For a group to realize its goals, the leader must coordinate the roles individual members play. One way to succeed in this respect is to build on the fact that members sharing a common schema will tend to assume mutually supporting roles which promote cohesion. Although their specific behavioral roles differ, members will interact effectively if there is common agreement about the desired goal. For example, in team sports, the players at various positions have different roles which will interrelate smoothly as long as everyone is committed to the ideal of winning.

Unlike sports events, when games end and teams disband, many challenges a society faces are eternal and are dealt with by groups which seem as perpetual as the problems they never solve. A potential problem of and for such permanent groups is that they become committed as much to maintaining their roles as they are to fulfilling them. For instance, disease is certainly older than medicine, but the medical profession is well enough established to have structured ambiguous roles for its practitioners. This was demonstrated by the reaction of the American Medical Association to a rash of malpractice suits which recently plagued its members. A number of possible reforms were suggested to reduce such suits— not malpractice, mind you, just malpractice suits. For example, one suggestion was to shorten the period a patient would have to file such a suit. This would be fine for the doctors, if not their victims, and it shows that one of the roles doctors play is directed toward keeping themselves in business as they attempt to play the role of healers.

If there is ambiguity in this kind of role playing, it is because there is ambiguity in life. Ideally, doctors would be acting in their own best interests simply by acting in their patients' best interests. Of course, most of them do this most of the time, but that is not enough in our contemporary, legally oriented society. There is an inherent ambiguity in the expression "Health profession". Medicine is a business, so most doctors play two roles, looking after their own wealth as they look after their patients' health.

For the student of stupidity, the important point is that the ambiguity of "Best interest" is due to the arbitrary nature of role dependent judgment. This can make it difficult to determine whether or not a particular act is stupid or not. A person may act in his own worst interest in one sense while playing out the requirements of a conflicting role. Even within a given role, a person may have to emphasize one aspect of it to the neglect of others. A resultant decision or act may be deemed stupid by a judge who considers that which was sacrificed to be more important than that which was accomplished. Even a person's intentions provide no reliable standard, as they may be misguided and shortsighted and ultimately work against him. All things considered, "Best interest" turns out to be

stupidity.net