Coming off another banner year of monumental misdoings by public figures and the high-powered (think of the Enron and WorldCom executives, Martha Stewart, Trent Lott, Winona Ryder or Michael Jackson and the dangling baby), we all wonder: "What the heck were they thinking?"
 |
 |
|
(Daniel Marsula, Post-Gazette) |
It turns out there is a significant body of research seeking the answer to that very question. Some of the sharpest minds in academia have undertaken the study of stupidity, and their work has been collected in the recently published "Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid" (Yale University Press), edited by Robert J. Sternberg, director of Yale University's Center for the Psychology of Abilities, Competencies, and Expertise.
Sternberg, an expert in intelligence testing, contends that, contrary to public belief, stupidness is not the opposite of smartness. He points out that many of the singularly idiotic acts that come to public attention are the work of people who are, in fact, highly intelligent. He argues instead that stupidity is more properly viewed as the opposite of wisdom -- which he sees as the ability to apply knowledge to achieve a common good. His "imbalance theory of foolishness" suggests that there are aspects of life as a smart person that actually foster stupidity. Which is to say, it sometimes takes a really smart person to do something truly stupid.
Sternberg recently took the time to answer some stupid questions.
Q. We were surprised to learn that there is so much serious research being done on the subject. What attracted you to the study of stupidity?
A. The roots of the book were in my wondering about what's up with people who have very high intelligence in the traditional sense, but seem to be out to lunch in another sense. How did Richard Nixon ever get involved in Watergate and the subsequent coverup? What was Bill Clinton thinking when he kept repeating the same mistakes in his personal life? More recently, how did the intelligent people who ran Enron think they would get away with a shell game? And the truth is, none of us is immune.
Q. Did any kind of unified theory of stupidity emerge from the research?
A. I believe there are four main tendencies that lead us into this predicament:
The egocentrism fallacy: We foolishly come to believe that because we are so smart, the world does and should revolve around us.
The omniscience fallacy: We foolishly come to believe that part of the reason the world revolves around us is that we know much more than we do, or even all we need to know.
The omnipotence fallacy: We foolishly believe this knowledge makes us omnipotent. We can do whatever we want and get away with it.
The invulnerability fallacy: Then we foolishly believe we can get away with it because our intelligence makes us invulnerable to attack or even perhaps to criticism.
Q. Who is most likely to fall victim to these beliefs?
A. I believe that, oddly enough, the people most likely to succumb to the four fallacies are those who are very smart and those who are very stupid. The first group gets suckered out because they are so smart. The second group gets suckered out because they lack the cognitive capacity to realize how foolish these fallacies are.
Q. Is there a difference between stupidity, foolishness, dumbness and, say, plain boneheadedness?
A. Well, the book is really about foolishness, which is the opposite of wisdom. There are many smart people who are unwise. The book is not about stupidity in the classical sense, which is usually thought of as a very low IQ. The problem is that smart people often do not realize how susceptible they are to being foolish.
Q. So we can't really be reliable judges of our own stupidity?
A. Unfortunately, no. It usually takes others to point it out to us. Or, looking back, we often marvel at how we could have been oblivious to our stupidity. But the problem is that smart people often use their intelligence to find ways to immunize themselves or isolate themselves from feedback.
Q. Are there recognizable warning signs that stupidity is about to occur?
A. Absolutely. When we start to think the world revolves around us; that we know more than everyone else and that others are just big idiots; that we can do what we want and get away with it; and that we can do so because we are so smart that we can cover our tracks.
Q. What is meant by the statement, "The best way to avoid stupidity is not to be afraid of looking stupid"?
A. People often fail to learn because they do not want to look stupid. As a result, they make or repeat mistakes they could have avoided. Also, sometimes when they make mistakes, people try to cover them up so as not to appear to have been stupid and then look even stupider when the coverup comes to light. That, of course, is what happened to Nixon and Clinton, and to many, many others.
Q. Of course, some would suggest that certain stupid behaviors are categorizable as something else. Some would say philandering or shoplifting, for example, are products of something other than stupidity.
A. I think it is a combination of the fallacies I mentioned: Egocentrism, omniscience, omnipotence and invulnerability. Many smart people are philanderers. The foolish part is in the belief that one need only consider one's own feelings about the matter and not the feelings of others, especially the partner (egocentrism); that it is not OK for others but that one knows all about these things so it is all right for oneself (omniscience); that one can basically do whatever one wants because of who one is (omnipotence); and that, unlike others suckers, one never will get caught (invulnerability).
Everyone has weaknesses. The issue in terms of the book is what they do about these weaknesses -- whether they find ways to make up for them or whether they allow them to destroy their lives.
Q. What's the stupidest thing you've ever done?
A. If I were to answer that question, that would be the stupidest thing I ever did.
E-mail this story 
