Home For Fiction – Blog

Quite a leap, isn’t it? From idiocy and Socrates to the internet. Of course, the real issue here – the keyword, in a sense – is idiocy. Is it timeless, and therefore the common denominator? The answer is yes; there have always been idiots. Indeed, the word “idiot” is Greek. However, there’s a difference, too: Idiocy has evolved.

Nowadays, stupidity (I will use the terms interchangeably) is of a different kind. Understanding its characteristics might, just perhaps, help us better confront it.

At the same time, however, I must emphasize my pessimism. As I have stated before (see my posts on ignorance, Dunning-Kruger, and the failure of democracy), I really don’t see humanity being able to overcome its collective stupidity. The problem with idiocy (as Socrates perhaps would’ve agreed) is that those who should urgently question their thought processes rarely do.

Still, if we managed to at least marginalize idiocy, to the extent historical examples have shown possible, we could perhaps allow a glimmer of hope.

Idiocy and Socrates: Knowing that You Don’t Know

The phrase is commonly known as “I only know that I know nothing”. However, that’s not what Socrates says. Indeed, Socrates says… nothing, as he never left any written record. Still, according to Plato – who should be considered reliable, as he was one of Socrates’s friends and students – we discover what Socrates did say:

I seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either.

Plato’s ‘Apology’

What Socrates argues is that, among equally ignorant people, the one who is aware of it is a little bit better off. The reason?

But of course, because starting from a position of ignorance allows us to actually approach knowledge.

To put it simply, a person entrenched in idiocy (Socrates likely wouldn’t have put it in such terms, but I am) has little chance of overcoming their state. On the other hand, one who is aware of their ignorance, is more likely to move closer to the truth.

The Evolution of Public Idiocy

There is a delightful oxymoron in the heading, one which you might not be aware of if you’re unfamiliar with the etymology of “idiot”. In ancient Greek, an “idiot” was a “private person”, that is, one too self-centered to bother being a citizen. The word partly retains its meaning in modern Greek, where an idiotes (ιδιώτης) is an employee in the private rather than public sector, or an individual rather than a corporation.

But there’s a connection with our topic, too.

Idiocy in Socrates’s time did not spread very fast. Indeed, up until the modern times and mass media, idiocy lacked the viral aspect: In plain terms, it took some time for idiocy to acquire momentum and become truly public.

Things changed with mass media (especially with the box in every household, telling you what to believe). But the truly revolutionary change came – you guessed it – with social media. Idiocy spreads like wildfire, in no time, with few repercussions.

The Social Media Paradox: or, what if idiocy, Socrates, and Twitter Coexisted

What social media brought was the elimination of minority opinion.

Stupidity is like a virus: It transmits from one susceptible person to another. Have you ever seen horses, cows, or other herd animals reacting all together to something? It usually takes one or two of them to start running (because of a fly or other nuisance), and then suddenly the entire group runs without knowing why. “Heck, if others run, I better run too”. It helps them survive.

In a way, it’s the same with stupidity: It often assumes the form of a simple answer to a complex question, out of desire to find easy solutions to unanswerable (or hard) problems. As such, it’s a natural (but still flawed) reaction to a perceived threat.

Nonetheless, as I said, idiocy still didn’t “transmit” easily from person to person. When it takes three weeks to travel between two towns and bring news, things take time. Stupid ideas were minority opinions.

Today, social media and the internet at large have allowed us to spread information instantaneously. Not only that, but organizing in groups facilitates the creation of echo chambers, hence giving the impression that a large number of people, perhaps even the majority, actually embrace a given idea.

Ironically, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: The more people actually believe that and behave stupidly, the likelier it is for a stupid idea to acquire momentum.

What Can Be Done?

Nothing.

(I told you, I’m a pessimist. Or at least, a nihilist. Heck, maybe I’m a realist).

More seriously, and perchance usefully, what can be done is to focus our efforts on those who can be rescued from stupidity. First and foremost, this means ourselves.

You have unique access to your own thought process. You are the only one, quite by definition, who can persuade yourself of the validity or not of a claim. Question everything, and often.

However, there is also a very important point to understand: To question everything does not mean not to have trust in anything and believe it’s all a gigantic, elaborate lie or conspiracy (I use the term deliberately, to help you understand what’s at stake here).

In other words, in order not to descend into cognitive chaos and perpetual suspension of judgment, we make certain assumptions about life:

• The sun will rise tomorrow.
• We are not in the Matrix.
• There are other people.

Similarly, we need to draw the line and accept as factual (until further evidence) things of which we are not 100% certain. To question everything doesn’t mean to never accept anything. It only means to approach everything tentatively and require evidence to be convinced.