|
As a disparaging term for members of an outgroup, the word "Stupidity" often indicates little more than a biased evaluation of behavior. If they do "X" it is stupid; if we do "X" it is smart or necessary. For example, political enemies voting to reduce the federal deficit may be considered socially irresponsible, while our cronies do the same thing because it is a fiscal imperative. As the same act may be interpreted as both stupid and reasonable (or brilliant), we do indeed live in a perceptual world of "A" and "Not A". Further, changes through time may alter prejudiced evaluations, so the label "Stupidity" may express nothing more than a temporal estimate made according to arbitrary standards subjectively applied to existing conditions.
As a phenomenon, stupidity is most often a limited and limiting experience pattern (or, sometimes, one that is overexpanded and overextending). In any case, it is caused by a belief blocking the formation or function of one more relevant to given conditions. Something going on in the environment is not matched in the cognitive world because the existing schema is too emotionally entrenched to permit an accurate appraisal of incoming data. First and foremost, the mind is an instrument for belief —not for knowing nor for learning but for believing—and usually, it functions to maintain a schema, regardless of how debilitating that may be. There are really two dependent aspects to schematic stupidity: one is that a schema induces stupidity, and the other is that a schema is stupid. Almost every schema induces stupidity in that a schema is a belief system which inhibits the formation of competing beliefs, hostile ideas and discomforting perceptions. Oddly enough, even a schema of "Open-mindedness" can be stupid if it inhibits the development of clearer perceptions and an appreciation of the better ideas among those available. This is the chief drawback of the liberal schema, which tends to treat all cognitions, beliefs, forms of behavior and everything else equally. As for a schema being stupid, every one of them is by one standard or another, in that each is a compromise of the beliefs upon which a society is based, the ideas it promotes and the behavior it permits. An internally consistent schema may be repressively flat to the point of boredom for those who hold it while being maniacally disruptive to those around them. If a schema cannot motivate people to do anything more than just believe and exist, it and they may lose out to more inspiring belief systems of competing groups. At the other extreme, schemas which dominated and then died litter the byways of history. It is really this motivational dynamic of our social nature which makes our verbal schemas inherently maladaptive and us so chronically stupid. It would be much easier for us to understand and accept this were it not for our conceptual legacy from the Age of Reason. In the eighteenth
 stupidity.net 
|