“Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon.” — Author Shannon L. Alder                                                                                                                         

“…give a few grains of food to each returning bird as a reward.” – excerpt from a US Navy guide on training homing pigeons

In the above quote, Ms. Alder, a prolific and highly quoted author, is saying that any attempt to get an “idiot” to engage in reasoned discourse is a waste of time. The second quote offers more practical advice. Rather than dismissing the pigeon, it shows how a mutually beneficial relationship can be formed. How cool would it be to train a pigeon to deliver a valentine? Way cooler than having my chess pieces knocked over and my board crapped on. I understand that Ms. Alder is not offering practical advice on developing mutually beneficial pigeon relationships, but neither is she offering any helpful ideas about how one should deal with “idiots.”

In my last post, I defined two forms of stupid; 1) stupid acts, which we all do from time to time regardless of our level of intelligence and 2) stupid people, humans judged by others to have limited intellect and/or ability to think critically. By comparing “idiots” to pigeons Ms. Alder is focused on form #2. Someone who refuses to accept, or even listen to, her no doubt reasonable arguments is a pigeon-level idiot. A pigeon that knocks over chess pieces is just following its nature, but so is a person who reflexively rejects anything contrary to their beliefs as well as those who call them an idiot for doing so. It is human nature to be guided more by emotion than reason. It is more often the self-satisfying sense of superiority and the praise from your tribe that drives not only the “idiots” but those who oh so reasonably call them that.

The main point of my last post was that rather than calling each other stupid, we should try to form a greater understanding of the emotions that drive all of us to do stupid things. I have many such moments I can pull from my own life to offer as examples. Once, in a somewhat mocking and incredulous tone, I asked my wife “Do you really think you’re smarter than me?” This was a decidedly un-smart thing to do, likely driven by my emotional need to be recognized as being like, all smart and stuff. My wife was gracious enough to calmly reply “there are many different kinds of intelligence” which was a diplomatic way of telling me I was being super-stupid.

Physicist Max Tegmark, talking with Sam Harris on his Making Sense podcast, compared measuring intelligence as a single thing (IQ) to measuring athletic ability as a single thing (AQ). Nobody thinks a great athlete can be an NBA star and an elite jockey, but many seem to believe that if you’re “smart,” you’re smart about everything, like the Professor on Gilligan’s Island. Stupidity is just as varied as intelligence and these different forms can be found across the entire IQ spectrum.

However gifted you are intellectually; you will do stupid stuff from time to time. However self-aware you become, you will still at times be led to stupid acts by your instincts and emotions. It can be challenging to rise above these emotional urges and recognize them as the motivations for your, perhaps less than brilliant, actions. When you call someone stupid it should be clear to you that you’re not making a serious attempt to reason with them. It’s also virtually certain being called stupid will get them to dig in rather than reconsider. You’re sure you’re right and they’re wrong and the fact they don’t agree with you, and won’t even listen to you, leads you to dismiss them as stupid, not worth your time. When you do this, your (Haidt) elephant’s frustration and anger lunges towards a dismissive insult and your (Haidt) rider rationalizes it with a comforting story of your intellectual superiority.

It should also be clear to you that this person you’re so frustrated with is probably equally frustrated with you. Do you doubt that if presented with Alder’s pigeon quote or an outline of Bonhoeffer’s thoughts on stupidity they would heartily believe they apply to you and not them? This stupid circular firing squad played a big role in the great rise of stupid I outlined in my last post. If we remove the condescension of comparing a chess player to a pigeon, we’re left with two creatures whose nature leads them to do different things incomprehensible to each other.

In her extraordinary book “Strangers in Their Own Land,” author Arlie Russell Hochschild chronicles her time spent with deeply religious conservatives in rural Louisiana. Hochschild is professor emerita of sociology at the University of California, Berkeley where she also resides. She’s about as deep in a liberal progressive bubble as one can be. She is also, it turns out, a remarkably intellectually honest sociologist. This led her to want to understand where all this “Anger and Mourning on the American Right[1]” was coming from. It seemed so clear to her that these people were supporting policies, like tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy and reductions in federal aid, which were clearly not in their own interest and opposing ones, like environmental regulations which clearly were. Rather than join in the chorus of voices in her bubble dismissing these people as dummies, she got on a plane and went down there to see if she could find out where these people were coming from.

What she found were tight-knit communities, usually centered around a church, that looked out for each other. This communal support is what they felt could be counted on rather than remote institutions with little understanding of their values or interest in their needs. She found people keenly aware of how they are dismissed as “hillbillies” and “rednecks.” She found people who saw projects like the dredging of swamps to find natural gas as creating much-needed jobs, dismissing the disastrous and even deadly environmental consequences.

She presents an allegory where people who have worked hard for the American dream are patiently waiting in line for that dream to be delivered. They see women, immigrants, and racial minorities being allowed to cut in line by the Government. It’s not fair! We worked hard to move up the line and they’re getting a free pass! She shared her allegory with the older, white, and almost all male Tea Party/MAGA[2] supporters she met with who told her it accurately reflected their feelings. She still didn’t agree with them, but she developed an understanding of the emotions and instincts that were driving them.

She learned that what these folks want is what everyone wants, prosperity. She came to understand that preferring the job-creating gas companies to the “elites” who dismiss them as stupid hicks was, in the context of their lived experience, reasonable. If presented with better opportunities for prosperity they would jump on them. If those opportunities were eco-friendly and beneficial to humanity, that’d be a nice bonus, but it’s the potential for prosperity that would move them. Once Ms. Hochschild saw for herself how a common faith and the social networks centered around churches were a major source of material and emotional support, their distrust of remote institutions became easier to understand.

While I haven’t found a right to left literary corollary to Ms. Hochschild’s book, Morgan Spurlock’s TV show “30 Days” had three episodes where someone from a conservative bubble was immersed in a liberal one. The premise of the show is to follow someone living completely outside of their world for 30 days.

Here is an overview of the three 30 Days episodes which explore the political, cultural and ideological divides from a left to right perspective:

1. “Immigration” (Season 2, Episode 1)

Frank George, a member of the Minutemen, a civilian border patrol group that opposes illegal immigration lives with a Mexican family in Los Angeles which includes undocumented members. Frank follows the family’s daily routine, including working physically demanding jobs that many undocumented immigrants take. He learns about the economic and personal hardships they face, such as low wages, job insecurity, and fear of deportation. He witnesses how the children, who are U.S. citizens, struggle with the uncertainty of their parents’ status. He visits an immigration processing center and speaks with both legal immigrants and those who have been detained.

While Frank remains firmly against illegal immigration and questions the family’s decision to come to the U.S. without documentation, he acknowledges the humanity of the people behind the issue. He comes to a better understanding of why many undocumented immigrants risk their lives to enter the U.S.

2. “Muslims and America” (Season 1, Episode 2)

Dave Stacy is a Christian man from West Virginia with strong negative views about Islam, including that Muslims pose a threat to America. Dave goes to live with a Muslim family in Dearborn, Michigan—home to one of the largest Muslim-American communities in the US. Dave lives according to Islamic customs, including dietary restrictions and daily prayer. He visits mosques and interacts with local Muslim leaders who attempt to dispel myths about Islam. He engages in deep conversations about the Quran and the perception of Muslims in American media. He meets young Muslim Americans who are culturally similar to him but face discrimination due to their religion. He participates in a public discussion where he expresses his initial fears and biases, leading to a debate with the community.

Despite his initial skepticism, he slowly begins to appreciate the similarities between Christianity and Islam. He still questions Islamic teachings and expresses concerns about extremism and continues to have difficulty embracing cultural differences but acknowledges that his views were shaped by media portrayals rather than direct experience. He expresses respect for the family and the Muslim community and recognizes that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and patriotic Americans.

3. “Straight Man in a Gay World” (Season 1, Episode 4)

Ryan, a young man from a conservative background in Michigan who openly states that he believes homosexuality is unnatural and wrong is welcomed into the home of an openly gay man. Living in San Francisco’s Castro district, Ryan attends LGBTQ+ events and meets people who have faced discrimination for their sexual orientation. He speaks with same-sex couples about their relationships and struggles. He even participates in a drag show, stepping far outside his comfort zone. He engages in discussions with LGBTQ+ individuals who challenge his preconceptions. He visits a church that is inclusive of LGBTQ+ members, challenging his belief that religion and homosexuality are incompatible.

Ryan remains opposed to same-sex marriage and does not change his core belief that homosexuality is a sin. However, he acknowledges that LGBTQ+ individuals are not inherently different from him and deserve respect. He leaves with a softened stance, admitting that personal interactions have made him more aware of the challenges faced by LGBTQ+ individuals.

Each of these episodes follows a similar arc: the participant enters with rigid beliefs, experiences the daily life of people they disagree with, and emerges with a more nuanced understanding, if not a complete change of opinion. In each case they return home and share their experiences. While this doesn’t lead to any mass conversions, it does represent an honest attempt to try and understand where someone you don’t agree with is coming from rather than just continue to dismiss or condemn them.

The key is immersion—living with people of different backgrounds forces personal engagement that breaks down stereotypes. These episodes, and Ms. Hochschild’s book, illustrate how polarization thrives in environments where people don’t interact with those who hold different views. The great rise of stupid is rooted in a vicious circle of dismissal supercharged by social media. True Elephant Herders should be focused on building a virtuous circle of empathy and understanding which fosters collective reasoning on how best to spread progress. This requires a high level of self-awareness, an understanding of your own tribal biases, and a willingness to understand the desires of others. It is through this understanding that solutions which meet those needs and ultimately benefit all of us can be found.

---

[1] This is the subtitle of “Strangers in Their Own Land”

[2] Ms. Hochschild’s time in Louisiana was just prior to the MAGA phenomena but makes the connection in the book’s preface.