Back to evolution. Natural selection operates on many different levels. Dawkins would explain that it works at the level of the selfish gene while David Sloan Wilson would argue it operates at the community level. There are those that argue just about everything in between as well. Regardless of its modus operandi, fallacies exist. What does this mean? Nothing's perfect. It means that just because something is detrimental or useless, doesn't mean it automatically gets wiped out of a population. If that were the case, none of us would be here (seriously, think about it).
As a fun and totally objective mental game, why then does stupidity exist? Cipolla writes that "a stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses." What the f%$!? Obviously, they don't then know that they're incurring losses, right? It doesn't come from a place of malevolence, per se. I would argue that what Cipolla is describing is actually what I like to call a "person of ignorance." I'm henceforth going to define ignorance as the mental state when an individual hasn't been given the facts and doesn't know any better (ignorance is bliss, oblivion is bliss, etc.). Stupidity, therefore, requires a certain amount of willfulness. An individual has been given at least some facts or evidence but has chosen to ignore them.
So why DOES stupidity prevail in the modern world? Wouldn't natural selection play at least some role in weeding these dim bulbs out? For sure, if their stupidity caused them to walk into oncoming traffic (pity) or play with crocodiles and stingrays on a daily basis (too soon?). However, the type of stupidity I'm referring to is more broad. At the cultural level, something similar to herd mentality takes over. When large numbers of people band together around a single view or group of ideals, the lowest common denominator rules (remember MATH, guys?).
Why does this LCD phenomenon remain so prevalent (and in my opinion, has skyrocketed in the last generation)? There are two sides to it (that of the stupid people and that of the non-stupid people). If you're a stupid person, it's because you're easily swayed, but you're also probably not reading this (kidding, tons of stupid people read this blog). But really, there is a culture of willful ignorance (I'm going to call it the "celebration of stupidity" --trademarked, don't you dare) that's overwhelming the United States. It's most obvious in the political sphere but as we all know, this eventually and unfortunately extends into a plethora of other aspects. Politicians speak to the lowest common denominator, that's how they get your vote.
"My father mined these coal shafts with his bare hands, one hand tied behind his back even! And we didn't eat on Tuesdays, we were so poor.""Psh, global 'warming'? [malicious/sarcastic finger quotes thrown up] Trust scientists? NOT ME, NOT NOW."
The idea is to not alienate their constituents, right? And don't you feel like part of a club when you're all bashing on those Gore-loving polar bears with their stupid temperature restrictions?
The bigger issue is that this "celebration of stupidity" runs along the same lines as religion. It's a fear of the unknown and worse yet, appearing to not know. So blindly follow the party line because you don't need to learn any new information and it doesn't interfere with the carefully crafted story in whatever holy book you subscribe to.
The other side, from that of the non-stupid people, is perhaps the biggest challenge (and failure) of this conversation. As Cipolla writes, "non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals." What's the danger in letting this culture of ridiculous ideologies prevail? Well, for starters, the planet is being destroyed at a rate we can't even accurately predict (Want more doom and gloom? I can go much further). And with the next generations growing up with this mentality of education being a sin or an embarrassing relic of times past, we're fucked.
One of the interesting terms being thrown around lately is "wisdom of the crowd" where any group making a decision is better than a single expert. The idea is that a group will weed out extreme (crazy) opinions and come to a collective opinion. This is an amazing trend that's grown tremendously with the advent of sites like Wikipedia, Yahoo answers, Digg, etc. BUT WHAT IF the group's opinion isn't actually better than the expert? In this case, what if the conservative masses are out-yelling the number of scientists quietly promoting evolution?
My takeaway? It's much easier to become part of a lowest common denominator group that's intentionally or unintentionally hurting the progression of ideas because it's EASY. Learning and changing your opinions, and growing as a society, take effort. What could be accomplished if the group was used for good? Endless possibilities of rainbows and free health care for all, I imagine. That would be true evolution of culture. As much as we'd like to believe we dictate the rules of nature, even human behavior is often out of our hands. Unfortunately for us non-stupids, evolution works pretty slowly and I don't see the guy who keeps using bad pickup lines at the bar being smited any time soon.
