It feels like you’re saying “dumb”, and treating it like it’s a single-dimension fixed value, the precise opposite of a uselessly narrow definition of “intelligent”. You’re assuming that it doesn’t change and shouldn’t be used as information in your decisions. Both of these beliefs are dumb. The focus on incentive as the only reason to label someone is also dumb—that’s only part of the reason for judging people’s behavior and capability.
I don’t need a god’s-eye view to be frustrated by people who routinely make bad decisions. Bad behavior is a mix of cognitive failure, world-modeling mistakes, poor impulse control, and likely other factors. At least some of these factors DO seem to change over a person’s lifetime. And at least some of them are susceptible to intentional change if the person sees bad effects, including the judgement of peers and loved ones.
Labeling an agent “dumb” is useful BOTH to let that agent know that you’ve noticed their bad decisions AND to inform others (and remind yourself) that they are problematic on those decisions. It’s not sufficient, of course—one word never is. The details and dimensions that this person causes risk or needs unusual support or behavioral guardrails is the important part of the judgement. “dumb” is just a handle and a generalization.
It feels like you’re saying “dumb”, and treating it like it’s a single-dimension fixed value, the precise opposite of a uselessly narrow definition of “intelligent”.
That’s a good point. I did notice this as I was writing the post. I think the post could be improved by going into more detail about the different types of “dumbness” but I didn’t want to spend too much time on this post. I also think that while imperfect, it is still somewhat useful to speak generally about “dumbness”, both in this context and other ones.
Labeling an agent “dumb” is useful BOTH to let that agent know that you’ve noticed their bad decisions AND to inform others (and remind yourself) that they are problematic on those decisions.
Yeah that’s true. I probably should have discussed this in the post. But how often does it actually lead to behavior change? That seems like the relevant question to me. What do you think?
If it’s someone like farmer Frank where you (socially) punishing them for being dumb isn’t going to actually change their behavior, at least not in a way that outweighs the friction it causes, it seems like a situation where the costs outweigh the benefits.
But how often does it actually lead to behavior change?
It’s too loose a category to quantify very well—I can’t even estimate numerator nor denominator. I do have some anecdotal examples, and plenty of media tales (remember: fiction is only evidence of popularity of idea, not actual events) of people who were motivated to improve by being called out on their dumbness. And plenty of examples of very limited or no change.
So, more than “never”, likely “some”, probably not “usually”. This is confounded by the fact that it’s very rarely the ONLY communication on the topic—it’s combined with more specific complaints/advice.
It feels like you’re saying “dumb”, and treating it like it’s a single-dimension fixed value, the precise opposite of a uselessly narrow definition of “intelligent”. You’re assuming that it doesn’t change and shouldn’t be used as information in your decisions. Both of these beliefs are dumb. The focus on incentive as the only reason to label someone is also dumb—that’s only part of the reason for judging people’s behavior and capability.
I don’t need a god’s-eye view to be frustrated by people who routinely make bad decisions. Bad behavior is a mix of cognitive failure, world-modeling mistakes, poor impulse control, and likely other factors. At least some of these factors DO seem to change over a person’s lifetime. And at least some of them are susceptible to intentional change if the person sees bad effects, including the judgement of peers and loved ones.
Labeling an agent “dumb” is useful BOTH to let that agent know that you’ve noticed their bad decisions AND to inform others (and remind yourself) that they are problematic on those decisions. It’s not sufficient, of course—one word never is. The details and dimensions that this person causes risk or needs unusual support or behavioral guardrails is the important part of the judgement. “dumb” is just a handle and a generalization.
That’s a good point. I did notice this as I was writing the post. I think the post could be improved by going into more detail about the different types of “dumbness” but I didn’t want to spend too much time on this post. I also think that while imperfect, it is still somewhat useful to speak generally about “dumbness”, both in this context and other ones.
Yeah that’s true. I probably should have discussed this in the post. But how often does it actually lead to behavior change? That seems like the relevant question to me. What do you think?
If it’s someone like farmer Frank where you (socially) punishing them for being dumb isn’t going to actually change their behavior, at least not in a way that outweighs the friction it causes, it seems like a situation where the costs outweigh the benefits.
It’s too loose a category to quantify very well—I can’t even estimate numerator nor denominator. I do have some anecdotal examples, and plenty of media tales (remember: fiction is only evidence of popularity of idea, not actual events) of people who were motivated to improve by being called out on their dumbness. And plenty of examples of very limited or no change.
So, more than “never”, likely “some”, probably not “usually”. This is confounded by the fact that it’s very rarely the ONLY communication on the topic—it’s combined with more specific complaints/advice.
That makes sense, I agree. So I guess it depends on the situation.