[PLEASUREMAN]

When a journalist reports that the procurement process for a military branch is so burdened with regulation and process that the net expense of a hammer is $500, counting all the bureaucrats, paperwork, and man hours devoted to fulfilling the request, the story that finds its way to the general public is "government buys a hammer for $500 (the fools!)". This is not entirely or even mainly the journalist's fault, although his editorial and cartoonist colleagues usually work hard to assist the stultification of his original story. The truth is that we enjoy reading stories about the stupidity and corruption of our fellow man, stories which bring to life old prejudices and stimulate knee jerk reactions. We enjoy reading such stories even when they are entirely improbable, even when they are discreditable to the man who believes them.

(In our example the journalist may still be partly to blame--if he does not provide context by citing standards for organizational expenses or how the red tape might have some other objective, such as ensuring that budgetary funds are not embezzled or otherwise misspent. Failing such context, he may be the facilitator of the crowd's stupid idea about military procurement.)

Such is our world that, no matter how complicated it becomes, we insist on hewing to very simple ideas about its operation. A famous 9/11 conspiracy claim (and here we venture not just to the stupidity but to the imbecility of crowds) is that the "hole" made in the Pentagon by the Flight 77 crash was not as wide as the plane itself, a claim which continues despite earnest attempts to explain that when objects collide with a large structure such as a building, they do not create perfect outlines of themselves as in Road Runner cartoons (airplane wings are of course not designed to maintain form in the event of such impact, and were sheered off).

Similarly, JFK conspiracy buffs often speak of a "pristine" bullet which retained unblemished form despite being shot by Oswald through two people. In fact the bullet in question isn't pristine at all, and is deformed consistent with being fired from a rifle and striking a human target. The idea apparently was that the conspiracy was guided by people so idiotic that they actually tossed an unfired bullet into evidence without expecting its perfect appearance to draw attention (perhaps they had never seen a fired bullet casing before). This manner of "thinking" fits with the pattern of the stupidity of crowds as it involves believing a very stupid thing that purports to demonstrate the stupidity of other people. Notice also that even were the claim of a pristine bullet true, a simpler explanation--that in the chaotic aftermath of the shooting, someone mistakenly concluded that an unfired bullet found somewhere had been shot from Oswald's rifle, or that someone else had mislabeled or misplaced physical evidence--is never considered; only the dumbest possible explanation (a conspiracy of morons) will do.

Although conspiracy theorists do much pioneering work in the creation of stupid beliefs because their ideology compells them to fit facts to a theory, political views are naturally a source of much crowd stupidity. "Birthers" believe that Barack Obama was not born in America, based on some confusion regarding his Hawiian birth certificate (there is an arcane question having to do with whether Obama would be a naturalized citizen if he was born before his mother turned 19, as in fact he was). Here the stupidity is perhaps born of desperation, although one must add that it is hardly much more stupid than believing that a novice Senator with no practical executive experience, amorphous political views, uncertain intellectual sobriety, whose personality was shaped by an alcoholic absentee father and an irresponsible mother, would make an ideal "symbolically black" president.

Similarly, when a sociologist claims that women make 75% as much as men doing the same work, this becomes in the minds of the crowd a claim that women are actually paid 75% of whatever wage is offered to men (on average). The truth is that compensation varies greatly with marital status, nature of employment, skill level, and other factors, and that all of the major differences are seen in higher level occupations where salary is volatile and more influenced by the employee's aggressiveness in seeking higher compensation. The 75% figure is a crude, averaged estimation which does not respresent the far more complicated and varied truth. It is really only good at making the person who utters it sound stupid.

After awhile, one begins to develop an instinct for the widely held stupid belief. There is a pattern. There is first a surface plausibility to the claim, such as that bureaucracies produce waste and inefficiency. There is also deficient understanding of the setting--most people don't have direct experience with a government procurement process, and therefore lack the ability to contextualize the claim. And usually there is something in the claim that is simple to conceptualize, especially for people with limited imaginations--a confusing procurement form, for example, where someone has entered $500 for unit cost. Perhaps there is even an opportunity to imagine mischief--a backroom deal between some politician and a supplier, for example.

But the most important ingredient is the second one--simple ignorance of how the world works outside one's range of experience. The real hammer was $435, and the story of how it came to be has to do with a procurement formula that few people know about and which renders the actual price of the hammer meaningless (line items expenses are averaged from a much larger contract). There was no $500 hammer. Given the finite (if still generous) budgets that any agency has to work with, spending $500 on a hammer would be mindless, and GSA schedules would never allow it.

It's perhaps more evidence that our world has become too complex for us to navigate well. Our biologically-formed judgement is designed for a much lower order of complexity, and tends to misfire in interesting ways when it is applied to the complexity of modern society. The problem is that it's not clear how we reduce complexity; the process is accretive--every addition is sound and purposeful. But life is now seriously out of scale. The stupidity of crowds, with their death panels, hammers, birth certificates, thermite demolitions, is a fact of our dysfunctional everyday life.

[rho]

Rush Limbaugh and his listeners hate your post.

[PLEASUREMAN]

rho, 06 January 2010 - 04:56 PM:

Rush Limbaugh and his listeners hate your post.

I remember listening to Limbaugh for a short time, around the 92 election I think, long before he became the poster boy for Oxycontin. He was funny but always seemed a little too sweaty and stood apart from conservatism in general (such as it was) like someone who was more interested in developing a cult of personality. He did warn people about Perot I think before the little Texan melted down, maybe cult leaders know each other. I recall his success helped the American Spectator, which advertised on his show, and then they all went a little bit crazy about Bill Clinton. Conservatism's decline accelerated.

Does he talk about the wisdom of crowds nowadays or what?

[little felipe]

Tom Fleming (of Chronicles mag) recently made an observation that moderns always think they need/have a right to an opinion on every subject, when the fact is even an intelligent man can only be informed on a small part of the world, at best. Not suprisingly, this was hotly contested by almost everyone he presented the idea to.

The older I get, the less need I feel to 'have a position' on these faraway going on, like freedom in Tibet, etc.

[PRCalDude]

little felipe, 06 January 2010 - 04:50 PM:

Tom Fleming (of Chronicles mag) recently made an observation that moderns always think they need/have a right to an opinion on every subject, when the fact is even an intelligent man can only be informed on a small part of the world, at best. Not suprisingly, this was hotly contested by almost everyone he presented the idea to.

The older I get, the less need I feel to 'have a position' on these faraway going on, like freedom in Tibet, etc.

Good point.

Really, if we understood the issues out there, how could we affect them in any way. I think I understand a little about Darfur, for instance, but I'm not about to start raising cash or slinging a rifle to go help the non-Muslims there. Even if I wanted to, I don't have the power to change things one iota.

[isamu]

PLEASUREMAN, 06 January 2010 - 02:09 PM:

Similarly, when a sociologist claims that women make 75% as much as men doing the same work, this becomes in the minds of the crowd a claim that women are actually paid 75% of whatever wage is offered to men (on average). The truth is that compensation varies greatly with marital status, nature of employment, skill level, and other factors, and that all of the major differences are seen in higher level occupations where salary is volatile and more influenced by the employee's aggressiveness in seeking higher compensation. The 75% figure is a crude, averaged estimation which does not respresent the far more complicated and varied truth. It is really only good at making the person who utters it sound stupid.

Are you saying you're smarter than the authors of the Nation Assessment of Educational Progress 12th grade Civics exam?

Sample Question

This post has been edited by isamu: 07 January 2010 - 09:29 AM

[BushrodButtram]

Ugh, answer #2: 'descriminated.' #3: 'dicriminated.' #4: 'inflation explains why the gap in wages is growing exponentially.'

[isamu]

BushrodButtram, 07 January 2010 - 10:40 AM:

#4: 'inflation explains why the gap in wages is growing exponentially.'

That is a mathematically correct but trivial observation.

The most correct answer of the lot was "men work harder" which was, per the grader, "not true" end of topic. Of course, the idea of wage discrimination in a capitalist society is on its face absurd.

This post has been edited by isamu: 07 January 2010 - 11:06 AM

[BushrodButtram]

I don't think it is correct. 'Exponential' means that the rate of growth is proportional to the current value of the function; here, the growth is linear, ie, proportional to the rate of inflation.

Where M₁ is avg male salary at time 1, M₂ is avg male salary at later time 2, F₁ and F₂ likewise:

Gap at time n = M_n - F_n

Change in gap from time 1 to time 2 = (M₂ - F₂) - (M₁ - F₁) = gap at time 1 * rate of inflation

Ie, if avg male salary in 1980 is $40k and avg female salary is $29k, given net salary inflation of 32% over 20 years (first hit,) avg male salary should be $53k in 2000 and avg female salary $38k. The 2000 gap size of ~15k is predicted by the inflation multiplier times the ~11k 1980 gap.

This post has been edited by BushrodButtram: 07 January 2010 - 11:51 AM

[isamu]

BushrodButtram, 07 January 2010 - 11:49 AM:

I don't think it is correct. 'Exponential' means that the rate of growth is proportional to the current value of the function; here, the growth is linear, ie, proportional to the rate of inflation.

Where M₁ is avg male salary at time 1, M₂ is avg male salary at later time 2, F₁ and F₂ likewise:

Gap at time n = M_n - F_n

Change in gap from time 1 to time 2 = (M₂ - F₂) - (M₁ - F₁) = gap at time 1 * rate of inflation

Ie, if avg male salary in 1980 is $40k and avg female salary is $29k, given net salary inflation of 32% over 20 years (first hit,) avg male salary should be $53k in 2000 and avg female salary $38k. The 2000 gap size of ~15k is predicted by the inflation multiplier times the ~11k 1980 gap.

Uhh, that is exponential growth.

Protip: assume 32%/20 years, plot graph over 200 years.

[BushrodButtram]

HAHAHA, DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS

you're right, of course

isamu, 07 January 2010 - 12:18 PM:

BushrodButtram, 07 January 2010 - 11:49 AM:

I don't think it is correct. 'Exponential' means that the rate of growth is proportional to the current value of the function; here, the growth is linear, ie, proportional to the rate of inflation.

Where M₁ is avg male salary at time 1, M₂ is avg male salary at later time 2, F₁ and F₂ likewise:

Gap at time n = M_n - F_n

Change in gap from time 1 to time 2 = (M₂ - F₂) - (M₁ - F₁) = gap at time 1 * rate of inflation

Ie, if avg male salary in 1980 is $40k and avg female salary is $29k, given net salary inflation of 32% over 20 years (first hit,) avg male salary should be $53k in 2000 and avg female salary $38k. The 2000 gap size of ~15k is predicted by the inflation multiplier times the ~11k 1980 gap.

Uhh, that is exponential growth.

Protip: assume 32%/20 years, plot graph over 200 years.

[PLEASUREMAN]

lol "men work harder"

NOT TRUE YOU OBJECTIVELY EVIL LOVING BIGOT, TEST STATUS CANCELLED

except everywhere I've been (where the work tasks are nontrivial) men are more aggressive and drive the business forward and make huge time commitments while women obsess over process and cliques and demand six month maternity leave and cut out at 4:55 for soccer practice

I'll give them that manchildren in the workforce veer towards the same level of uselessness and dysfunction as women

women should go back to being Joans, it's what they're truly good at

[rho]

PLEASUREMAN, 06 January 2010 - 05:23 PM:

Does he talk about the wisdom of crowds nowadays or what?

Nah, it's just he thrives on the soft-serve intellectualism of crowdthink.

You can often hear him contradict himself in a single sentence.

[BushrodButtram]

Law review was about 80% male at my school. You got on partly by grades, partly by score in a blind-graded writing competition.

Draw your own conclusions.

[HopeAndChange44]

PLEASUREMAN, 06 January 2010 - 03:09 PM:

It's perhaps more evidence that our world has become too complex for us to navigate well. Our biologically-formed judgement is designed for a much lower order of complexity, and tends to misfire in interesting ways when it is applied to the complexity of modern society. The problem is that it's not clear how we reduce complexity; the process is accretive--every addition is sound and purposeful. But life is now seriously out of scale. The stupidity of crowds, with their death panels, hammers, birth certificates, thermite demolitions, is a fact of our dysfunctional everyday life.

I generally find this to be the root cause of all dysfunction and unhappiness. And I think that widespread acknowledgement of this would be a good first step towards solving some of our more intractable problems. The question, of course, is whether we are smart enough to realize how hopelessly stupid we all are.

The link to the NAEP test question is truly frightening.

[PLEASUREMAN]

rho, 07 January 2010 - 03:42 PM:

PLEASUREMAN, 06 January 2010 - 05:23 PM:

Does he talk about the wisdom of crowds nowadays or what?

Nah, it's just he thrives on the soft-serve intellectualism of crowdthink.

You can often hear him contradict himself in a single sentence.

The thing about Limbaugh is that he's always seemed to promote a standard that he's completely failed to meet. He thinks because he skimmed The Federalist Papers late in life that he's got the standing to bloviate on American politics and society. But look at what a failure he is as a human being. Fat, drug addict, multiple divorces, unserious philosophy, typical entertainer. He'd fit right in at a Hollywood 12 step meeting. This is really true of most conservative and liberal pundits I suspect. They're non-serious and their lives are fucked up. Regular guys like Steve Sailer eke out an existence on the margins and these people run our discourse while their lives are in slo-mo self-destruct. That's modern life for you.

[PRCalDude]

PLEASUREMAN, 07 January 2010 - 08:04 PM:

rho, 07 January 2010 - 03:42 PM:

PLEASUREMAN, 06 January 2010 - 05:23 PM:

Does he talk about the wisdom of crowds nowadays or what?

Nah, it's just he thrives on the soft-serve intellectualism of crowdthink.

You can often hear him contradict himself in a single sentence.

The thing about Limbaugh is that he's always seemed to promote a standard that he's completely failed to meet. He thinks because he skimmed The Federalist Papers late in life that he's got the standing to bloviate on American politics and society. But look at what a failure he is as a human being. Fat, drug addict, multiple divorces, unserious philosophy, typical entertainer. He'd fit right in at a Hollywood 12 step meeting. This is really true of most conservative and liberal pundits I suspect. They're non-serious and their lives are fucked up. Regular guys like Steve Sailer eke out an existence on the margins and these people run our discourse while their lives are in slo-mo self-destruct. That's modern life for you.

The thing with Limbaugh and his ilk is that they are rich. Limbaugh can afford to be a fat, drug addicted divorcee slob because he's got a lot of money. He's made his money by bamboozling red state lower middle class white Americans into giving it to him.

My father-in-law is rich and most of the kids at his son's high school are drug addicts of the liberal Jewish stripe. Most of the kids also have medical marijuana cards and plenty of access to prescription narcotics. The parents are all divorced or divorcing.

Divorce clobbers most middle class and lower class people financially. As do drugs. But rich people can get away with it because they're smart enough to make themselves more money; or at least good enough at making money to make themselves more money.

One of the memes you read in the comments at paleo blogs like Sailer's is that the rich have simply given up on any and all forms of respectability and morality these days. They're tired of being standard bearers, or something.

[PLEASUREMAN]

I was talking to my wife today about how within one or two generations, we went from a society of stable families with male breadwinners to a fucking mess, millions of products of divorce, a crackpot theory that a bitter single mother or a couple of gay guys can form the ideal family TOO, people openly living a maxed-out lifestyle, and kids being raised by whiny manchildren (unlike both our fathers who never complained about anything up to and including serious disease or injury).

In short, no matter what you do to be a good parent, or how much you try to "improve" schools, anyone raising a child is starting the game with two strikes because half or more of the child's peers are going to be totally fucked themselves due to their disastrous parents and a neverland culture. The problem feeds itself. Even growing up in the 80s seems like a Leave It To Beaver episode compared to today, with nine year olds wearing shorts that read "juicy", a submental negro-latino shaped prole culture, sex pretty much everywhere and totally undisguised, and a massively irresponsible white overclass that wants to import more help and menial labor for them to manage (parasites) and which profits from a paycheck cashing economy (we used to have an industrial-based economy, then service-based, now we're openly borrowing-based).

There's that line in Mad Men where Betty's daughter asks her why they don't go to church, and Betty's response is a curt "Because we don't have to." It's pretty much a straight line from there to today.

edit: the rich kids with medical marijuana cards is still mind-blowing...also those families get divorced because they were never families to begin with, just associations for the advancement of MY LIFE PRIORITIES

[Nippon Nigger]

PLEASUREMAN, 08 January 2010 - 01:47 AM:

me and my barren ann coulter-looking wife are nasty old prunes

[PLEASUREMAN]

Nippon Nigger, 08 January 2010 - 10:25 AM:

PLEASUREMAN, 08 January 2010 - 01:47 AM:

me and my barren ann coulter-looking wife are nasty old prunes

uh oh what did I say now