The Idea That People Aren't Stupid
Postedabout 2 months agoActiveabout 2 months ago
theseedsofscience.pubResearchstory
heatedmixed
Debate
80/100
PsychologyCognitive BiasesHuman Intelligence
Key topics
Psychology
Cognitive Biases
Human Intelligence
The article challenges the notion that people are stupid, while the discussion revolves around the validity of this claim and the credibility of related research in psychology.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
1h
Peak period
2
1-2h
Avg / period
1.3
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Nov 8, 2025 at 2:33 PM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Nov 8, 2025 at 3:35 PM EST
1h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
2 comments in 1-2h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Nov 8, 2025 at 9:21 PM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45859281Type: storyLast synced: 11/17/2025, 5:57:29 AM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Well that went full circle faster than expected. We could be living on 1-2 other planets and 3-4 moons. We're not, because we're stupid. We're still here dealing with every other stupid human and animal. Conflating a mere 300,000 years of survival as proof of not being stupid is what I would expect from.. stupid people.
I think the better take away from the evidence is that humans are really limited and have heuristics that are really exploitable. At large scales that can lead to some pretty counterproductive behavior.
The interesting thing is that some of those same heuristics can be really adaptive at smaller scales. So the question is where is the balance and what sort of systems lead to better global behavior.
I don't think your example of living on other planets is correct (at least as homo sapiens, seeding lifeforms and maybe even intelligent life is another thing), but I think it is in the right direction of that there is so much more that is achievable but we don't have the social co-ordination to approach it in a way that is much better that a random-walk.
Large scale co-ordination and sense making of actual reality is hard.
This is why religions have survived the fall of kings, empires and nations. When system starts collapsing under the weight of its ever building contradictions, they allow for stabilization, repair and continuity.
But with the arrival of the printing press and then the internet info tsunami, those older stories and rituals (which act as sync mechanism for large groups over different time frames - daily-weekly-yearly touch points) start loosing influence. This is happening without a good story/sync replacement (see Philosopher Charles Taylor's The Secular Age).
So look to HBO/Netflix/Pixar or the WWE. One is interactive almost real time narrative/emotion resonance/ritual engineering and the other is a deeper slower process. Those are the kind of spaces where potential breakthroughs will come from. Not the totally clueless science or tech world.