Political polarisation is having many negative effects on the standard of public discourse, from the rejection of the moderate view to the refusal to accept or even acknowledge evidence suggesting one's perspective may require shifting to better reflect the truth. An important but largely unrecognised outcome has been the loss in appreciation for the value of the stupid idea.
It is a truism that many great scientific discoveries have come from failure. From penicillin to the microwave oven, progress in all fields of human endeavour has often resulted from sheer chance or unexpected outcome. The nature of experimentation is to present a hypothesis and discover if it plays out as anticipated. The internet has inundated us with data which can be cherry-picked to justify virtually any belief, with the consequence being hypothesis and result often treated as one and the same, allowing falsification and testing to fall by the wayside. To be uncertain or to be wrong is to risk castigation and shaming not just among one's peers, but the entirety of social media.
It is a truism that many great scientific discoveries have come from failure. From penicillin to the microwave oven, progress in all fields of human endeavour has often resulted from sheer chance or unexpected outcome. The nature of experimentation is to present a hypothesis and discover if it plays out as anticipated. The internet has inundated us with data which can be cherry-picked to justify virtually any belief, with the consequence being hypothesis and result often treated as one and the same, allowing falsification and testing to fall by the wayside. To be uncertain or to be wrong is to risk castigation and shaming not just among one's peers, but the entirety of social media.
The fear of stress-testing one's ideas is bad enough for the deleterious effect it is having on achieving social improvement through a more precise understanding of how our world functions. What has been forgotten is the importance of ideas which don't work and the value of throwing out an experimental idea for the sake of it.
In the spirit of this article, I propose a stupid idea of my own: that the appreciation of the stupid idea is the lynchpin of all civil intellectual discourse. Not just the failed idea, or the inadequately substantiated idea. These require respect too, but the crux is the idea which is truly idiotic. To define what is meant by a stupid idea: it requires the speaker to be completely sincere and the idea itself not just wrong, but obviously, ludicrously wrong. If one cannot identify a stupid idea within a minute of it being ventured, or, better yet, if the speaker does not realise midway through stating it and stammer out a corrective while persisting for no other reason than uncertainty as to whether the embarrassment of halting mid-sentence outweighs the embarrassment of what is being said, chances are that the idea is simply failed, not stupid.
A failed idea has a certain respectability. Logical patterns of thinking can be identified, even if the reasoning does not pan out. The natural reaction to a failed idea in less tempestuous times would be to commend the effort, offer a few polite amendments and proceed with the conversation around the broad points of the idea, if not the specifics. This is an extremely valuable way of refining ideas and generating new ones. However, it is in the lack of such forgiveness that a truly stupid idea finds its worth.
On a social level, to feel free to allow one's ideas to make a fool of oneself is intellectual freedom in its purest form. It is the acid test by which one knows that expression is unbound: to require coherence is to demand ideas conform to the standards of respectability. Standards are of course essential in not allowing failed or stupid ideas to progress past their desirably short shelf-life: that is why we talk of free ideas proving their value in a competitive marketplace. To demand those standards be applied from the moment of conception, however, necessarily limits the shape of a new idea into a recognisable form.
A failed idea may not function under duress, but is rigorous enough to corral examination of its premise into the basic framework through which it was expressed. The spontaneous catastrophe of a truly stupid idea, on the other hand, is a big bang of untrammelled potential. Stupid ideas cannot be the consequence of extensive thought, else the speaker would have steered away from the imminent peril. Because the nonsensical nature of the idea's construction is evident from the beginning, there is no temptation towards repairing it. Whatever glimmers of inspiration exist at its core can blossom into new forms on their own independent, abstract terms.
Success often arises from a failure because a failure challenges our assumptions and forces us to think differently. The repairability of a failed idea allows the fundamental patterns of thought underlying its initial assumptions to remain intact. By contrast, the stupid idea exposes us to a way of thinking so discordant that it has the capacity to indirectly inspire on a wider, wilder scope. Were inspiration so predictable that we could identify the exact conditions and processes under which it strikes, we would have run out of ideas by now. That it strikes randomly and unpredictably is why the inherent strangeness of the stupid idea must be enjoyed, not shamed. The idea itself may not work, but it may inspire new ways of thinking with the potential for success further down the road.
Even where there remains not a shred of salvageable thought, one can if nothing else delight in the chaotic fallout of noble intentions gone spectacularly awry. That incorrect ideas can be funny is a natural antidote to polarisation. The freer we are to risk expressing the blatantly ludicrous, the less there is to fear in the possibility of getting things wrong, or acknowledging not knowing at all. People who have only known success or respectable failure are less likely to have learnt the value of humility and how to be the subject of mockery without taking it personally. When we know that we can be wrong and not feel threatened by it, we are more able to grant that grace to others. To deploy the overused word of the hour, this creates empathy among disagreeing parties: by recognising our own capacity to be wrong, we can no longer perceive those whose opinions we believe to be wrong as lesser than us. We are free to instead revel in our mutual incompetence.
A failed idea may not function under duress, but is rigorous enough to corral examination of its premise into the basic framework through which it was expressed. The spontaneous catastrophe of a truly stupid idea, on the other hand, is a big bang of untrammelled potential. Stupid ideas cannot be the consequence of extensive thought, else the speaker would have steered away from the imminent peril. Because the nonsensical nature of the idea's construction is evident from the beginning, there is no temptation towards repairing it. Whatever glimmers of inspiration exist at its core can blossom into new forms on their own independent, abstract terms.
Success often arises from a failure because a failure challenges our assumptions and forces us to think differently. The repairability of a failed idea allows the fundamental patterns of thought underlying its initial assumptions to remain intact. By contrast, the stupid idea exposes us to a way of thinking so discordant that it has the capacity to indirectly inspire on a wider, wilder scope. Were inspiration so predictable that we could identify the exact conditions and processes under which it strikes, we would have run out of ideas by now. That it strikes randomly and unpredictably is why the inherent strangeness of the stupid idea must be enjoyed, not shamed. The idea itself may not work, but it may inspire new ways of thinking with the potential for success further down the road.
Even where there remains not a shred of salvageable thought, one can if nothing else delight in the chaotic fallout of noble intentions gone spectacularly awry. That incorrect ideas can be funny is a natural antidote to polarisation. The freer we are to risk expressing the blatantly ludicrous, the less there is to fear in the possibility of getting things wrong, or acknowledging not knowing at all. People who have only known success or respectable failure are less likely to have learnt the value of humility and how to be the subject of mockery without taking it personally. When we know that we can be wrong and not feel threatened by it, we are more able to grant that grace to others. To deploy the overused word of the hour, this creates empathy among disagreeing parties: by recognising our own capacity to be wrong, we can no longer perceive those whose opinions we believe to be wrong as lesser than us. We are free to instead revel in our mutual incompetence.
It would be remiss to ignore at this point that many ideas are not ventured in good faith. Arguments in favour of racial supremacy, totalitarianism and the dehumanisation of others are as fundamentally incoherent as the stupidest of ideas, yet to dismiss them as simply foolish is to underplay the evil of their intent and their dangerous emotional appeal among populations feeling humiliated or oppressed. People who express these ideas have no interest in humility or commonality. All they seek is justification for their actions and beliefs.
Though the cancerousness of these ideas must be recognised and challenged, there remains value in recognising the smallness and stupidity of even an evil idea. Many people can endure being hated. Some thrive off it, presenting themselves as martyrs for their venomous causes. The capacity to elicit anger is a form of power on its own. To be able to recognise evil for what it is, yet still laugh at it without agenda or reservation, is to cut away a piece of its power while strengthening one's own capacity to resist its control. Being laughed at is far less palatable to many than being hated. Who wants to join a movement which inspires ridicule? We can abhor the bigotry of white nationalism, for instance, but also have a giggle at the silliness of people sincerely believing that melanin deficiency is a sensible basis for national governance. The dangers of the abyss gazing back at us are considerably lessened when the abyss looks like a clown car.
There are few realisations more liberating than knowing we will be wrong about almost everything for the entirety our lives. Appreciating the value of the stupid idea keeps us grounded in our humanity and liberated in our thinking. It allows us to see dangerous ideas for what they are and not have our well-being trapped in their thrall. It gives us a gauge of how free our minds truly are, whether any coercion that exists is coming from within or without.
Though the cancerousness of these ideas must be recognised and challenged, there remains value in recognising the smallness and stupidity of even an evil idea. Many people can endure being hated. Some thrive off it, presenting themselves as martyrs for their venomous causes. The capacity to elicit anger is a form of power on its own. To be able to recognise evil for what it is, yet still laugh at it without agenda or reservation, is to cut away a piece of its power while strengthening one's own capacity to resist its control. Being laughed at is far less palatable to many than being hated. Who wants to join a movement which inspires ridicule? We can abhor the bigotry of white nationalism, for instance, but also have a giggle at the silliness of people sincerely believing that melanin deficiency is a sensible basis for national governance. The dangers of the abyss gazing back at us are considerably lessened when the abyss looks like a clown car.
There are few realisations more liberating than knowing we will be wrong about almost everything for the entirety our lives. Appreciating the value of the stupid idea keeps us grounded in our humanity and liberated in our thinking. It allows us to see dangerous ideas for what they are and not have our well-being trapped in their thrall. It gives us a gauge of how free our minds truly are, whether any coercion that exists is coming from within or without.
With the political poles further apart than they have been for decades, the capacity to separate the personal, over which we have great control, from the political, over which we have very little, is ever more important, not least in maintaining healthy relationships with friends and family members regardless of partisan differences.
OTHER ARTICLES YOU MAY ENJOY
