Stupid by choice(alexmolas.com)
alexmolas.com
Stupid by choice
https://www.alexmolas.com/2023/09/18/embracing-dumbness.html
55 comments
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37625560
This seemed weird to me at first read but after some thought ...
My intelligence takes the form of what I like to call "clever". I'm quick to figure things out and it's served me well in my career.
I've worked with many people who were, in most ways, smarter than me, or as I like to call it "smart". But it takes them longer to come up with a solution or to figure things out.
Very often, their solutions are better.
I think if you are in the second category of "smart", this definitely could be an optimal strategy for not spending lots of time on things that don't matter. Personally, I'm not spending much time on these kinds of things in the first place.
My intelligence takes the form of what I like to call "clever". I'm quick to figure things out and it's served me well in my career.
I've worked with many people who were, in most ways, smarter than me, or as I like to call it "smart". But it takes them longer to come up with a solution or to figure things out.
Very often, their solutions are better.
I think if you are in the second category of "smart", this definitely could be an optimal strategy for not spending lots of time on things that don't matter. Personally, I'm not spending much time on these kinds of things in the first place.
I don't completely agree with the article... For example:
> Things go faster. Like in the example of the ATM you won’t lose time learning things you don’t want to learn. You can use the knowledge of an expert on the topic to accelerate the process.
This is actually an example of the opposite. How much time does she spend going inside the bank, waiting in line, and asking a person for help over the course of her life? Is it really less than the amount of time it takes to learn to use an ATM?
That is, say tP = (time it takes to get personal help), tA = (time it takes to use an ATM), tL = (time it takes to learn), and N = (number of times she'll withdraw/deposit over her life, after making this decision).
Is it true that (tP x N) < (tA x N) + tL ?
tA is definitely smaller than tP. And I don't think tL is a colossal number, so I think it probably isn't true.
Second,
> It’s extremely easy to do.
I don' think that's always true, either. It can actually be much more difficult at times. Not everyone wants to help, not everyone is good at helping, not everyone can help. It gets easier the more you practice/learn the skill of asking for help, though.
---
sidenote: The article could use a bit of proofreading; I noticed several grammatical mistakes
> Things go faster. Like in the example of the ATM you won’t lose time learning things you don’t want to learn. You can use the knowledge of an expert on the topic to accelerate the process.
This is actually an example of the opposite. How much time does she spend going inside the bank, waiting in line, and asking a person for help over the course of her life? Is it really less than the amount of time it takes to learn to use an ATM?
That is, say tP = (time it takes to get personal help), tA = (time it takes to use an ATM), tL = (time it takes to learn), and N = (number of times she'll withdraw/deposit over her life, after making this decision).
Is it true that (tP x N) < (tA x N) + tL ?
tA is definitely smaller than tP. And I don't think tL is a colossal number, so I think it probably isn't true.
Second,
> It’s extremely easy to do.
I don' think that's always true, either. It can actually be much more difficult at times. Not everyone wants to help, not everyone is good at helping, not everyone can help. It gets easier the more you practice/learn the skill of asking for help, though.
---
sidenote: The article could use a bit of proofreading; I noticed several grammatical mistakes
> sidenote: The article could use a bit of proofreading; I noticed several grammatical mistakes
Well it appears the author is likely from Spain. So probably English is not their native language.
Well it appears the author is likely from Spain. So probably English is not their native language.
haha you got me, I'm from Spain. I tried to fix all the grammatical errors with Grammarly, but apparently it wasn't enough. If you can share which grammar errors are there I would be more than happy to fix them :)
Apologies, it's quite good overall. I'm just nitpicking. Here's what I noticed:
- "...and how [it] isn’t trivial for people.."
- "...argue that you don’t have to worry about looking dumb and [to/should] ask questions..."
- "If you don’t want to do something[,] make another person do it for you, and playing like you’re dumb [is] a great way of doing so."
- "...maintain focus on one thing at a time, [so/and] removing tasks that distract you..."
- "...and how [it] isn’t trivial for people.."
- "...argue that you don’t have to worry about looking dumb and [to/should] ask questions..."
- "If you don’t want to do something[,] make another person do it for you, and playing like you’re dumb [is] a great way of doing so."
- "...maintain focus on one thing at a time, [so/and] removing tasks that distract you..."
> This is actually an example of the opposite. How much time does she spend going inside the bank, waiting in line, and asking a person for help over the course of her life? Is it really less than the amount of time it takes to learn to use an ATM?
One issue with these technologies is, they are not 100% reliable and there's a non-zero chance that you would need to fallback to a human in uncovered edge cases. Speaking of ATM, I personally experienced 20% or higher failure rate when depositing cash via ATMs. Sometimes a retry would work, sometimes not.
Same problem with self checkout in grocery stores, airport self check-in kiosk, courier dropboxes prepaid self-printed shipping label...etc.
One issue with these technologies is, they are not 100% reliable and there's a non-zero chance that you would need to fallback to a human in uncovered edge cases. Speaking of ATM, I personally experienced 20% or higher failure rate when depositing cash via ATMs. Sometimes a retry would work, sometimes not.
Same problem with self checkout in grocery stores, airport self check-in kiosk, courier dropboxes prepaid self-printed shipping label...etc.
Interesting. I have a 0% failure rate with all those machines except grocery self-check; I'd say those have around a 1% failure rate for me.
> This is actually an example of the opposite. How much time does she spend going inside the bank, waiting in line, and asking a person for help over the course of her life?
Yes, you're right that for the common people, it would be faster just to learn how to do it and get the money yourself. Maybe this wasn't the best example. The idea I wanted to transmit is that sometimes the process you need to learn is too complex, so tL >> N x tA, either because tL is big or because N is low. Maybe a better example is to fix a broken car engine.
Yes, you're right that for the common people, it would be faster just to learn how to do it and get the money yourself. Maybe this wasn't the best example. The idea I wanted to transmit is that sometimes the process you need to learn is too complex, so tL >> N x tA, either because tL is big or because N is low. Maybe a better example is to fix a broken car engine.
That's certainly a good point. I once picked up a manual on my car so that I could fix small things myself and wouldn't be helpless, but I defer to professionals for complex problems because it's not worth my time to learn how to do it myself if I'll only do it once or twice in a lifetime, and if the time it takes to do it is nearly as much as the time it takes to have someone else do it.
I guess the ATM example caught me because I feel ATMs are such a big time-saver!
I guess the ATM example caught me because I feel ATMs are such a big time-saver!
> Her recommendation was to actively look stupid to avoid learning about things you are not interested in. It’s saying “I don’t care about this and I don’t want to care”. If you don’t want to do something, make another person do it for you, and playing like you’re dumb it’s a great way of doing so
Polar opposite of what I want to be.
Polar opposite of what I want to be.
Doing it once is OK, doing it multiple times is rude and thus only works with captive audience. She can do it with banker, because bankers' job is to serve customers; she can also do it while shopping because again, its their jobs and they won't kick her out of store for appearing stupid. She might or might not be able to do it with her kids, depending on how they were educated.
But asking neighbors to set up hose for watering too many times will likely make them start rejecting the requests (or they'll mysteriously disappear if she approaches them with the hose). Refusing to do boring chores during group activities will likely cause her to stop being invited to those activities, and so on.
But asking neighbors to set up hose for watering too many times will likely make them start rejecting the requests (or they'll mysteriously disappear if she approaches them with the hose). Refusing to do boring chores during group activities will likely cause her to stop being invited to those activities, and so on.
It's basically the advice I got from older people at work: If you don't want to do something, don't learn how.
I think I unconsciously stumbled onto this in my own career. I tend to actively seek out and get involved in hard/interesting problems before those other ones are looking for takers.
Isn’t knowing something and then pretending you don’t a form of manipulation? I’m not trying to be snarky, this is a genuine question. Ie, I can understand the strategical advantage this could provide, but struggling to see it from a moral perspective.
I guess it depends on the situation ... if you are avoiding lengthy discussions with bank tellers about how you can "just do this yourself" when they are getting paid to, in part, provide this service; seems fine.
If you are doing this so that your co-workers end up having to do parts of your job ... maybe it's not a good thing.
If you are doing this so that your co-workers end up having to do parts of your job ... maybe it's not a good thing.
Paying someone to fill out taxes is an example of this, so is using a financial advisor to plan a retirement portfolio.
Heck I wanted to replace a dozen light switches awhile back. Could I do it myself? Sure. Did I pay someone else to do it? Yes.
Heck I wanted to replace a dozen light switches awhile back. Could I do it myself? Sure. Did I pay someone else to do it? Yes.
If I paid someone to replace my light switches for me I don't think that would be pretending I don't understand how to do it, I'm just recognizing that it's a LOT of work and I have better things I'd rather do with my time, so I'm buying someone else's time with money. And I really get that now, as a few weeks ago I spent like 4 hours just replacing a half dozen lightswitches, while a professional probably would've had it done in under an hour.
I don't go up to an electrician and say "hey I could totally do this but you do it instead."
Instead I hand them a big box of switches.
Instead I hand them a big box of switches.
Why would anyone go up to an electrician and say that? Paying them money, at the very least, conveys "I don't want to learn how to do this or spend time doing this."
What point are you trying to make exactly? Paying someone for services has absolutely nothing to do with manipulation or deception.
What point are you trying to make exactly? Paying someone for services has absolutely nothing to do with manipulation or deception.
Did you lie to them in the process? The story is not just about having someone else do the work that you could do, it is about lying to them to get them to do it instead of teaching you. Ie. just asking for the fish when they want to teach you how to fish.
I disagree. My paying someone else to do something that I don't care to is simple arbitrage: I value both having a new outlet for charging my car and the time I'd spend installing one more than the electrician values the time they'd spend installing it.
I don't have to pretend to be an idiot for this transaction to be efficient. Learned helplessness is a manipulation technique used to fudge the numbers when the value gap is very small: by adding the good feeling of helping someone in need to the mark's side, you create an efficiency where none existed.
I don't have to pretend to be an idiot for this transaction to be efficient. Learned helplessness is a manipulation technique used to fudge the numbers when the value gap is very small: by adding the good feeling of helping someone in need to the mark's side, you create an efficiency where none existed.
Are you trying to be 'technically correct' here? :)
Interesting topic. I think it depends on intent. Whats presented in the article i personally see morally problematic as you pretend to be dumb with the intent to not have to bear some load, relying on the goodwill of others, disregarding the value of their lifetime.
However, if you hide a feature you have in order to not be solely judged by it, its more difficult. I.e. a prince hiding his lineage or an artist hiding his craft.
A good measure is probably, to ask yourself if the other would feel betrayed if you told the truth.
However, if you hide a feature you have in order to not be solely judged by it, its more difficult. I.e. a prince hiding his lineage or an artist hiding his craft.
A good measure is probably, to ask yourself if the other would feel betrayed if you told the truth.
Yes, misleading other people to avoid having to do work you dislike is manipulation.
The given example (going to the bank teller instead of learning to use the ATM) is a weird one because the bank teller is much slower and requires more cognitive load than using the ATM.
I suspect the ATM example was given because the bank teller isn't losing anything by dealing with a customer. It's their job and they're on the clock anyway. In practice, people who use the "stupid by choice" strategy are usually dodging tasks at work or getting other people to do things for them, in which case the other party is actively losing time and energy.
It's manipulative and dishonest, despite the arbitrary (and nonsensical, tbh) example going to a bank teller instead of learning to use an ATM.
The given example (going to the bank teller instead of learning to use the ATM) is a weird one because the bank teller is much slower and requires more cognitive load than using the ATM.
I suspect the ATM example was given because the bank teller isn't losing anything by dealing with a customer. It's their job and they're on the clock anyway. In practice, people who use the "stupid by choice" strategy are usually dodging tasks at work or getting other people to do things for them, in which case the other party is actively losing time and energy.
It's manipulative and dishonest, despite the arbitrary (and nonsensical, tbh) example going to a bank teller instead of learning to use an ATM.
In a consumer context it seems pretty harmless compared to the manipulation by design of the profit driven side in B2C or even B2B transactions. I thought the article was going to go toward the political tactic, which is highly unethical and requires a response of not tolerating any stupidity to penalize the fakers.
In my opinion, yes.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaponized_incompetence
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaponized_incompetence
You say that like "manipulation" is a bad thing.
Yes? If you manipulate me you destroy my trust in you fairly permanently. Trust is critically valuable in our society.
Can you please give some examples where deceptive manipulation is considered a good/moral thing?
I agreed with you (see my comment I wrote before I saw yours). I’m hoping there is some thought put in on when this particular approach is used. I had a boss who asked for detailed docs and said he needed it to include pictures. He did not really need the pictures but it was very useful when communicating. Was it slightly deceitful? Yes. But it was also quite useful.
> He did not really need the pictures but it was very useful when communicating
"Need" is a pretty amorphous word. He may not have needed pictures to understand the docs at all, but he could be said to have needed pictures to understand the docs in the timeframe he had available. Calling it deceitful feels untrue to me. I would only say it's deceitful if the intended use of the pictures was something other than understanding, like he wanted to steal them for another purpose.
"Need" is a pretty amorphous word. He may not have needed pictures to understand the docs at all, but he could be said to have needed pictures to understand the docs in the timeframe he had available. Calling it deceitful feels untrue to me. I would only say it's deceitful if the intended use of the pictures was something other than understanding, like he wanted to steal them for another purpose.
So, the actual advice is not "look dumb", but do not waste time on learning useless stuff
And this is something that I've actually been doing
For example I cannot perform handwriting. I've never put effort into it because it felt useless and apparently I were right since as an adult the longest thing that I have to write on paper is probably my phone number
And this is something that I've actually been doing
For example I cannot perform handwriting. I've never put effort into it because it felt useless and apparently I were right since as an adult the longest thing that I have to write on paper is probably my phone number
And after saying it with a completely straight face we both burst out laughing. She, with tears of laughter in her eyes, told me that she wasn’t joking. “I’ve been doing this all my life and it has always worked,” she explained to me.
This works maybe if you are legit smart. Otherwise, you are just affirming what people believe ( correctly) to be true, which is that you're not that smart. And why would you want to do that. Terrance Tao can pretend to be dumb when it comes to maybe using an iphone or something, but no one will question if he is actually smart or not.
This works maybe if you are legit smart. Otherwise, you are just affirming what people believe ( correctly) to be true, which is that you're not that smart. And why would you want to do that. Terrance Tao can pretend to be dumb when it comes to maybe using an iphone or something, but no one will question if he is actually smart or not.
Marc Anthony: "Do what you love, and you'll never work a day in your life."
Modern inverse variation for corporate life:
"Avoid excelling at tasks you despise, as doing a commendable job may bind you to undesirable work."
Modern inverse variation for corporate life:
"Avoid excelling at tasks you despise, as doing a commendable job may bind you to undesirable work."
I've known this as feigned incompetence, but apparently it's more known as weaponized incompetence or strategic incompetence [1]. Though, all of the citations are from the last few years, so I think even the given name might be new.
I originally came across it in context of men getting out of doing housework by intentionally doing it poorly to not be asked to do it again.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaponized_incompetence
I originally came across it in context of men getting out of doing housework by intentionally doing it poorly to not be asked to do it again.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaponized_incompetence
He is describing a person I would immediately avoid at all costs. This strategy only works on either people you will only see once, or people who are so kind that they will never get fed up with doing your tasks for you. It's incredibly manipulative and arrogant ("Peasant! Do this for me, I have better things to do than this menial task.")
I don't agree with the author here. Willing to look stupid bears the motive that one is eager to learn despite what others might think of you. That is not the same as low-key manipulating someone else to have the job done for you.
I like this groundbreaking writing on a 21st century phenomenon: sometimes people don’t do things that they don’t feel like doing and its corollary: people have various reasons for not feeling like doing some things sometimes.
One of the best ways to find out the truth is to propose what's clearly not true.
Another, related way is to appear to already know it; this is especially useful if the "it" is supposed to be a secret.
Another, related way is to appear to already know it; this is especially useful if the "it" is supposed to be a secret.
> When I don’t want to do something I act like I’m stupid and I ask for help.
> Her recommendation was to actively look stupid to avoid learning about things you are not interested in.
The flip side of this strategy is that you become a "help vampire": Someone who preys on the kindness of others to do their work for them.
The "help vampire" phrase was coined in 2006 with this blog post: https://slash7.com/2006/12/22/vampires/
The blog describes an actively malicious person, but several of the points apply to the exact strategy described in this blog:
> Is he obviously just waiting for some poor, well-intentioned person to do all his thinking for him?
> Can you tell he really isn’t interested in having his question answered, so much as getting someone else to do his work?
This isn't so much "stupid by choice" as it is taking advantage of other people to offload tasks you don't want to do. The blog highlights positives such as "You have time to dedicate to other interesting things" which is another way of saying that someone else has lost some of their time in exchange.
The given example of going to a bank teller instead of the ATM is harmless enough because the bank employees are getting paid either way, but the example also doesn't really make sense: Standing in line and conversing with a bank teller is much more demanding and time-consuming than simply learning to use the ATM.
There's a lot about this blog post that either doesn't make sense or advocates for manipulating others. It was written in a kind, light-hearted way, but it's not good advice.
> Her recommendation was to actively look stupid to avoid learning about things you are not interested in.
The flip side of this strategy is that you become a "help vampire": Someone who preys on the kindness of others to do their work for them.
The "help vampire" phrase was coined in 2006 with this blog post: https://slash7.com/2006/12/22/vampires/
The blog describes an actively malicious person, but several of the points apply to the exact strategy described in this blog:
> Is he obviously just waiting for some poor, well-intentioned person to do all his thinking for him?
> Can you tell he really isn’t interested in having his question answered, so much as getting someone else to do his work?
This isn't so much "stupid by choice" as it is taking advantage of other people to offload tasks you don't want to do. The blog highlights positives such as "You have time to dedicate to other interesting things" which is another way of saying that someone else has lost some of their time in exchange.
The given example of going to a bank teller instead of the ATM is harmless enough because the bank employees are getting paid either way, but the example also doesn't really make sense: Standing in line and conversing with a bank teller is much more demanding and time-consuming than simply learning to use the ATM.
There's a lot about this blog post that either doesn't make sense or advocates for manipulating others. It was written in a kind, light-hearted way, but it's not good advice.
→ When I don’t want to do something I act like I’m stupid and I ask for help.
If the mark is able to detect the deceptive manipulation, then the mark should weight the pleasure/burden of adopting a particular style of patronizing teacher treating the lazy manipulator like a dimwit idiot, insofar as addressing said stupid as if it were a toddler.
If the burden is too much, then best to cut it short, apologize for the lack of time, and postpone to the 33st of Neverember.
If the mark is able to detect the deceptive manipulation, then the mark should weight the pleasure/burden of adopting a particular style of patronizing teacher treating the lazy manipulator like a dimwit idiot, insofar as addressing said stupid as if it were a toddler.
If the burden is too much, then best to cut it short, apologize for the lack of time, and postpone to the 33st of Neverember.
I'll add one more that's accurate yet unpalatable.
You cannot pretend to be dumb and not lose credibility if the ask is a basic expectation of your gender. A man can't get away with pretending to be dumb about finances (mortgage, debt), a woman can't get away with pretending to be dumb about cooking or raising a baby.
What I mean is that the bank example worked for the article author's grandmum because she was a woman.
You cannot pretend to be dumb and not lose credibility if the ask is a basic expectation of your gender. A man can't get away with pretending to be dumb about finances (mortgage, debt), a woman can't get away with pretending to be dumb about cooking or raising a baby.
What I mean is that the bank example worked for the article author's grandmum because she was a woman.
As I read this, I felt like its message was...I should stop reading this. Reduce cognitive load and all that.
I get the message here but I feel like this can also swing too far the other way towards weaponized incompetence. Just acting dumb whenever you don’t want to do something and hoping others help you is missing the point I think the author is trying to make here.
I take issue with this:
I like the advice in (IIRC) High Output Management: if you have a choice or delegating two things, choose the one you know best, as that's the one you'll be able to effectively delegate. If you 'delegate' something you don't understand, you're actually abdicating.
Delegate these tasks to experts on the topic and focus on your priorities.
I like the advice in (IIRC) High Output Management: if you have a choice or delegating two things, choose the one you know best, as that's the one you'll be able to effectively delegate. If you 'delegate' something you don't understand, you're actually abdicating.
> You need a decent understanding of something in order to delegate it. ... if you have a choice or delegating two things, choose the one you know best,
I don't think that is true, even in general. In general, experts can figure out the details and get it done entirely without your help. My corporate taxes for instance. Or my furnace upgrade. Or my companies new data infrastructure ...
In the specific case of software development, this can often hold true because you are not delegating something to an expert, since it is new to everyone.
I don't think that is true, even in general. In general, experts can figure out the details and get it done entirely without your help. My corporate taxes for instance. Or my furnace upgrade. Or my companies new data infrastructure ...
In the specific case of software development, this can often hold true because you are not delegating something to an expert, since it is new to everyone.
You are just taking those things on faith though.
Just because you hire a professional doesn't mean they are honest.
> my furnace upgrade
I can tell you from experience that even large commercial HVAC outfits are ripe with fraud. I even have receipts and a verdict in my favor as evidence. The only reason I have them is because I took the advise of GP and made time to be involved with that contractor and notice their deceit.
Just because you hire a professional doesn't mean they are honest.
> my furnace upgrade
I can tell you from experience that even large commercial HVAC outfits are ripe with fraud. I even have receipts and a verdict in my favor as evidence. The only reason I have them is because I took the advise of GP and made time to be involved with that contractor and notice their deceit.
> You are just taking those things on faith though.
I absolutely am not. It's bad enough to be moving the goal posts, please don't insult me by insinuating I am naive and stupid.
> I can tell you from experience that even large commercial HVAC outfits are ripe with fraud.
Which is why I got a recommendation from a trusted general contractor and then was onsite while they did the work.
I absolutely am not. It's bad enough to be moving the goal posts, please don't insult me by insinuating I am naive and stupid.
> I can tell you from experience that even large commercial HVAC outfits are ripe with fraud.
Which is why I got a recommendation from a trusted general contractor and then was onsite while they did the work.
[deleted]
Grandma might act dumb, but it's the asking for help part that's the real trick. To me, among the most frightening things on this plane is a a stupid person full of confidence. I prefer someone who knows where they're on at on the Dunning-Kruger curve -- or that it merely exists -- any day of the week.
For all the men reading this, you should know that women discuss this as a tactic men take regarding housework, cooking, childcare, emotional labor, or any other traditional "women's work". Even when tolerated, they generally find it obnoxious and lose respect for men who do this.
That's oversimplified and overgeneralized, yes. But perhaps there's a little nugget in there that's useful for someone.
That's oversimplified and overgeneralized, yes. But perhaps there's a little nugget in there that's useful for someone.
Yes, it's called 'weaponised incompetence' or 'strategic incompetence' in popular psychology. The concept was recently discussed a lot on social media in the context you're mentioning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaponized_incompetence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaponized_incompetence