Yesterday, I saw a very familiar conflict in my social media feed. It was so familiar, I can’t remember which of my “friends” were angry. I cannot recall their topic of debate. Something like climate change or economic downturn or war; one of those things by which our fate as a species will be decided. The point is, they disagreed. Then one of them told the other that they couldn’t spell and was, therefore, stupid. The other responded that there were more urgent mistakes to consider than spelling at a critical juncture like this one, as all people who were not stupid knew.
I am certain if I had bothered to read the entire thing, I would have found more to agree with in one apocalyptic view than the other. But I have less time these days for conflicts I have not provoked myself. Actually, I’ve now lost interest in these. The result of such “debate”, whether it is of the “respectful” kind we find in news or of the “go die in a fire” internet variety, is never persuasion. The result is that everyone gets called stupid.
I never supposed I would tire of calling people stupid. Before the internet, shaming individuals for their poverty of thought was my hobby. But when everyone got on board and there were even few writers to resist claiming a monopoly on intelligence for their class, I dumped it. Even in our oldest publications, one lot routinely calls the other “stupid politically correct virtue signallers” and the other hits back with “stupid politically incorrect opportunists”. Both arguments are somewhat correct; both are monumentally empty.
I believe it was the week journalists were arguing if a rotten newspaper had the “right” to name a mare Sportswoman of the Year that I happened to speak with colleague Bernard Keane. We agreed that calling those who did nothing but call each other stupid was stupid. We decided to think about the mare “debate” and other such stupid moments seriously.
We wrote a book about a phenomenon we agreed to call “Stupid”. Oddly, it sold rather well and so we, being self-important people, became immediately convinced that all those who had bought the thing had also read it. Soon, we came to know that many had skipped the bits that defined Stupid, which was really the entire book. We knew this, because people kept saying to us, “You’re right. People sure are dumb.”
This was not what we had meant or written at all. Keane and I are friends who disagree about many things, but on Stupid we were united. Our claim was that Stupid was not the work of individuals. Stupid described a mass process. Stupid was a widespread thing, like climate change denial or racism or media reports that began, “Statistics prove …” when statistics had, in fact, simply employed a cheap communications officer to talk up a single data set.
Stupid was a practice likely to create a poor result. Certainly, you could think of Stupid as mass stupidity or delusion, but our claim was that Stupid had to be (a) legitimised by powerful institutions, including “common sense” (b) produced by multiple forces.
It is not, say, the simple stupidity of psychiatrists that produced an influential book now capable of diagnosing every person on the planet with a mood disorder. It was a whole lot of stuff. Stupid, we said, was complicated. It wasn’t just dumb stuff people did. It had come to exist beyond them.
We didn’t write our Stupid account to make a case that the racist should be understood, the anti-vaxxer tolerated outside Mullumbimby. We had no interest in letting practitioners of Stupid off the hook. Still, even Keane, a bloke who loves to take the piss out of conspiracy theorists, seems almost sentimental when he writes that it is hard “to argue that governments are not conspiring against their own citizens when, in fact, that’s exactly what they’re doing”. He’s prepared to give even 9/11 truthers a bit of social context.
This was a side-effect, though. We were not interested in being lenient. We were eager only to make the case that Stupid is more powerful and persuasive than most of the people it afflicts. Often, people are not stupid, but coerced by the force of mass Stupid into particular actions and thought.
I know I am. My individual faculty for reason is felled by mass Stupid. I get angry at slow-moving cars, then fail to write strong words to the Minister for Slow-moving Cars. I get angry at angry people on Facebook, then fail to campaign for Mark Zuckerberg’s incarceration. I get angry that people didn’t read all the chapters in our book. Then fail to acknowledge that they were just too knackered from all the powerful Stupid.
We are supposed to be at the apex of the animal kingdom because of our capacity for reasoned deductive thought. Being able to source information is an easy thing these days and does not represent intelligence; failure to use it wisely and deductively is the real basis of stupid.
Despite contradictory facts, parroting doctrine, or embracing anti science mumbo jumbo is stupid. MM seem to feel obliged to publish this stuff, or are perhaps just too lazy, or stupid? to check its authenticity.
But hard boiled rightie commentators being enamoured with a bit of non recyclable plastic like Milos – well then we are allowed to find stupid really funny, aren’t we?
Oh, have a giggle by all means. I do, although mostly in private. (The right grows strong to the sound of its derision, it seems.)
Just wanted to make the point that Stupid is very seductive.
It’s true that there is an awful lot of stuff published, and it can sometimes give the appearance of information, perhaps even facts. Most of it is just noise, though. I think that a significant problem for our state of public discourse is that quite a lot of the really important information is not actually published at all. Much government policy is based on “commercial in confidence” information. Economic decisions are based on the machinations of opaque, privately-held “models” that we don’t get to understand or interrogate. Trade deals are debated in secret. Most of the pronouncements of the talking heads in the media and the blog-sphere don’t actually mean anything at the best of times, but they mean even less when it isn’t actually possible or practical for interested individuals to find out what’s going on. Michael West has been paid by some agitators to do some really hard work to dig up information from corporate reports that cost money to acquire: that’s good stuff, but something that the usual news media is doing less and less of, as their staff and budgets are cut.
In the absence of the important details, is it any wonder that all of the angry people just flail around, latching onto supposition and hearsay, dogma and cant?
Andrew. I read this phrase recently that you may like. “Policy-based evidence.” Good, no?
Very neat! Thanks.
I haven’t read the book (silly me) but “…all the powerful Stupid”, a Nietzsche back sault, in half pike?
Could you write a sequel – WHAT IS NOT STUPID- activities like thinking, instead of ticking boxes on sheets of paper – and pretending that is important for society.
Bernard is right – the dumbing down of the population by governmental agencies is the aim of governments
DG. I *may* have told you this before, as I seem to recall that you are quite fascinated by the number of apparently useless jobs there are in bureaucracies/companies. Apologies if I have that wrong.
Anyhow. Look up David Graeber on YouTube and also search bulls*** jobs. (The actual term. Not with the asterisks.) You may like it. Even if I am mistaking your impatience with form-filling for someone else’s!
Anyhow. Graeber gives a great account of Stupid in the workplace.
I read Graeber when he first published- but I think you would write a great book as the sequel.
But some titbits I have picked up recently. A senior doctor practicing solo for 40 years [unlikely to expand his pratice] was marked down in re-accreditation because he didn’t have a documented induction policy for new doctors. Detectives and police scientific officers have to sign a contract that they will fully co-operate when investigating a crime [e.g. murder]- etc
Does anyone else know of further examples why Australia is actually going backwards in productivity?
Well. I’d say capitalism is bound to produce more inefficiency and less innovation over time. But, I would. As I have a Marx habit.
(You already know that Graeber agrees with this.)
The Stupid is systemic.
Is that a Groucho Marx ?
Mass stupid is particularly exasperating when it would only take a little thought to reverse the judgements concerned.
This is true, R. But it requires everyone to think the same small thought at once.
I find it hard to imagine a mass achieving a collective think, even a little think. In that a mass opinion spreads from a small number of opinion leaders, a small change in thinking is surely possible. Opinion leaders can be pretty stupid, such as the rockstars who pronounce judgement on things they do not understand to wilfully stupid audiences. It is rather a question of which opinion formers – thinkers – that the opinion leaders learn their lines from.
I would be right behind any campaign to incarcerate Mark Zuckerberg 🙂
For crimes against content!
FarceBuch has content? Who knew?