Speculation about the geographic, ethnic/racial, sexual distribution... of the human types defined by the author of "The Fundamental Laws of Human Stupidity"

 Carlo Cipolla, an Italian economist who wrote this book and who I have already commented on and criticized in some of my texts. In this text, I will speculate on how these types or phenotypes/archetypes are distributed...

First, let's look at them:

The intelligent: whose actions benefit themselves and others

The bandit: whose actions benefit themselves at the expense of others

The naive: whose actions benefit others at their expense

And the stupid: whose actions harm themselves and others

I have already written a text criticizing these laws and what he wrote about them. For example, I criticized the restricted definition of the stupid type, as if the naive and the bandit could not also be considered as categories of stupid. Although I consider my criticism valid, it is not important to emphasize this point here, since it will be based on the definitions proposed by Cipolla that I will work on my speculation about their distribution among human groups.

Cipolla also wrote about what happens (obviously) in a society when there is a growing predominance of stupid people, in his fifth fundamental law of human stupidity. I include a relevant excerpt from this text to illustrate his specific thoughts on this topic, below:

Fifth law

5. The stupid person is the most dangerous person there is.

''And its corollary:

A stupid person is more dangerous than a criminal.

We can't do anything about the stupid. The difference between societies that collapse under the weight of their stupid citizens and those that transcend them is the composition of the non-stupid. Those that progress despite their stupid people have a high proportion of people acting intelligently, those who offset the losses of the stupid by bringing gains to themselves and their fellow men.

Declining societies have the same percentage of stupid people as intelligent ones. But they also have high percentages of defenseless people and, Cipolla writes, “an alarming proliferation of bandits with connotations of stupidity.”

“This change in the composition of the non-stupid population inevitably strengthens the destructive power of the [stupid] fraction and makes decline a certainty,” Cipolla concludes. “And the country goes to hell.”

(I also criticized what he pointed out in this excerpt, in this text: “Critically analyzing the 5 laws of human stupidity”).

Speculative proposal on the distribution of types or categories of people defined by Carlos Cipolla

Intelligent, naive, criminal/bandit and stupid

* These types seem to be summarized definitions of compositions of personality traits and intelligence in which one of the characteristics tends to stand out more, for example, naivety.

* Between the intelligent and the stupid, the naive and the criminal/bandit can also be considered mixed types that combine traits of these phenotypes that would be more regular, precisely the first ones mentioned.

In ascending order, from the most common types to the most unusual, based on the current context, the year 2024, and considering the individual and social perspectives.

It is worth mentioning that I will not take any further risks, speculating percentages of how these types would be distributed and that therefore, even the least common type for a given population, according to my speculation, is not explicitly stated to be much less common than the others. 

By geographic distribution:

Americas:

North America

USA: naive, intelligent/criminal/stupid

Canada: naive, intelligent, stupid/criminal

Mexico and Central America: naive/criminal/stupid, intelligent

Brazil and South America (excluding Argentina and Uruguay): naive/criminal/stupid, intelligent

Argentina and Uruguay: naive, criminal/stupid/intelligent

Haiti(?): criminal/stupid, naive, intelligent

Comment: a constant in many countries is the possible predominance of the "naive" type, whose actions benefit others at their expense, mainly due to the social context, since there is no country that is not socially structured in a way that produces a hierarchical pyramid of parasitism of the upper classes, at the top, in relation to the other classes, differing only in the how unequally and explicitly this parasitism is expressed, less significant, but existing, in first world "social democracies", such as the Scandinavian countries, and more significant in underdeveloped countries.

In the case of the Americas, I perceive a great difference in this distribution of human types proposed by Cipolla, in which the only two first world American countries, and which are not Caribbean tax havens, Canada and the USA, would present a less problematic distribution, even with differences between them: the first more similar to a European country, and the USA in a more singular distributive situation, due to its own internal and idiosyncratic diversity, resulting from its superlative dimensions of territory and demographics, as well as its unparallel history. My speculation also highlights something that, for many, especially Latin Americans, is considered an inconvenient truth, that it is their/our own people who, on average, contribute to keeping their/our countries in a state of underdevelopment, not only the historical guilt of the European colonizer or their political and economic "elites", if these also tend to express a lack of common character in the populations of these countries, of being representative of them. Hence the greater proportion of the "bandit"/criminal type.

I highlighted Haiti, because it is the poorest country in the Americas: half of the island of Hispaniola, marked by a history of civil wars, bloody dictatorships and predominant poverty. For a country as chaotic and precarious as this one, is it by chance the product only of its troubled history or also of its own population? (Except for its "intelligent" fraction, which definitely does not seem to consist of a majority). Furthermore, its status as a social and political pariah state, which has been going on for many decades, may also be contributing to empowering the most selfish types of its population, very abundant in its spaces of power and typical of dictatorships or authoritarian states. In any case, it is also possible to speculate whether this type is more common in this country than in others (something more intrinsic) and whether this factor would be an important part of explaining its very problematic situation. 

Europe:

Eastern Europe: naive, criminal, intelligent, stupid

(Countries like Slovenia and Estonia would do better, at least according to their socioeconomic indicators)

Western Europe: naive, intelligent/criminal, stupid

Northern Europe (Scandinavia): naive, intelligent, stupid/criminal

Southern Europe: naive/criminal, intelligent, stupid

Comment: Stereotypes being confirmed??

Are Southern and Eastern Europeans, on average, more corruptible and, therefore, with more criminals, proportionally?

Are Northern Europeans, on average, more naive?

Perhaps reflecting the distributions of personality types themselves, in which introverts would be more common among the naive and intelligent types (more common in the north of the old continent), and extroverts among the bandit and stupid types (more common in southern Europe).

However, introverted types also seem to be more common in Eastern Europe. For a possible difference in relation to Northern Europe, which would also explain its cultural and political differences, would be the variation in personality traits, for example: melancholic types, more naive, more common in Scandinavia and choleric, more likely to be bandit, more common in Eastern Europe (based on the personality typology of the four temperaments, which I have already suggested ratifying as valid, excluding only the hypothesis related to health that was also developed in classical Greece and from which the four temperaments derive); beyond historical-contextual differences, although ethnic differences* between Nordic//Germanic and Slavic peoples seem to be deeper than exclusive results of their respective histories.

* Correlatives with variations in mental traits, personality (intensity, types) and intelligence (levels, types...)

It is even interesting to think about how these proposed types can be more comprehensive as definitions of intelligence than other ways of approaching and comparing it, such as through IQ testing, if it is not expressed only through typically considered cognitive abilities, of a technical nature, such as linguistic and mathematical abilities, but also through creativity, rationality and emotional intelligence, that is, of a contextual nature, manifesting itself in all contexts, in which the participation and influence of personality traits, considered "non-cognitive", is as important as the "cognitive" ones.

It would also be important to think about how intrinsic these types are: to what extent are they reactive reflections of the environments in which we live, of more specific contexts, and to what extent do they reflect ourselves, or our deepest dispositions...

If, for example, individual X is more naive for structural reasons or also genetic/biological/hereditary??

I would bet that it is a combination of these influences and more, in which intrinsic factors, of the individual himself, would be more influential or determining, although extrinsic factors, of the environment, also have an influential role, but more in the sense of contributing to channeling pre-existing tendencies and never of forging them without a previous context of predisposition, so that, if someone is more naive, it is not exclusively because of his environment, but also because he already has this tendency or predisposition and that it was exacerbated by his interactions in the environments in which he finds himself. Therefore, this thought suggests a constant crossing or intersection between the individual and contextual perspectives, once again, the example of the possible predominance of naive people in most countries, not only due to intrinsic disposition, but also as a reflection of how societies are organized (in a variably parasitic way that involuntarily places the majority of the population in the position of deceived or exploited subordinates).

Africa:

North Africa: bandit/naive, stupid, intelligent

Sub-Saharan Africa: bandit, stupid/naive, intelligent

Comment: forgive me all those good Samaritans who only cultivate sweet thoughts about our species, especially about certain groups that have a history and a present of poverty and civilizational backwardness (although there is a certain relativity in determining what is civilizational progress or backwardness, which can easily be problematized, such as highlighting the typically parasitic character of complex societies, excessively verticalized, in social terms). I know that this is not the habit of "left-wing" moral puritanism, but we must prioritize the facts so that we can seek truly effective approaches to combat the social, economic and/or moral problems of our species, and this will not be done by embracing beautiful but fallacious narratives... Because if it is a social environment of wars, violence and poverty that incites our most selfish side, it is still unlikely that we will all react in the same way if or when subjected to similar circumstances. The evidence corroborates my statement... It may also be, and it is very likely that it is, that a very problematic social environment primarily reflects the actions of the populations themselves, such as pointing fingers at the people who live in a neighborhood for the dirtiness of their streets rather than looking for other culprits. So, the social problems of countries that were once colonies of European metropolises, especially African and Latin American countries, are not the exclusive result of European colonialism, but mainly of their own actions, of their "elites" and of their own populations, of course, not of all, but of a potentially non-negligible part, unfortunately. An example of this is urban crime in cities like Lagos, in Nigeria, and São Paulo, here, in Brazil; in general, in the endemic lack of solidarity and respect among the inhabitants of many underdeveloped countries, even more so than in the "developed" ones, which contributes to complicating their socioeconomic situations. Always emphasizing, once again, that this is not the entire population, whether in Africa, Nigeria or São Paulo, but that it is also not a tiny minority, and even in certain cases one might think that it is a majority. And even if it is a situation that is impossible to correct or improve, but not in the politically correct, simple and cute way that many believe.

Consequently, if there is no generalization (absolute association) of causality between racial or ethnic group and behavior, then there is no genuine or objectively determined "racism" in these statements.

In the case of Africa, especially Sub-Saharan Africa, it is even possible to think of a less harsh explanation, still inevitably non-victimizing. That the human populations that live in this part of the African continent would be, for the most part, descendants of hunter/gatherers (and not of farmers or peasants), which would explain the cultural and cognitive mismatch between their average capacities for administration and social organization and the level of civilization that the colonizers imposed and left, after they passed their colonies back into the hands of their original "owners". In this sense, it can even be said that this perceived inability to manage complex societies by the majority of these populations is perfectly understandable, more understandable than in relation to populations that have evolved historically, for centuries, in civilized environments, and also do not present true civilizational excellence, which are far from it, which includes even many so-called first world countries (whether as a result of a gradual or punctual loss of this capacity, or even a chronic inability to develop it). Another relevant point that should always be emphasized is that, in addition to the proportion of these types, the way in which they are distributed hierarchically can also contribute to developing or delaying societies, such as, for example, in the case of countries in which their political and economic "elites" are definitely not composed of a large majority of intelligent individuals, but rather of criminals, even if their populations have many intelligent individuals, that is, if they are being underutilized. So, it is not enough to just know whether there are more of this or that type, but whether the worst type has predominated in spaces of power, as has been the case in practically all human societies and especially in the most chaotic ones, such as those in Africa.

Asia:

Northeast Asia: naive, intelligent/criminal, stupid (excluding China: criminal/intelligent/naive, stupid).

Southeast Asia: naive/criminal, intelligent/stupid

Indian Subcontinent: naive, stupid/criminal, intelligent

Middle East: criminal/naive, stupid, intelligent

Comment: also based on what I have noticed, types that contribute more negatively than positively, socially, seem to predominate in the less developed Asian regions, and, of course, also maintaining the high prevalence of naive people, based on the logic commented above, especially from a social context, of structural dominance of parasitism of the upper classes (especially of certain sectors) over the lower ones, in which a majority submits to the economic exploitation of a minority, literally working to enrich it, instead of there being a more egalitarian distribution of the wealth produced.

My observations:

Japan would stand out more positively in the entire Asian continent, more similar to the developed countries of the West;

China and the rest of East Asia would present a pattern more similar to the Asian continent;

Again, the underdevelopment of most Asian regions (but not only Asia) does not reflect only their historical-social context, but also the psychological and cognitive composition of the human types in their populations, such as those proposed by Carlo Cipolla, from the top to the base of their hierarchies. In fact, this composition of human types would be a more causal factor at the level of social and economic development, while the historical and social situation would be more of a dynamic reflection of this factor over time.

Social class

Rich: criminal, intelligent/naive, stupid

Middle class: naive/intelligent, criminal, stupid

Poor: criminal/naive, stupid, intelligent (?)

Comment: without wanting to "pull the wool over my eyes" for the social class in which I, theoretically and vaguely, fit, but it seems that, based on the possible perception that those in the middle class tend to have a relatively more balanced temperament, less greedy or impulsive, and also an average level of intelligence sufficient to be able to work in professions that pay reasonable salaries, that is, that they tend to express less extreme mental characteristics and that would end up reflecting in their positions in the social hierarchy, the same can be said about the other classes, however, with different tendencies: the "rich" being more prone to greed and, therefore, unscrupulous, in fact, their material wealth as a result of this, and as for the "poor", a greater disposition for impulsive behaviors and that are both respectively related to tendencies towards high and low cognitive abilities, explaining, in large part, but not all, their social situations (poverty is also a historical and arbitrary imposition of the "elites").

Religiosity

Atheist: naive, intelligent/stupid, criminal

Religious: naive, intelligent/criminal/stupid

Comment: based on what I have noticed about self-declared atheists, and disregarding those individuals who declare to have some religious belief, but it seems to be more a matter of pragmatics and/or social conformity than of a genuine disposition, this distribution of human types proposed by Cipolla for this group seems reasonable to me, with more naive and intelligent people and fewer criminals, but with a not so modest proportion of stupid people, especially due to the correlation with ideological fanaticism. In the case of self-declared religious people, it seems to me that this distribution is more balanced, especially because it is a much larger population than that of atheists, logically deducing that it contains more diversity of types. But also due to the psychological and cognitive nature of atheists, especially, a more homogeneous group, culturally, ideologically and intellectually. In any case, perhaps it would be more appropriate to compare them with religious fundamentalists. Because, for this group, I bet on a great parity between the naive, criminal and stupid types, which would not change much in relation to religious people, in general.

It is worth noting that this definition of intelligence by Cipolla seems to focus more on individual actions than on the quality of the intentions that lead to these actions and that is why I included the social context, since there is no way to separate them completely, especially based on this concept that was worked on by him.

Race:

Whites: naive/intelligent, bandit/stupid

Orientals: naive/intelligent/bandit, stupid

Jews (ethnicity): bandit/intelligent, naive, stupid

Blacks of African origin: bandit, stupid, naive/intelligent

Comment: possibly the most controversial comparison of all, but a necessary one, and one that has already been made above, indirectly, by nationalities. But since I do not submit to ideological filters to signal "canine loyalty" to biased narratives and discourses,including thinking that the only way to, in fact, understand a situation and seek the most effective means to begin to solve it, even more so when dealing with a situation that can be considered problematic, then, there is no way I can abstain from this battlefront against totalitarianisms, especially the "good" ones, based on emotional blackmail and/or moral fallacies and that have ulterior, third, or fourth intentions... Because here, once again, I only apply this typology to what can be perceived in the reality of human populations, categorized by racial or ethnic criteria, in which white Caucasians, especially those of European origin, and Northeast Asians, present the most favorable distributions or proportions of Cipolla's human types, with more intelligent and less stupid people, although they also present not at all modest proportions of naive people, who tend to be predominant, and of criminals, who tend to predominate at the top of their social hierarchies. What happens or has happened, until now, in this last century, especially, is a greater activity of the intelligent types that are already more abundant in these populations, compared to others. However, this relatively favorable pendulum has been regressing, particularly in Western societies, with the ideological or cultural hegemony of "wokeism", a kind of "virus" whose infection destroys the immune system of the affected society, destroying its most important bases ("social harmony", ethno-cultural cohesion...) that keep it functioning at a high level.

Sex

Men: bandit/intelligent, naive/stupid

Women: naive, intelligent/stupid, bandit

Comment: this distribution of Cipolla's human types, also according to my observations, would be more favorable to men intellectually, but not emotionally and morally. Because it is that situation that has been perceived, of there being more men among geniuses, but also among criminals, and the opposite pattern for women, of presenting less extreme statistical tendencies.

Sexual orientation

Heterosexuals: naive/bandit/intelligent, stupid

LGBTs: naive, stupid/intelligent/criminal

Comment: heterosexuals represent the human average, as they are the majority. Therefore, with a possible tendency for greater parity between naive, criminals and intelligent, although this does not mean that the proportion of chronically or predominantly stupid human beings is small. LGBTs, on the other hand, would present a greater incidence of stupid types in relation to heterosexuals.

Politicians: criminal, stupid, intelligent/naive

Artists (the group, in general): naive, stupid/intelligent, criminal

Businesspeople: criminal, intelligent/stupid, naive

Comment: three examples of professional classes and their stereotypes, if these types of Cipolla are applied, will be reiterated: both the political and merchant classes, with an abundance of criminals or chronically selfish people, while the artistic class would have a prevalence of naive types. Also note that the profile of artists would be opposite to that of businessmen.

Leftists (followers, not their political "elites" and which also applies to those below): naive/stupid/intelligent, criminal

Rightists: naive/criminal/intelligent/stupid

Comment: "conservative" rightists and "progressive" leftists, despite presenting some average differences in beliefs and behaviors, would be relatively similar in this distribution of types, with a predominance of naive people and a more equal distribution of types. They would differ in the proportion of criminals (greater among those on the right) and stupid people (greater among those on the left). And always emphasizing that the type considered less common is not necessarily insignificant in statistical terms, as it also depends on the representation of the other types in the same group or population.

Scientists: smart/criminal, naive, stupid

-- Academics: naive, smart/stupid/criminal

Teachers: naive, smart/stupid, criminal

Activists: naive/stupid, smart, criminal

4 or 3 intellectual classes and ½, the most intelligent of which would logically be that of genuine scientists, which is why I separated them from academics, a category that is vaguer in terms of the definition of science in the sense of a profession.

Teachers would be in a more intermediate position in this ranking, while activists would occupy the lowest position. It is also notable the increase in frequency of the stupid type concomitant with the decrease of the bandit type, from the highest level to the lowest, a possibly high incidence of bandits among scientists and of stupid people among academics (the vast majority of times represented by university professors and undergraduates), which seems illogical in theory, but not in reality, especially if we base ourselves on the weak criteria that have been used in the evaluation and selection processes of both groups, for example, that there is a tacit disregard for the assessment of capacity or qualitative proficiency for scientific work, essentially including adherence to and respect for the most basic principles of science, such as intellectual honesty and impartiality.

Uma exceção à lei de ouro da estupidez humana de Carlo Cipolla/An Exception to Carlo Cipolla's Golden Law of Human Stupidity

 "Uma pessoa estúpida é aquela que causa dano a outra pessoa ou grupo sem, ao mesmo tempo, obter um benefício para si mesma ou mesmo causar prejuízo."

Quando uma pessoa se comporta de maneira estúpida com grande frequência, sim, é perfeitamente possível considerá-la, por esse conceito, uma pessoa cronicamente estúpida. Porém, existem situações ou cenários que são exceções a essa lei ou regra, especialmente quando se torna desejável ou até inevitável que se tome uma decisão que possa prejudicar a si mesmo e outros. Um exemplo que eu, inclusive, estou vivenciando nesse período em que escrevo esse pensamento, de conviver com um idiota crônico e apresentar certo grau de dependência a ele, nesse caso, financeira, mas por causa do convívio muito difícil (ele, além de estúpido, é narcisista), desejar que ocorra um afastamento ou mesmo que aconteça algo de ruim com essa criatura para que precipite uma ruptura desse convívio, mesmo que possa me prejudicar e a outros envolvidos. 

"A stupid person is one who causes harm to another person or group without, at the same time, obtaining a benefit for himself or even causing harm."

When a person behaves stupidly very frequently, yes, it is perfectly possible to consider her, by this concept, a chronically stupid person. However, there are situations or scenarios that are exceptions to this law, especially when it becomes desirable or even inevitable to make a decision that could harm yourself or others. An example that I, in fact, am experiencing during the period in which I write this thought, of living with a chronic idiot and presenting a certain degree of dependence on him, in this case, financial, but because of the very difficult coexistence (he, in addition to being stupid , is a narcissist), I wish for a separation to occur or even for something bad to happen to this creature so that it precipitates a rupture in this relationship, even if it could harm me and others involved.

Sobre a manifestação não-verbal ou física da estupidez/On the nonverbal or physical manifestation of stupidity

 A manifestação mais literal ou física da estupidez pode ser notada por um déficit severo ou generalizado de atenção, que pode ou tende a se manifestar conjuntamente a uma incapacidade de se estabelecer uma coerência ou consistência intelectual, geralmente consequências de um déficit igualmente severo em autoconsciência//autoconhecimento e/ou também de um narcisismo exacerbado... 

Então, a manifestação mais literal da inteligência é basicamente o oposto disso, de atenção constante ao que se pensa e ao que se faz, que refletem uma autoconsciência e um autoconhecimento mais desenvolvidos. E mesmo no caso de haver um déficit de atenção, a própria percepção de que o apresenta já mostra uma maior atenção sobre si mesmo, suas ações, reações e reverberações, e que ainda pode desenvolvê-la a ponto de conseguir estabelecer um maior controle sobre esse déficit. 

The most literal or physical manifestation of stupidity can be noted by a severe or generalized deficit in attention, which can or tends to manifest itself in conjunction with an inability to establish intellectual coherence or consistency, usually consequences of an equally severe deficit in self-awareness/ /self-knowledge and/or also exacerbated narcissism...

So, the most literal manifestation of intelligence is basically the opposite of this, of constant attention to what one thinks and what one does, which reflects a more developed self-awareness and self-knowledge. And even in the case of an attention deficit, the very perception that it presents already shows greater attention to oneself, one's actions, reactions and reverberations, and that one can still develop it to the point of being able to establish greater control over this deficit.

Exemplos reais (na política) da lei de ouro da estupidez, de Carlo Cipolla/Real examples (in politics) of Carlo Cipolla's golden law of stupidity

 "Uma pessoa estúpida é aquela que causa dano a outra pessoa ou grupo sem, ao mesmo tempo, obter um benefício para si mesma ou mesmo causar prejuízo."

Carlos Cipolla (1922-2000), professor de história econômica e que escreveu livros especialmente sobre os riscos da explosão demográfica, chamou isso de lei de ouro da estupidez humana. 

1. Políticas de abrandamento e do abolicionismo penal 

Baseadas em pseudociências "do bem", "de esquerda", cada vez mais influentes na política e que, comprovadamente, não diminuem a criminalidade, pelo contrário, a incentivam; baseadas em crenças equivocadas sobre o comportamento humano, sendo que uma delas é a crença na tábula rasa, de que o meio tem o impacto mais forte e decisivo no mesmo e não características intrínsecas, como a personalidade ou caráter. Essa política é um exemplo perfeito de política "puramente estúpida" que preenche todos os critérios para ser classificada como um exemplo real da lei de ouro da estupidez humana. 

2. Políticas de imigração em massa ou multiculturalismo

Baseadas em uma constelação de crenças pseudocientíficas e pseudofilosóficas "tipicamente progressistas", tal como o negacionismo das diferenças intrínsecas de comportamento e inteligência entre indivíduos e grupos humanos, que têm como método principal a insensatez de afrouxar as fronteiras de um determinado país, almejando uma recepção generosa de imigrantes estrangeiros, supostamente para combater o racismo (argumento moral) e o envelhecimento demográfico (argumento econômico), desprezando completamente o histórico negativo de experiências multiculturais; a inutilidade prática de atrair imigrantes de países pobres, se isso não irá desenvolvê-los e sanar um pouco os "crimes cometidos no passado'; o próprio conteúdo falacioso da maioria dos argumentos morais usados, tal como o negacionismo da existência de raças humanas e suas diferenças; e a decisão mais adequada, que seria de priorizar o problema da baixa natalidade dos nativos ao invés de apelar para a imigração em massa.

3. Políticas "progressistas" na educação

Geralmente baseadas na ideia simplória da promoção de vultosos investimentos na área, mas em completo desprezo à realidade das diferenças humanas de natureza intrínseca, em outras palavras, literalmente "torrando" o dinheiro público em medidas que não geram qualquer resultado consistentemente positivo, no sentido de melhorarem o desempenho acadêmico da maioria dos estudantes ou o respeito e a harmonia em ambiente escolar. Geralmente, focam no objetivo de igualar os desempenhos dos estudantes, dando atenção especial aos menos capazes, como se suas capacidades menos desenvolvidas fossem reflexos apenas de uma falta de empenho nos estudos e/ou associada a um contexto socioeconômico desfavorável, e negligenciando aqueles com maior potencial de contribuição social quando se tornarem adultos. 

3. Destruição do meio ambiente por lucros

Uma política econômica, insensata e imoral, que prega pela exploração predatória do meio ambiente visando lucros e que, apesar de favorecer certos grupos a curto ou médio prazo, pode ter efeitos muito negativos mesmo àqueles que são primariamente beneficiados. Por exemplo, a exploração sem limites de um determinado ambiente natural pode acabar com os seus "recursos", forçando a comunidade que depende deles a buscar por outros locais ainda não-explorados. Portanto, se trata de uma política que não preenche todos os requisitos para entrar nessa categoria de políticas puramente estúpidas, porém, a longo prazo e a nível coletivo, pode ser considerada como próxima ou semelhante. 

Apesar de toda política pública depender da perspectiva daquele que a defende para poder ser categorizada de acordo com os tipos pensados por Cipolla, além do estúpido clássico, o "inteligente" (em que seu comportamento tende a beneficiar a si mesmo e aos outros), o "bandido" (beneficia apenas a si mesmo em detrimento do bem estar alheio) e o "ingênuo" (beneficia apenas os outros em detrimento do próprio bem estar), as políticas exemplificadas costumam ser prejudiciais a todos os que são submetidos a elas, se a curto ou longo prazo, direta ou indiretamente... Por exemplo, defender pelo abrandamento penal, apesar de impactar diretamente as classes trabalhadoras, aumentando a circulação de criminosos em seus ambientes sociais, também pode ou costuma prejudicar as outras classes sociais, pelo aumento da insegurança pública que acarreta e, consequentemente, limitando a liberdade de trânsito da maioria da população. Então, a adoção pessoal de uma ou mais dessas políticas, mesmo que não aconteça de maneira mais literal ou menos discursiva, é suficiente para um indivíduo expressar o que Carlo Cipolla chamou de regra de ouro da estupidez. 

(Mas, essa política em particular, também pode ser interpretada como típica de um indivíduo incorrigivelmente ingênuo, portanto, podendo ser colocada em outra categoria que o Cipolla propôs, comentada rapidamente nesse texto).

* Baseado nesse texto: "Analisando criticamente as 5 leis da estupidez humana"

"A stupid person is one who causes harm to another person or group without, at the same time, obtaining a benefit for himself or even causing harm."

Carlos Cipolla (1922-2000), professor of economic history and who wrote books especially about the risks of the demographic explosion, called this the golden law of human stupidity.

1. Policies of criminal punishment relaxation and penal abolitionism

Based on "good", "left-wing" pseudosciences, increasingly influential in politics and which, demonstrably, do not reduce crime, on the contrary, they encourage it; based on mistaken beliefs about human behavior, one of which is the belief in the blank slate, that the environment has the strongest and most decisive impact on it and not intrinsic characteristics, such as personality or character. This policy is a perfect example of a "purely stupid" policy that meets all the criteria to be classified as a real example of the golden law of human stupidity.

2. Mass immigration policies or multiculturalism

Based on a constellation of "typically progressive" pseudoscientific and pseudophilosophical beliefs, such as the denial of intrinsic differences in behavior and intelligence between individuals and human groups, which have as their main method the folly of loosening the borders of a given country, aiming for a welcome generosity of foreign immigrants, supposedly to combat racism (moral argument) and demographic aging (economic argument), completely disregarding the negative history of multicultural experiences; the practical uselessness of attracting immigrants from poor countries, if this will not develop them and somewhat heal the "crimes committed in the past"; the fallacious content of most of the moral arguments used, such as the denial of the existence of human races and their differences; and the most appropriate decision, which would be to prioritize the problem of the low birth rate of natives instead of appealing to mass immigration.

3. "Progressive" policies in education

Generally based on the simplistic idea of ​​promoting huge investments in the area, but in complete disregard for the reality of human differences of an intrinsic nature, in other words, literally "wasting" public money in measures that do not generate any consistently positive result, in the sense of improve the academic performance of most students or respect and harmony in the school environment. Generally, they focus on the objective of equalizing student performance, giving special attention to those less capable, as if their less developed abilities were merely reflections of a lack of commitment to studies and/or associated with an unfavorable socioeconomic context, and neglecting those with greater potential for social contribution when they become adults.

3. Destruction of the environment for profits

An economic policy, senseless and immoral, which advocates the predatory exploitation of the environment for profit and which, despite favoring certain groups in the short or medium term, can have very negative effects even on those who are primarily benefited. For example, the unlimited exploration of a certain natural environment can end its "resources", forcing the community that depends on them to look for other places that have not yet been explored. Therefore, it is a policy that does not meet all the requirements to enter this category of purely stupid policies, however, in the long term and at a collective level, it can be considered as close or similar.

Although all public policy depends on the perspective of those who defend it in order to be categorized according to the types thought by Cipolla, in addition to the classic stupid, the "intelligent" (in which his behavior tends to benefit himself and others), the "criminal" (only benefits himself to the detriment of the well-being of others) and the "naive" (only benefits others to the detriment of his own well-being), the exemplified policies are usually harmful to all who are subjected to them, whether in the short or long term, directly or indirectly... For example, advocating for criminal punishment relaxation despite having a direct impact on the working classes, increasing the circulation of criminals in their social environments, can also or usually harm other social classes, by the increase in public insecurity it causes and, consequently, limiting the freedom of movement of the majority of the population. So, the personal adoption of one or more of these policies, even if it does not happen in a more literal or less discursive way, is enough for an individual to express what Carlo Cipolla called the golden rule of stupidity.

(But this particular policy can also be interpreted as typical of an incorrigibly naive individual, therefore, and can be placed in another category that Cipolla proposed, briefly commented on in this text).

* Based on this

text: "Critically analyzing the 5 laws of human stupidity"

Um sinal primário e inequívoco de estupidez específica: literalizar generalizações/A primary and unmistakable sign of specific stupidity: literalizing generalizations

 Ainda mais as que são claramente inverídicas...

Tal como de dizer que todos os indivíduos de um grupo são culpados por crimes cometidos pelos seus antepassados ou por outros indivíduos só porque pertencem ao mesmo grupo. Um exemplo atual é a infame "culpa branca", a demonização generalizada de indivíduos de raça branca de origem europeia por crimes cometidos no passado colonialista e mesmo os que continuam a ser cometidos por indivíduos de raça branca na atualidade. Enfim, mais uma imprecisão grosseira dos fatos para fins ideologicamente doutrinários.

Even more so those that are clearly untrue...

As in saying that all individuals in a group are guilty of crimes committed by their ancestors or other individuals just because they belong to the same group. A current example is the infamous "white guilt", the widespread demonization of white individuals of European origin for crimes committed in the colonialist past and even those that continue to be committed by white individuals today. In short, another gross imprecision of the facts for ideologically indoctrinal purposes.