

Let rne point out at this juncture that mostemphaticallv this little book is neither a product ofcvnicisrn nor an exercise in defeatism

-

no morethan a book on microbiologv. The following pagesare in fact the result of a constructive effort todetect, know and thus possiblv neutralize one ofthe most powerful, dark forces which hinder thegrowth of human welfare and happiness.

The

Chapter I

First Basic Law

76

he First Basic Law of Human Stupiditv assertswithout ambiguity that

uAlways and inevitablv everyone under-estimates the number of stupid individualsin circulationrl.

At first, the statement sounds trivial, vagueand horribly ungenerous. Closer scrutinv v'illhowever reveal its realistic veracity. No matterhow high are one's estimates of human stupiditl',one is repeatedlv and recurrentlv startled by thefact that:

c) People whom one had once judged rationaland intelligent turn out to be unashamedlv stupid.

b) Day after day, with unceasing monotonl-,one is harassed in one's activities bv stupid indi-

I The cornpilers of the Testament were aq,.are of theFirst Basic Law and thev paraphrased it r.hen thev assertedthat but thev indulged inpoetic exaggeration. The number of stupid people cannot beinfinite because the nurnber of living people is finite.

79

viduals who appear suddenly and unexpectedlvin the most inconvenient places and at the mostirnprobable mornents.

The First Basic Law prevents me frorn attrib-uting a specific numerical value to the fractionof stupid people w-ithin the total population: anvt .,-"ii"u["stimate would turn out to be an under-estimate. Thus in the following pages I will denotethe fraction of stupid people n'ithirr a populationbr. the svmbol o.

The

Chapter II

Second Basic Law

20

1-\ ultural trends now fashionable in the VestUfavour an egalitarian approach to life. Peoplelike to think of human beings as the output of aperfectly engineered mass production machine.Ceneticists and sociologists especially go out oftheir way to prove, with an impressive apparatusof scientific data and formulations that all rnenare naturally equal and if some are more equalthan the others, this is attributable to nurture andnot to nature.

I take an exception to this general view. It ismy firm conviction, supported by years of ob-servation and experimentation, that men are notequal, that some are stupid and others are not,and that the difference is determined by natureand not by cultural forces or factors. One is stupidin the same way one is red-haired; one belongsto the stupid set as one belongs to a blood group.A stupid man is born a stupid man by an act ofProvidence.

Although convinced that fraction a of humanbeings are stupid and that they are so because

23

of genetic traits, I am not a reactionary trvingto ieintroduce surreptitiouslv class or race dis-crimination. I firmly believe that stupiditv is anindiscriminate privilege of all human groups andis uniformly distributed according to a constantproportion. This fact is scientifically expressed bythe Second Basic Law which states that

uThe probabilitv that a certain personbe stupid is independent of anv othercharacteristic of that person).In this regard, Nature seems indeed to have

outdone herself. It is well known that Naturemanages, rather mvsteriousln to keep constantthe relative frequencv of certain natural phe-nomena. For instance. whether men proliferateat the Northern Pole or at the Equator. whetherthe matching couples are developed or underde-veloped, u'hether they are black, red, white oryellow the female to male ratio among the newlyborn is a constant, with a verv slight prevalenceof males. We do not know how Nature achievesthis remarkable result but we know that in or-der to achieve it Nature must operate with largenumbers. The most remarkable fact about thefrequency of stupiditv is that Nature succeeds inmaking this frequency equal to the probability oquite independentlv from the size of the group.Thus one finds the same percentage of stupid peo-ple whether one is considering very large groupsor one is dealing with very small ones. No other

set of observable phenomena offers such strikingproof of the powers of Nature.

The evidence that education has nothing to dowith the probability o was provided bv experimentscarried on in a large number of universities allover the world. One mav distinguish the compositepopulation which constitutes a universitv in fivemajor groups, namely the blue-collar workers, thewhite-collar emplovees, the students, the admin-istrators and the professors.

Whenever I analvzed the blue-collar workers Ifound that the fru"tion o of them u-ere stupid. Aso's value was higher than I expected (First Law),paving mv tribute to fashion I thought at firstthat segregation, povert\-, lack of education wereto be blamed. But moving up the social ladder Ifound that the same ratio was prevalent among thewhite-collar employees and among the students.More irnpressive still u,'ere the results among theprofessors. Whether I considered a large univer-sity or a small college, a famous institution or anobscure one. I found that the same fraction o ofthe professors are stupid. So bewildered was I bvthe results, that I rnade a special point to extendmy research to a speciallv selected group, to a real6lite" the Nobel laureates. The result confirmedNature's supreme powers: o fraction of the Nobellaureates are stupid.

This idea was hard to accept and digest but toomany experimental results proved its fundamentalveracity. The Second Basic Law is an iron law, and itdoes not admit exceptions. The Women's Liberation

24 25

Movement will support the Second Basic Law asit shows that stupid individuals are proportionallyas numerous amorrg men as among women. Theunderdeveloped of the Third World will probablvtake solace at the Second Basic Law as theY canfind in it the proof that after all the developedare not so developed. Whether the Second BasicLaw is liked or not, however, its implications arefrightenirrg: the Law implies that whether youm&e in distinguished circles or you take refugeamong the head-hunters of Polynesia, whether youIock yourself into a rnonastery or decide to spendthe rLst of vour life in the company of beautifuland lascivious women, you alwaYs have to facethe same percentage of stupid people

-

whichpercentage (in accbrdance with the First Law)will alv'ays surpass your expectations.

Chapter III

A Technical Interlude

26

,l t t his point ir is imperat ive-fl-co,'c"pt of human stupiditrdrametis pers0n0.

to elucidate theand to define the

Individuals are characterized b--v differentdegrees of propensitv to socialize. There areindividuals for whom anv contact with otherindividuals is a painful necessitv. They literallvhave to put up with people and people have toput up w-ith them. At the other extreme of thespectmm there are individuals v'ho absolutelvcannot live by themselves and are even ready tospend time in the compan,v of people whom the,vdo not reallv like rather than to be alone. Betweenthese two extremes, there is an extreme variety ofconditions, although by far the greatest majoritvof the people are closer to the type who cannotface loneliness than to the tvpe who has no tastefor human intercourse. Aristotiles recognized thisfact when he wrote that uMan is a social animaluand the validity of his statement is demonstratedby the fact that we move in social groups, thatthere are more married people than bachelors and

29

spinsters, that so much wealth and time is wastedin fatiguing and boring cocktail parties and thatthe word loneliness carries normally a negativeconnotation.

Whether one belongs to the hermit or to thesocialite tvpe, one deals with people although withdifferent intensity. Even the hermits occasionallymeet people. Moreover, one affects human beingsalso b}' avoiding them. Vhat I could have donefor an individual or a group but did not do is anopportunity-cost (i.e. a lost gain or loss) for thatparticular person or group. The moral of the storyis that each one of us has a current balance witheverybody else. From action or inaction each oneof us derives a gain or a loss and at the sametime one causes a gain or a loss to some one else.Gains and losses can be convenientlv charted ona graph, and figure 1 shows the basic graph to beused for the purpose.

The graph refers to an individual -

let ussav Tom. The X axis measures the gain that Tomderives from his actions. On the laxis the graphshows the gain that another person or group ofpersons derive from Tom's actions. Cains can bepositive, nil or negative

-

a negative gain beingactually a loss. The X axis measures Tom's positivegains to the right of point O and Tom's losses tothe left of point O. The Iaxis measures the gainsand losses of the person or persons with whom Tomdealt respectivelv above and below point O.

To make all this clear, let us make a hypotheti-cal example and refer to figure 1. Tom takes an

30 31

Frc. 1.

action which affects Dick. If Tom derives fromthe action a gain and Dick suffers from the sameaction a loss. the action will be recorded on thegraph with a dot which will appear in the graphsomewhere in area B.

Cains and losses may be recorded on the X andI axis in dollars or francs, if one wants, but onehas to include also psychological and emotionalrewards and satisfactions as well as psychologi-

cal and emotional stresses. These are intangiblesand thev are very difficult to measure accordingto objective standards. Cost-benefit analvsis canhelp to solve the problem, although not completell',buf I do not want to bother the reader u'ith suchtechnicalities: a margin of imprecision is bound toaffect the measurement but it does not affect theessence of the argument. One point though mustbe made clear. When considering Tom's action onemakes use of Torn's values but one has to rely onDick's values and not on Tom's values to deter-mine Dick's gains (whether positive or negative).All too often this rule of fairness is forgotten andmany troubles originate from failure to applv thisessentiallv urbane point of view. Let me resortonce again to a banal example. Tom hits Dick onDick's head and he derives satisfaction from hisaction. He may pretend that Dick was delightedto be hit on the head. Dick. hou'ever, maY notshare Tom's view. In fact he may regard the blowon his head as an unpleasant event. Whether theblow on Dick's head u.as a gain or a loss to Dickis up to Dick to decide and not to Tom.

Chapter IV

The Third (and Colden) Basic Law

32

.fh" Third Basic Law assumes, although it doesI not state it explicitly, that human beings fall

into four basic categories: the helpless, the intel-ligent, the bandit and the stupid. It will be easilyrecognized by the perspicacious reader that thesefour categories correspond to the four areas I" H,S, B, of the basic graph (see figure 1).

If Tom takes an action and suffers a loss whileproducing a gain to Dick, Tom's mark will fallin field H: Totn acted helplesslv. If Tom takes anaction by which he makes a gain while vielding again also to Dick, Tom's mark will fall in area 1:Tom acted intelligently. If Tom takes an action bywhich he makes a gain causing Dick a loss, Tom'smark will fall in area B: Tom acted as a bandit.Stupidity is related to area S and to all positionson axis I below point O.

As the Third Basic Law explicitly clarifies:

JJ

uA stupid person is a person who causeslosses to another person or to a group ofpersons while himself deriving no gain andeven possiblv incurring lossesr.

Vhen confronted for the first time with theThird Basic Law. rational people instinctively reactu'ith feelings of skepticism and incredulousness.The fact is that reasonable people have difficultvin conceiving and understanding unreasonablebehaviour. But let us abandon the loftv plane oftheorv and let us look pragmaticall,v at our dailyhfe. Ve all recollect occasions in which a fellowtook an action which resulted in his gain and inour loss: we had to deal with a bandit. \Xre alsorecollect cases in which a fellos.' took an actionwhich resulted in his loss and in our gain: we hadto deal with a helpless personl. Ve can recollectcases in which a fellow took an action by whichboth parties gained: he was intelligent. Such casesdo indeed occur. But upon thoughtful reflectionyou must admit that these are not the eventswhich punctuate most frequently our daily life.Our dally life is mostly made of cases in whichwe lose money and/or time and/or energv and/orappetite, cheerfulness and good health becauseof the improbable action of some preposterous

1 Notice the qualification ua fellow rooft an actiono.The fact /re took the action is decisive in establishing thathe is helpless. If 1 took the action which resulted in m1-gain and-his loss. then the judgment would be different: 1would be a bandit.

creature who has nothing to gain and indeed gainsnothing from causing us embarrassment? difficul-ties or harm. Nobody knows, understands or canpossibly explain why that preposterous creaturedoes what he does. In fact there is no explana-tion

-

or better there is only one explanation:the person in question is stupid.

36 )1

Chapter V

Fre quency Distribution

l\ fiost people do not act consistently. UnderIVlcertain circumstances a given person actsintelligentlv and under different circumstancesthe same person will act helplesslv. The onlvimportant exception to the rule is represented bythe stupid people who normallv show a strongproclivity toward perfect consistency in all fieldof human endeavours.

From all that proceeds, it does not followthat we can chart on the basic graph only stupidindividuals. Ve can calculate for each person hisweighted average position in the plane of figure 1quite independently from his degree of inconsist-ency. A helpless person mav occasionally behaveintelligently and on occasion he mav perform abandit's action. But since the person in questionis fundamentallv helpless most of his action willhave the characteristics of helplessness. Thus theoverall weighted average position of all the actionsof such person will place him in the H quadrantof the basic graph.

The fact that it is possible to place on thegraph individuals instead of their actions allon's

4"1

some digression about the frequency of the banditand stupid types.

The perfect bandit is one who, with his actions,causes to other individuals losses equal to his gains.The crudest type of banditry is theft. A person whorobs you of 100 pounds without causing you anextra loss or harm is a perfect bandit: you lose 100pounds, he gains 100 pounds. In the basic graph theperfect bandits would appear on a 45 degree diago-nal line that divides the area B into two perfectlysymmetrical sub-areas (line OM of figure 2).

However the uperfect, bandits are relativelyfew. The line OM divided the area B into two sub-areas, B, and -B5, and by far the largest majorityof the bandits fall somewhere in one of these twosub-areas.

The bandits who fall in area B, are those indi-viduals whose actions yield to them profits whichare larger than the losses thev cause to other people.All bandits who are entitled to a position in areaB, are bandits with overtones of intelligence andas they get closer to the right side of the X axisthey share more and more the characteristics of theintelligent person. Unfortunately the individualsentitled to a position in the B, area are not verynumerous. Most bandits actually fall in area Br.The individuals who fall in this area are thosewhose actions yield to them gains inferior to thelosses inflicted to other people. If someone killsyou in order to rob from you fifty pounds or if hemurders you in order to spend a weekend withyour wife at Monte Carlo, we can be sure that he

Frt;. 2.

is not a perfect bandit. Even by using his valuesto measure ftrs gains (but still using

.1"ozrr valuesto measure yozrr losses) he falls in the 85 areavery close to the border of sheer stupiditv. Gener-als who cause vast destructions and innumerablecasualties in return for a promotion or a medalfall in the same area.

The frequency distribution of the stupid peopleis totallv different from that of the bandit. Vhile

42 43

bandits are mostlv scattered over an area stupidpeople are heavilv concentrated along one line,ipeiifically on the Iaxis below point- O. The reasonfor this is ihat by far the majoritv of stupid peopleare basicallv and unwaveringlv stupid

-

in otherwords thev perseveringlv insist in causing harm andlosses to other people without deriving a-ny gain,whether positive or negative. There are howeverpeople who bv their improbable actions not onlvlauie damagei to other people but in addition hurtthemselves.Th"--v ut" a sort of super-stupid x'ho, inour system of accounting, n'ill lPPear somewherein the area S to the left of the I axis.

Chapter VI

Stupidity and Power

44

T ike all human creatures, also stupid peopleI 'vary enormouslv in their capacitv to affect

their fellow -"n. St-e stupid p"ople normallv

cause only limited losses while others egregiouslysucceed in causing ghastly and widespread dam-ages not only to one or two individuals but toentire communities or societies. The damagingpotential of the stupid person depends on twomajor factors. First of all, it depends on the ge-netic factor. Some individuals inherit exceptionaldoses of the gene of stupidity and by virtue ofinheritance they belong from birth to the 6lite oftheir group. The second factor which determinesthe potential of a stupid person is related to theposition of power and consequence which heoccupies in society. Among bureaucrats, gener-als, politicians and heads of state one has littledifficulty in finding clear examples of basicallystupid individuals whose damaging capacity was(or is) alarmingly enhanced by the position ofpower *'hich thev occupied (or occupv). Religiousdignitaries should not be overlooked.

47

The question that reasonable people often raiseis how and whv stupid people can reach positionsof power and consequence.

Class and caste $,'ere the social arrangementswhich favoured the steadv supply of stupid peopleto positions of power in most societies of the pre-industrial world. Religion was another contributingfactor. In the modern industrial world class andcaste are banished both as words and as conceptsand religion is fading awav. But in lieu of class andcaste we have political parties and bureaucracvand in lieu of religion we have democracv. Vithina democratic svstem, general elections are a mosteffective instrument to insure the steadv mainte-nance of fraction o among the powerful. One hasto keep in mind that according to the Second BasicLaw, ihe fraction o of the voting population arestupid people and elections offer to all of them atoni" a magnificent opportunity to harm everybodyelse without gaining anything from their action.They do so bi contributing to the maintenance ofthe o level among those in power.

The

Chapter VII

Power of Stupidity

18

Jt is not difficult to understand how social, politicalIand institutional power enhances the damagingpotential of a stupid person. But one still has toexplain and understand what essentially it is thatmakes a stupid person dangerous to other people-

in other words what constitutes the power ofstupidity.

Essentially stupid people are dangerous anddamaging because reasonable people find it dif-ficult to imagine and understand unreasonablebehaviour. An intelligent person may understandthe logic of a bandit. The bandit's actions fol-low a pattern of rationality: nasty rationality, ifyou like, but still rationality. The bandit wantsa plus on his account. Since he is not intelligentenough to devise ways of obtaining the plus aswell as providing you with a plus, he will producehis plus bv causing a minus to appear on youraccount. All this is bad, but it is rational andif you are rational you can predict it. You canforesee a bandit's actions, his nasty manoeuvresand ugly aspirations and often can build up yourdefences.

51

With a stupid person all this is absolutelyimpossible as explained by the Third Basic Law.A stupid creature will harass you for no reason,for no advantage, without any plan or schemeand at the most improbable times and places.You have no rational way of telling if and whenand how and whv the stupid creature attacks.'When confronted with a stupid individual youare completely at his mercy.

Because the stupid person's actions do not con-form to the rules of rationalit.v, it follows that:

a) one is generally caught bv surprise by theattack;

&,) even when one becomes aware of the attack,one cannot organize a rational defence, becausethe attack itself lacks any rational structure.

The fact that the activity and movements of astupid creature are absolutely erratic and irrationalnot only makes defence problematic but it alsomakes any counterattack extremely difficult

-

liketrying to shoot at an object which is capable of themost improbable and unimaginable movements.This is what both Dickens and Schiller had inmind when the former stated that

rfhat helpless people" namely those who in ourI accounting system fall into the H area, do not

normallv recognize how dangerous stupid peopleare, is not at all surprising. Their failure is justanother expression of their helplessness. The trulyamazing fact, however, is that also intelligent peo-ple and bandits often fail to recognize the powerto damage inherent in stupidity. It is extremelydifficult to explain wh,v this should happen andone can only remark that when confronted withstupid individuals often intelligent men as well asbandits make the mistake of indulging in feelingsof self-complacency and contemptuousness insteadof imrnediately secreting adequate quantities ofadrenalin and building up defences.

One is tempted to believe that a stupid manwill only do harm to himself but this is confusingstupiditv with helplessness. On occasion one istempted to associate oneself with a stupid indi-vidual in order to use him for one's own schemes.Such a manoeuvre cannot but have disastrouseffects because o) it is based on a complete mis-understanding of the essential nature of stupidity

55

and b) it gives the stupid person added scope forthe exercise of his gifts. One may hope to out-manoeuvre the stupid and up to a point one mayactuallv do so. But because of the erratic behaviourof the stupid, one cannot foresee all the stupid'sactions and reactions and before long one willbe pulverized bv the unpredictable moves of thestupid partner.

This is clearly summarized in the Fourth BasicLaw which states that:

uNon-stupid people alwaYs underesti-mate the damaging power of stupid indi-viduals. In particular non-stupid peopleconstantly forget that at all times and placesand under any circumstances to deal and/orassociate with stupid people infallibly turnsout to be a costly mistaker.

Through centuries and millennia, in public asin private life, countless individuals have failedto take account of the Fourth Basic Law and thefailure has caused mankind incalculable losses.

Chapter IX

Macro Analysisand the Fifth Basic Law

56

rflh" consideration on which the previous chapterI ends is conducive to a macro-type of analysis

in which instead of considering the welfare of theindividual one considers the welfare of the society,regarded in this context as the algebric sum of theindividual conditions. A full understanding of theFifth Basic Law is essential to the analvsis. It mavbe parenthetically added here that of the FiveBasic Laws, the Fifth is certainly the best knownand its corollarv is quoted very frequently. TheFifth Basic l,aw states that

uA stupid person is the most dangeroustype of person>.

The corollary of the Law is that

uA stupid person is more dangerousthan a bandit,.

The formulation of the Law and its corollaryis still of the micro-type. As indicated above, how-

ever, the Law and its corollarv have far reachingimplications of a macro-nature.

The essential point to keep in mind is this:the result of the action of a perfect bandit (theperson who falls on line OM of figure 2) is purelvand simply a transfer of wealth and/or welfare.After the action of a perfect bandit, the bandithas a plus on his account which plus is exactlyequivalent to the minus he has caused to an-other person. The society as a whole is neitherbetter nor worse off. If all members of a societywere perfect bandits the society would remainstagnant but there would be no major disaster.The whole business would amount to massivetransfers of wealth and welfare in favour of thosewho would take action. If all members of thesociety would take action in regular turns, notonly the society as a whole but also individualswould find themselves in a perfectly steady stateof no change.

When stupid people are at work, the storyis totallv different. Stupid people cause lossesto other people with no counterpart of gains ontheir own account. Thus the society as a whole isimpoverished.

The system of accounting which finds expres-sion in the basic graphs shows that while all ac-tions of individuals falling to the right of the linePOM (see fiS. 3) add to the welfare of a society,although in different degrees, the actions of allindividuals falling to the left of the same line POMcause a deterioration.

l-rc.3.

In other words the helpless with overtonesof intelligence (area FIr), the bandits with over-tones of intelligence (area 87) and above allthe intelligent (area 1) all contribute, thoughin different degrees, to accrue to the welfare ofa society. On the other hand the bandits withovertones of stupiditv (area Br) and the helplesswith overtones of stupidity (area 11.) manage toadd losses to those caused by stupid people thus

60 61

enhancing the nefarious destructive power of thelatter group.

All this suggests some reflection on the per-formance of societies. According to the Second Ba-sic Law" the fraction of stupid people is a constanto which is not affected bv time. spacel race, classor anv other socio-cultural or historical variable.It would be a profound mistake to believe thenumber of stupid people in a declining societv isgreater than in a developing society. Both suchsocieties are plagued bv the same percentage ofstupid people. The difference between the twosocieties is that in the societv which performspoorlv:

a) the stupid members of the societv are allowedby the other members to become more active andtake more actions;

b) there is a change in the composition of thenon-stupid section with a relative decline of popu-lations of areas I. H, and B, and a proportionateincrease of populations of area 11. and B.t.

This theoretical presumption is abundantlyconfirmed by an exhaustive analvsis of historicalcases. In fact the historical analysis allows us toreformulate the theoretical conclusions in a morefactual wav and with more realistic detail.

Whether one considers classical" or medieval,or modern or contemporary times one is impressedby the fact that any countrv moving uphill has itsunavoidable o fraction of stupid people. Howeverthe countrv moving uphill also has an unusuallYhigh fraction of intelligent people who manage to

keep the o fraction at bay and at the same timeproduce enough gains for themselves and the othermembers of the community to make progress acertaintv.

In a countrv which is moving downhill. thefraction of stupid people is still equal to o: howeverin the remaining population one notices amongthose in power an alarming proliferation of thebandits with overtones of stupiditv (sub area 8.,of quadrant B in figure 3) and among those not inpower an equally alarming growth in the number ofhelpless individuals (area 11in basic graph, fig. 1).Such change in the composition of the non-stupidpopulation inevitably strengthens the destructivepower of the o fraction and makes decline a cer-tainty. And the countrv goes to Hell.

62 63

Appendix

Jn the following pages the reader will find aInumber of basic graphs which he can use torecord the actions of individuals or groups withwhom he is currentlv dealing. This will enable thereader to produce useful evaluations of the indi-viduals or groups under scrutiny and u'ill allor-him to take a rational course of action.

67

I,iAMESv-

1= (The reader)

NAMESv-

1= (The reader)

696B