Stupidity is more dangerous than malice. Evil can only persist so long in its destructive nature sowing wreckage before people identify its obvious ills and rise up against it forcing it away or even destroying it by sheer force. It’s only a matter of time until people unite and rise up against something malicious.
Stupidity on the other hand is a total loose cannon. The stupid person can not only not be relied upon to accomplish anything of substance but is liable, without their own knowledge or consent, sabotage just about anything they come across without rhyme or reason. The worst kind of stupid has the good intentions necessary to gain the support of others and enlist people in their cause, not so much by intention or recruitment but just because if you’re nice, kind, well meaning and respectful you are far more likely to go a lot farther. There is no point arguing against a stupid because they are not capable of understanding or projecting into the future actions and their consequences. And it is because the stupid lacks insight into how their toxic ideas, attitudes, decisions and behaviors affect others as well as the world around them that they can keep sowing a path of destruction that is very difficult, if not impossible to limit.
… but malice is the “force” that actually creates “evil” in the first place. I think the intended meaning of the saying “Don’t assume malice where stupidity is sufficient [to explain an observation]” is meant to make the problem seem less bad, not worse...
At the heart of the intractability of stupidity lies the Dunning Kruger problem. It can be an impossible challenge to make an ignorant person:
- admit they are ignorant; - in the process, realize that most of the beliefs and the reasons they had for holding them were entirely wrong; - despite having just realized they need a comprehensive world-view revision find the courage and desire to become more educated while: - having above average difficulties with acquiring new and hitherto unknown and/or too complex material.
Stupidity is more dangerous than malice. Evil can only persist so long in its destructive nature sowing wreckage before people identify its obvious ills and rise up against it forcing it away or even destroying it by sheer force. It’s only a matter of time until people unite and rise up against something malicious.
Stupidity on the other hand is a total loose cannon. The stupid person can not only not be relied upon to accomplish anything of substance but is liable, without their own knowledge or consent, sabotage just about anything they come across without rhyme or reason. The worst kind of stupid has the good intentions necessary to gain the support of others and enlist people in their cause, not so much by intention or recruitment but just because if you’re nice, kind, well meaning and respectful you are far more likely to go a lot farther. There is no point arguing against a stupid because they are not capable of understanding or projecting into the future actions and their consequences. And it is because the stupid lacks insight into how their toxic ideas, attitudes, decisions and behaviors affect others as well as the world around them that they can keep sowing a path of destruction that is very difficult, if not impossible to limit.
… but malice is the “force” that actually creates “evil” in the first place. I think the intended meaning of the saying “Don’t assume malice where stupidity is sufficient [to explain an observation]” is meant to make the problem seem less bad, not worse...
At the heart of the intractability of stupidity lies the Dunning Kruger problem. It can be an impossible challenge to make an ignorant person:
- admit they are ignorant;
- in the process, realize that most of the beliefs and the reasons they had for holding them were entirely wrong;
- despite having just realized they need a comprehensive world-view revision find the courage and desire to become more educated while:
- having above average difficulties with acquiring new and hitherto unknown and/or too complex material.