Stupidity is Sometimes Simply Malice

 

The other day I was reading an interesting essay on the subject of whether what appears to be stupidity is, in actuality, malice disguised.

Here's a few quotes from the essay to get us started:

"The word “stupidity” is often understood to describe substantial limitations in the ability to think or reason. However, [those accused] of stupidity do not necessarily suffer from a lack of reasoning skills. On the contrary, this particular type of stupidity often requires sophisticated cognition. The “stupid” debater must recognize the need for a particular argument; formulate that argument in such a way that an interlocutor can understand it; and ascertain that the argument will, at the very least, appear to be compelling . . .

"The normative model of human rationality is that we use our reasoning skills to evaluate information and improve the accuracy of our beliefs. A lot of evidence now indicates that our fast and automatic lower-level perceptual systems—for instance, the ability to recognize objects even when they are partially occluded, or our ability to recognize words from speech sounds—do indeed work in this way. But our higher-level cognition—our slow, conscious, step-by-step reasoning, sometimes called “System II Cognition”—does not operate like that at all.

"The cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber have persuasively argued that humans do not reason to improve their beliefs and decisions, but to “devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade.” In other words, we reason to convince others of our beliefs, or to protect those beliefs from challenge and refutation. If this is true (and I believe it is), then most of our core beliefs originate not from a rational analysis of available facts, but from our social environment—parents, teachers, and most importantly, peers. Once we have adopted our core beliefs, we use our reasoning skills to defend them against incoming fire . . .

"But if a person has the cognitive skills to perform high-level reasoning, why do they make use of stupid arguments at all? We seem to have effected a reversal of Hanlon’s Razor: whatever we can’t attribute to stupidity, we must attribute to malice. Bonhoeffer also points to the moral dimension of stupidity: “If we want to know how to get the better of stupidity, we must seek to understand its nature. This much is certain, that it is in essence not an intellectual defect but a defect in humanity.” Nevertheless, he distinguishes it from malice. Bonhoeffer lived in a time and place infused with unspeakable levels of malice, so one can understand why he didn’t want to use the word lightly.

"It may be useful to distinguish between degrees of malice, analogous to the degrees of murder in US law. First degree indicates premeditation and intent, second degree indicates only intent, and third degree indicates neither premeditation nor intent but involves some degree of culpability. According to this logic, malice in the first degree would be deliberately driving a car into a crowd of people. Malice in the second degree would be impulsively cutting off a cyclist because he impeded us. Malice in the third degree would be texting while driving. Using this categorization system, stupidity would be a type of moral negligence—second- or third-degree malice.

This would not only apply to people using unfair or bad-faith arguments, but also to people who deliberately ignore information that could change their beliefs. The latter may look “dumb,” but the ignorer of information needs to know exactly what information to ignore, when to do so, and how to justify their selective ignorance. The different levels of malice resemble the useful distinction drawn by philosopher Harry Frankfurt between lying and bullshit. Lying involves intentional deception, but the bullshitter doesn’t care whether what he says is true or not, so long as it achieves its primary goal. Similarly, although a person may not be intentionally trying to cause damage by using a stupid argument, they don’t care if they do, so long as it maintains their cherished belief and prevents a loss of face."

This line of argument was very interesting to me. I had always agreed with Sheri Dew's quip that, "Sin makes you stupid." Having encountered some of the most stupid arguments ever made in human history regarding how sex is not real and how human beings can change sex--encountering these arguments is an occupational hazard when you are a gender critical feminist--I always figured that the ability to make these arguments with a straight face derived from a belief system warped by sin. That is, the sin simply robbed one of one's ability to think straight.

I think that is still true, but now I realize that conclusion only applies to some. Others who make these arguments know exactly what they are doing. They are not making these arguments because they are stupid and believe them sincerel; they are making these arguments because they are smart and they don't believe their own arguments. They are making these arguments because they want power--power over others, power to control policy and law, power to break boundaries, power to dictate what others must believe, power to "create" reality from whole cloth. They are not stupid--they are malicious.

I was reading in the Book of Mormon this morning, and it's the part where large excerpts from Isaiah are given. I was struck forcefully by this passage in 2 Ne 16: 9-11:

"[God said unto me (Isaiah)] Go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed. But they understood not. And, See ye indeed. But they perceived not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and sut their eyes--lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted and be healed. Then said I: Lord, how long? And he said: Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate."

This doesn't sound like a punishment fit for stupidity; this sounds like a punishment fit for malice. There is a bloody-mindedness to this refusal to see and understand the truth of things. It does feel like open rebellion against reality--and therefore God.

So, yes, while there is sincere stupidity, there also exists what we might call the cupidity of stupidity. Bald-faced nonsense is spouted and defended for the purposes of power and control. Orwell depicted it best in 1984. When you meet these folks--and you will meet these folks--the only possible approach to take is that of Christ before Herod: "Then [Herod] questioned with [Christ] in many words; but he answered him nothing" (Luke 23:9).

In such cases, it is better not to engage. The only thing to do is to state the truth for the sake of those who stand by. As Rosa Luxembourg put it,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be brave; the mists of darkness are very thick now. But there is a Light that stands above it, independent of it, and stronger than it. Reflect that Light.