For purposes of this discussion it is necessary to clarify that the term “stupidity” does not here mean a cognitive inability or a lack of gray matter or any kind of mental deficiency. Rather, the term stupidity is here meant to describe a studied and or skilled incompetence, an ‘epistemological lack’ wherein there is a willful refusal to utilize the cognitive functions provided by the maker and a cultural refusal to step outside the boundaries of “one’s own deeply held beliefs (Stanovich, 2002). Stupidity then is seen as the inability or unwillingness to mobilize one’s cognitive resources and intelligence”.
All of us have looked back on things we have done and wondered “what in the world was I thinking”? But in all too many instances, doing stupid things may be encouraged by dominant cultural beliefs within groups, political parties, corporations and other institutions.
An engaging study was recently released entitled “A Stupidity-Based Theory of Organizations” that describes dynamics present in certain organizations, parties or disciplines are predisposed to embracing a culture of functional stupidity. When reading this study this first thing that popped into mind was Enron. No one can deny that Jeff Skilling and Andy Fastow were brilliant, intelligent guys and yet they repeatedly did really stupid things. Read The Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron
The other example that comes to mind is embodied in local ideological battles demonstrated on this very blog. The study defines phenomenon we witness here everyday. [Emphasis mine]
..functional stupidity as being characterized by an unwillingness or inability to mobilize three aspects of cognitive capacity: reflexivity, justification, and substantive reasoning. Lack of reflexivity involves an inability or unwillingness to question knowledge claims and norms (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2009). This happens when members of an organization do not call into question the dominant beliefs and expectations they encounter in organizational life. Organizational rules, routines, and norms are thought to be given, natural, and good (or unproblematic or inevitable) and, therefore, not worth thinking about in negative terms. For instance, employees may not consider or question organizational (im)morality because ‘what is right in the corporation is what the guy above you wants from you’ (Jackall, 1988, p. 6). Such a lack of doubt involves the repression of organizational members’ capacities to use reason, to scrutinize and criticize aspects of an organization.
“This happens when members of an organization do not call into question the dominant beliefs and expectations they encounter in organizational life”. We witness this in the local Bay Area Chamber of Comemrce or in statements made by the founders of the CCAP wherein “…cognitive resources are concentrated around a small set of concerns that are defined by a specific organizational, professional, or work logic. It entails the myopic application of instrumental rationality focused on the efficient achievement of a given end, and ignorance of the broader substantive questions about what that end actually is”. Think the structure and governance advisory committee recommendations or the recent statements, as yet unconfirmed, that equipment being auctioned off has nothing to do with ORC. We are expected to simply believe the declarations made in the reports or on this blog and not question their accuracy. In other words, we are expected to assimilate into the collective or group think. This is why I am not a joiner.
The study notes that some industries are more prone to functional stupidity than others, specifically those which sell intangible services such as “wisdom” like pitchmen calling themselves business consultants. Read the report yourself and see if you don’t also recognize many local examples of institutional or organizationally induced functional stupidity.
A Stupidity-Based Theory of Organizations
If the writer had read the entire article by Alvesson and Spicer (which were not given due credit), she may have made the connection between the content and the socialist Commonwealth to which it was directed, and may have also concluded that Alvesson and Spicer wrote nothing more than a self-indulgent article from which one can conclude the simple age-old premise that people are different and will always be so. This kind of content may be interesting to academia and utilized in a few management classes, but in the real world most of this is plain and simple B.S.. Nonetheless, the authors did NOT conclude that all people and all organizations are stupid – just some – which is hardly ground-breaking news.
Amen brother al.
At last – we can now express the cause of the mess we are in as a simple mathematical equation:
Republican functional stupidity + Democratic functional stupidity =
Federal dysfunctional stupidity
Aye, thus I am proudly unaffiliated
See, being able to freely exchange ideas and information like this outside the lame-steam media is why we don’t have nice things. AL! Where are you!?
Al may need to confer with his management for guidance before straying outside of his comfort level… “Stupidity managers may seek to block processes of communicative action by propagating broader ideological frameworks that define the preferences and underpinning assumptions of the actors engaged in the deliberation. Sometimes ideological frameworks are intentionally propagated. They can be expressed through cultural management that emphasizes ideals and values, and also in more subtle ways. For instance, some organizations have a set of ideological values that celebrate action (Brunsson, 1982). In these organizations, too much deep consideration and analysis of a particular issue is actively discouraged in favour of quick and decisive action. This means employees are frequently asked to follow the corporate cliché: ‘stop thinking about it and start doing it’.
Sigh
Too many syllables for the trogs among us, I can see heads exploding.
Going to have to spend more time on this one.
Very well done.
This is why we teach our children to avoid peer pressure and people who quote from a thesaurus.
Anencephalous.
Flibberligibbet.
Excellent post m. I will give it some thought.
Meanwhile:
Paperclip maximizer
…At this point, it would innovate new techniques to maximize the number of paperclips. Ultimately, it would convert all the mass of the Earth or the solar system to paperclips.
This may seem more like super-stupidity than super-intelligence. For humans, it would indeed be stupidity, as it would constitute failure to fulfill many of our important terminal values, such as life, love, and variety. But the AGI under consideration has a goal system very different from humans. It has the one, simple goal of maximizing the number of paperclips, and human life, learning, joy, and so on are not specified as goals. The AGI is simply an optimization process–a goal-seeker, a utility-function-maximizer. Its values can be completely alien to ours. If its utility function is to maximize paperclips, then unless it is buggy, it will do exactly that….
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer