The Sociology of Stupidity

Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice.

• Letters from prison Dietrich Bonhoeffer (p. 43)¹

Bonhoeffer wrote that passage while sitting in a German prison during WW2. He wrote the selection of letters shortly before he was hung in a concentration camp. At the time he was an anti-Nazi dissident who opposed much of the “stupidity” of the Nazi’s, and the broader German public. Under normal circumstances I would now go ahead and rigorously define stupidity to help make Bonhoeffers belief clear. Unfortunately he never “formally” defines stupidity or malice in his letters. So instead I will give you the same “intuition” I have about what defines stupidity.

Stupidity is in general the strong holding of a belief without any “rational” reason for it. With that a malicious person can appear similar to a stupid person, however the malicious persons intentions are… well malicious. A stupid person is therefore more passive, and misinformed, where a malicious person is actively hateful.

Irrefutably Stupid

So why did Bonhoeffer believe stupidity to be more dangerous than malice? The first reason is apparent in the next few sentences of the letter:

One may protest evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless.

• Letters from prison Dietrich Bonhoeffer (p. 43)¹

So to sketch out the idea in plain terms, actual malice is less of a concern because of it’s counter actability compared to stupidity. Later on Bonhoeffer mentions that the reason for this is that stupidity which has a “self-satisfying” nature. Because stupidity is self-satisfying not only is it resistant to reason, but it often makes the people espousing the stupidity more dangerous and irritable when challenged rationally:

Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed … when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack.

• Letters from prison Dietrich Bonhoeffer (p. 43)¹

To take a historical example from his time a Nazi who maliciously hates the jews is one who just believes them to be the embodiment of evil. There is no one particular reason, but instead just a feeling brought on by socialization, and/or minimal experiences. They may say something to the effect of “I just think they look seedy”, or “they’re just gross”. They actively harm people who are Jewish then simply out of that malicious hatred for them.

A stupid person however has “justifications” for their beliefs. Often even more dangerously they have “justifications” that transcend any rational critique provided, and make arguments against those beliefs “inconsequential [and/or] as incidental”¹. Going back to Nazi Germany, someone may believe the Jews are evil because they control the banks, commit blood libel, murdered Jesus, and as an extension of that are Greedy, sadistic, and by consequence, evil. The people themselves may not actually hate Jews per-se, but instead as a natural consequence of them being evil, they oppose them.

The malicious person in this case is:

1. Not very compelling to others due to a lack of “justification”, making the spread of their hatred more difficult
2. Easier to convince out of their beliefs, since without “justification” there’s not much to really hold onto

Whereas the stupid person you must counteract their “justifications” and rationalizations. The path to convincing them out of their beliefs is a much longer and winding road of deprogramming every false claim they’ve come to accept, and all of the social baggage along with it.

The Origins of Stupidity

To understand where this sort of stupidity comes from lets break this down more abstractly. Take for example the common idea throughout history that there are better and worse races. When taken in malice it would only take the experience of being around other people to assuage (if not outright convince) most people of the beliefs. This is because there is a plain rationality to them. For example:

1. Race A is able to do X thing that race B cannot
2. Therefore Race A is better than race B
3. Therefore Race A deserves more rights than race B

Ignoring whether or not 3 necessarily follows from 2, all it takes is demonstrating that race B can also do the same thing to convince most people out of the belief. This is where the stupidity Bonhoeffer is talking about shows how it is worse. Instead of the relatively simple syllogism we see above, stupidity is constructed such that:

1. Race A is more capable than Race B at X thing
2. This capability is self-evident and clearly defined through anecdote, and social reinforcement
3. Those who are better deserve better treatment (meritocracy)
4. Therefore Race A deserves more rights than race B

In this case point 2 is ineffable. Typically point 2 is reinforced through various slogans, and is less of a conscious point, than it is a societal belief. I have referred to a similar phenomenon I called thought stopping beliefs, in a previous post. With stupidity, people are not inherently mentally deficient, but instead encouraged through the people around them to become stupid. This is actually directly addressed by Bonhoeffer:

The impression one gains is not so much that stupidity is a congenital defect but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or that they allow this to happen to them… so it would seem that stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem. It is a particular form of the impact of historical circumstances on human beings, a psychological concomitant of certain external conditions.

• Letters from prison Dietrich Bonhoeffer (p. 43)¹

Whatever ideology is in vouge, will naturally develop these thought stopping beliefs as a safety mechanism. Inoculating the ideology from potential detractors by allowing a passive dismissal of any potential critiques. This passive aspect is incredibly important because it has a built in plausible deniability. If the defense is reflexive and passive then it becomes easy for a person to identify with the ideology, and therefore attacks on the ideas become tantamount to personal attacks against the person. For Bonhoeffer the development and spread of stupidity is not just a common element of ideological movements, but a necessary one for any that seek to claim power in the public domain:

Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity. It would even seem that this is virtually a sociological-psychological law. The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other.

• Letters from prison Dietrich Bonhoeffer (pp. 43-44)¹

Other thinkers

Bonhoeffer was certainly not the first person to notice this phenomenon. Nietzsche in The Dawn of Day (in 1881) wrote:

I am not a quick thinker; I must wait for myself a long time—it is always later and later before the water from the fountain of my own ego spurts forth, and I have often to go thirsty longer than suits my patience. That is why I retire into solitude in order that I may not have to drink from the common cisterns. When I live in the midst of the multitude my life is like theirs, and I do not think like myself; but after some time it always seems to me as if the multitude wished to banish me from myself and to rob me of my soul. Then I get angry with all these people, and afraid of them; and I must have the desert to become well disposed again.

• The Dawn of Day Friedrich Nietzsche (pp. 344-345)²

This quote implies that impatience plays a role. In two previous posts (Be less informed, and Virtuous Parasites ), I made an argument that the need to bargain for attention is parasitic. People are willing to forgo rational rigor for whatever is attention catching, and interesting. For Nietzsche, the pull of the many makes us sloppy in our explorations because of our need to fulfill our ego. When we’re surrounded by others we want to do things quickly, we want to hustle for an achievement just to feel successful in the eyes of others. This need is what lets stupidity creep in quietly, and passively in the background.

This idea has become a mainstay in psychology and sociology, and on it’s face makes a lot of sense. To make a purely intuition-based argument, the willingness to work in a group is important. A cohesive group dynamic makes it much easier to thrive and survive. As a consequence of this, acquiescing to authority, and the status quo seems beneficial. It makes it much easier for a group to organize quickly and easily. However, it is not beneficial to those who are Truth-seeking. We have seen this demonstrated in the Asch Conformity (line length) Test³, the Milgram (shock) studies^{4 5}, the Stanford prison study⁶, and others. While these studies have their flaws^{7 8}, in general it seems to be the case we trade informational integrity for “good boy” points, or even just avoidance of conflict at many crossroads.

Edward Bernays was another incredibly influential writer, he focused mainly on public relations and propaganda. For Bernays understanding this dynamic was crucial to being a good propogandist, and advertiser. Nephew to Sigmund Freud, he took an understanding of psychology, and social sciences very seriously, and considered their application to be similar to methods used in physical sciences ⁹. He writes a similar point to Nietzsche much more plainly in his work Crystalizing Public Opinion:

One of the psychological results of homogeneity is the fact that physical loneliness is a real terror to the gregarious animal, and that association with the herd causes a feeling of security. In man this fear of loneliness creates a desire for identification with the herd in matters of opinion. It is here…that we find the ineradicable impulse mankind has always displayed towards segregation into classes. Each of us in his opinions and his conduct, in matters of amusement, religion, and politics, is compelled to obtain the support of a class, of a herd within the herd.

• Crystalizing Public Opinion Edward Bernays (p. 106)¹⁰

In Bernays case this fact was useful because it was exploitable. The tendency of people to follow with others presented an opportunity to “inform” the public and influence them into whatever a business or politician needs. In a later essay titled The Engineering of Consent Bernays demonstrates Bonhoeffers point in his opening lines:

Freedom of speech and its democratic corollary, a free press, have tacitly expanded our Bill of Rights to include the right of persuasion. This development was an inevitable result of the expansion of the media of free speech and persuasion, denned in other articles in this volume. All these media provide open doors to the public mind. Any one of us through these media may influence the attitudes and actions of our fellow citizens… Knowledge of how to use this enormous amplifying system becomes a matter of primary concern to those who are interested in socially constructive action.

• The Engineering of Consent Edward Bernays (p. 1)⁹

Solving Stupidity

There are two separate solutions to stupidity proposed by Bonhoeffer, one preventative, and one reactionary. I am going to save the preventative measure for another post, but the reactionary method is worth discussing. For Bonhoeffer he ultimately believes that escaping this stupidity is not a matter of being convinced. On the contrary he states that an “external” revolution breeds an “internal” one¹. The implication being that since stupidity is inherently a sociological phenomenon, then the landscape socially must be changed to “allow” people a way out. In the case of Nazi Germany there was no choice in not being a Nazi. To be “allowed” to not be a Nazi required a shifting of the external, material circumstances. Once the external circumstances are fixed, and it is okay to not be a Nazi, then the internal work can begin to change a persons mind.

Viva La Revolution

With the modern world there are plenty of conditions that allow for the same sort of stupidity Bonhoeffer detested to flourish. Social media and it’s propensity towards shorter, less informed information, the need for simple answers in a world of more complicated questions, etc. The question becomes how can we actually minimize these problems practically?

For one thing, being aware of the issue in the first place is a good first step. If you want to solve external conditions, then people need to first be aware there are conditions to be solved. In the modern age the key tool of propogandists who are looking to utilize stupidity is social media. The American government itself has made note of such efforts by Russia, and created entire groups tasked with cataloging these efforts^{11 12}. The irony of this coming from the US government is not lost on me^{13 14 15}, however it is an insightful look into what a system that Bernays dreamed of could look like in the modern day.

Likewise the trick of propogandists in this fashion is that it is passive. Making it apparent to readers that they are being propagandized to is a very strong deterrent. In this manner things like the various fact checking services of third parties^{16 17}, and first party support by social media^{18 19 20}, is helpful to break the spell. Likewise a presumption that people make is that many creators of content are “just like them”, when this couldn’t be further from the truth. Business incentives, and political ones infect every aspect of content creation these days along with bots and ai exacerbating²¹ the problem. The effect of wanting to fit in drastically goes down when you realize you’re fitting into a group of bots.

Conclusion

Stupidity is surprisingly complicated. As time has gone on since Bonhoeffer the work of people like Bernays has made it an incredibly easy trap to fall into. As such there will be several other essays in this series expanding on key topics, and on other mitigations we can implement to help combat stupidity. Ultimately at the end of the day vigilance is the only real deterrent, and it is an unreliable one. Even with all his strong analysis, and arguable clairvoyance, Bonhoeffer still ended up hung. Even after writing this essay I still often find myself falling victim to misinformation. It is certainly an uphill battle to avoid stupidity, but it’s one we will have to keep fighting.