What do you think?
Rate this book
Stupid Idiots: A Philosophy of Stupidity and Complete and Utter Downright Idiocy
Not yet published
Expected 5 Jun 26This witty yet thoughtful book examines stupidity and idiocy, and their most dangerous stupid idiocy – the unthinking embrace of flawed thinking. While philosophers chase wisdom, this book takes a humbler route, asking instead how we might think just a little less badly. Drawing sharp distinctions between not thinking and thinking poorly, and doubling down on bad thought, it reveals how deeply these failings are tied to our mental habits. With clarity and humour, it considers how stupidity shapes everyday life and public discourse. Within its pages is a chapter on politics and a pointed critique of Donald Trump, ‘stupid idiot supreme’. This is an accessible philosophical guide for anyone who wants to better understand – and perhaps reduce – their own foolishness.
- GenresPhilosophy
180 pages, Paperback
Expected publication June 5, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
November 12, 2025
Here’s a challenge: Spend any amount of time on the internet—social media in particular—and then try to make the case that we’re not drowning in a sea of stupidity. From conspiracy theories to alternative medicine to religious fundamentalism and superstition, we live in a digital cesspool of anti-intellectualism. What we need, therefore, is a deeper examination of the phenomenon—a philosophy of stupidity.
The author begins by noting, correctly, that we are all susceptible to stupidity and idiocy in certain areas (or, for some, all areas), and that this applies especially to ourselves. So in a sense, this book is really a self-help book, an opportunity for reflection on our own tendencies to be stupid or idiotic. He also correctly points out that stupidity is less about the content of one’s beliefs, but rather about the manner in which one comes to hold them and the stubborn resistance to ever doubting them.
Ok, so a lot of people are stupid or idiotic and we all have these tendencies in certain areas. But how can we more precisely define these terms? It’s in answering this question that the author gets into a bit of trouble, as I’m about to show.
As the author states, “In this book I interpret ‘stupidity’ as being the failure to use our ability to think, while ‘idiocy’ refers to our poor use of this ability.” Later he writes that “the stupid do not think, and idiots think badly.”
He then advises us not to become “stupid idiots,” who embrace misconceptions thoughtlessly. However, notice the problem here: the way he’s defining his terms, becoming a “stupid idiot” is contradictory. If the stupid do not think, and idiots think badly, then being a “stupid idiot” is someone who does not think, yet thinks badly (??). It’s rather like describing someone as an “inarticulate mute.”
Maybe we can be more charitable. Perhaps the author means that someone can begin as a stupid person (not thinking), can then begin to think badly (becoming an idiot), then stops thinking again, obdurately and thoughtlessly maintaining their own idiotic views. Perhaps…but I think there’s a better way to characterize this, while avoiding the confusion, as follows:
Stupid people do not think; they remain entirely ignorant or just mindlessly repeat information they’ve heard from others. There is really only one kind of stupid person: someone who is essentially thoughtless.
Idiots, on the other hand, venture to do their own thinking, but do so poorly. Unlike stupid people, however—since they use their own reason—idiots are of two kinds; what you could call temporary idiots, who are more self-reflective and open to learning, and what you could call overconfident or permanent idiots, who resist learning and remain idiots essentially for life.
This is the more important distinction. Stupid people can be annoying but remain quietly ignorant, whereas idiots are often loud and potentially destructive. And overconfident idiots are the absolute worst, as they are the loudest and least likely to change. Therefore, a much better name for the book, to me, would be “Overconfident Idiots.”
In any case, we get the idea. Overconfident idiots (or “stupid idiots,” as the author insists on calling them) are idiots, not for the beliefs they hold, but for the superficial and erroneous method in which they develop their beliefs and the stubborn insistence that they could never be wrong (even and especially in areas outside of their expertise). This is the phenomenon we must learn to identify and eradicate (and certainly not vote for), in ourselves and others.
Indeed, most of the author’s recommendations for avoiding becoming an idiot do revolve around overcoming the overconfidence effect by talking to people with different views, reading authors you disagree with, and actively searching for examples to disprove your beliefs (anti-confirmation bias). In exploring what some of history’s great philosophers and intellectuals have had to say about stupidity and idiocy, we see the same advice over and over: think for yourself; know the limits of your own knowledge; recognize the complexity of the world and the provisionality of knowledge; and be skeptical of your own beliefs to the same degree you are skeptical of others. All phenomenal recommendations.
One problem is that, if you’re open to reading a book like this, and willing to apply the lessons to yourself, then you are, by definition, not a stupid idiot, and therefore the book may have limited value to you. If, on the other hand, you are a stupid idiot, and, like the author is claiming, are immune to criticism or self-improvement, then the book is also of limited value to you. So who exactly is the intended audience?
Perhaps it is the stupid person who is just venturing out to do some independent thinking and thus is most susceptible to becoming an idiot, or worse, a stupid idiot. But, in any case, I wonder if stupid idiots are as hopelessly lost as the author is claiming. The book could have gone into greater detail on persuasion tactics, or self-education methods, that have worked in the past on previously self-identified idiots.
As a final comment, the author made a very interesting point towards the end of the book. After noting how philosophy—with its emphasis on independent thinking—is particularly susceptible to the creation of idiots and idiotic ideas, he noted how it would be interesting to write an “inverse history” of the subject—in other words, the history of how we’ve used philosophy to utterly confuse ourselves. Hopefully the author takes up this challenge!
*Thanks to Edelweiss for the advanced review copy.
The author begins by noting, correctly, that we are all susceptible to stupidity and idiocy in certain areas (or, for some, all areas), and that this applies especially to ourselves. So in a sense, this book is really a self-help book, an opportunity for reflection on our own tendencies to be stupid or idiotic. He also correctly points out that stupidity is less about the content of one’s beliefs, but rather about the manner in which one comes to hold them and the stubborn resistance to ever doubting them.
Ok, so a lot of people are stupid or idiotic and we all have these tendencies in certain areas. But how can we more precisely define these terms? It’s in answering this question that the author gets into a bit of trouble, as I’m about to show.
As the author states, “In this book I interpret ‘stupidity’ as being the failure to use our ability to think, while ‘idiocy’ refers to our poor use of this ability.” Later he writes that “the stupid do not think, and idiots think badly.”
He then advises us not to become “stupid idiots,” who embrace misconceptions thoughtlessly. However, notice the problem here: the way he’s defining his terms, becoming a “stupid idiot” is contradictory. If the stupid do not think, and idiots think badly, then being a “stupid idiot” is someone who does not think, yet thinks badly (??). It’s rather like describing someone as an “inarticulate mute.”
Maybe we can be more charitable. Perhaps the author means that someone can begin as a stupid person (not thinking), can then begin to think badly (becoming an idiot), then stops thinking again, obdurately and thoughtlessly maintaining their own idiotic views. Perhaps…but I think there’s a better way to characterize this, while avoiding the confusion, as follows:
Stupid people do not think; they remain entirely ignorant or just mindlessly repeat information they’ve heard from others. There is really only one kind of stupid person: someone who is essentially thoughtless.
Idiots, on the other hand, venture to do their own thinking, but do so poorly. Unlike stupid people, however—since they use their own reason—idiots are of two kinds; what you could call temporary idiots, who are more self-reflective and open to learning, and what you could call overconfident or permanent idiots, who resist learning and remain idiots essentially for life.
This is the more important distinction. Stupid people can be annoying but remain quietly ignorant, whereas idiots are often loud and potentially destructive. And overconfident idiots are the absolute worst, as they are the loudest and least likely to change. Therefore, a much better name for the book, to me, would be “Overconfident Idiots.”
In any case, we get the idea. Overconfident idiots (or “stupid idiots,” as the author insists on calling them) are idiots, not for the beliefs they hold, but for the superficial and erroneous method in which they develop their beliefs and the stubborn insistence that they could never be wrong (even and especially in areas outside of their expertise). This is the phenomenon we must learn to identify and eradicate (and certainly not vote for), in ourselves and others.
Indeed, most of the author’s recommendations for avoiding becoming an idiot do revolve around overcoming the overconfidence effect by talking to people with different views, reading authors you disagree with, and actively searching for examples to disprove your beliefs (anti-confirmation bias). In exploring what some of history’s great philosophers and intellectuals have had to say about stupidity and idiocy, we see the same advice over and over: think for yourself; know the limits of your own knowledge; recognize the complexity of the world and the provisionality of knowledge; and be skeptical of your own beliefs to the same degree you are skeptical of others. All phenomenal recommendations.
One problem is that, if you’re open to reading a book like this, and willing to apply the lessons to yourself, then you are, by definition, not a stupid idiot, and therefore the book may have limited value to you. If, on the other hand, you are a stupid idiot, and, like the author is claiming, are immune to criticism or self-improvement, then the book is also of limited value to you. So who exactly is the intended audience?
Perhaps it is the stupid person who is just venturing out to do some independent thinking and thus is most susceptible to becoming an idiot, or worse, a stupid idiot. But, in any case, I wonder if stupid idiots are as hopelessly lost as the author is claiming. The book could have gone into greater detail on persuasion tactics, or self-education methods, that have worked in the past on previously self-identified idiots.
As a final comment, the author made a very interesting point towards the end of the book. After noting how philosophy—with its emphasis on independent thinking—is particularly susceptible to the creation of idiots and idiotic ideas, he noted how it would be interesting to write an “inverse history” of the subject—in other words, the history of how we’ve used philosophy to utterly confuse ourselves. Hopefully the author takes up this challenge!
*Thanks to Edelweiss for the advanced review copy.
Review of advance copy received from Netgalley
كلّ واحدٍ منّا يجد نفسه، بدرجةٍ ما، مضطرًا إلى ترديد آراء السلطات والمرجعيات التي لا يمتلك المعرفة الكافية لفحصها بدقّة. فجزءٌ كبير من معرفتنا يقوم أساسًا على الثقة. ويمكن أن نسمّي هذا النوع من المعرفة «معرفةً ساذجة»، لأنها تقوم على التسليم بأن شخصًا آخر أكثر درايةً منا، بدلًا من أن نقوم نحن بالتحقق من الأمر بأنفسنا.
لكننا لا نستطيع أن نتأكد بأنفسنا من أن أولئك الذين يُفترض أنهم حراس المعرفة الحقيقية هم فعلًا كذلك؛ لأن ذلك سيتطلب منا في نهاية المطاف أن نكون بمستوى مماثل لهم من المعرفة، وعندها لن نكون بحاجة إليهم أصلًا.
إن قدرًا كبيرًا مما نظن أننا نعرفه مبنيّ على قبولنا بأن نستند إلى سلطةٍ معرفيةٍ ما، فنختار أن نصدق شخصًا دون آخر. وبما أننا مضطرون في معظم الأحيان للاعتماد على هذه السلطات والمرجعيات، فإننا نكون إلى حدٍّ بعيد «غير ناضجين» بالمعنى الذي قصده الفيلسوف كانط. ومع ذلك، فإن هذا النقص في النضج ليس مفروضًا بالكامل من قِبلنا، لأننا ببساطة لا نملك خيارًا سوى أن نبني جزءًا كبيرًا من معرفتنا على أمور لا نستطيع التحقق منها بصورةٍ كافية.
وحتى إن لم يكن في وسعنا التعمق في فحص كل شيء، يمكننا على الأقل أن نتحلّى بتفكير نقدي تجاه مصادر معرفتنا. فنحن قادرون على اختيار مصادر خضعت لعمليات تدقيقٍ وضبطٍ للجودة. والسؤال الجوهري هنا هو: هل المصادر التي تعتمد عليها في بناء معرفتك مفتوحة على النقد؟ وهل تمتلك آلياتٍ تمكّنها من ممارسة النقد الذاتي؟
أما الأشخاص الذين يختارون أن يجعلوا أنفسهم غير كفؤين معرفيًا – أي الحمقى – فهم غالبًا لا يمارسون نقدًا معقولًا لمصادرهم.
فعندما أعتمد على معلوماتٍ طبية منشورة في مجلة لانسيت بدلًا من مدوّن عشوائي أو صانع محتوى على يوتيوب، فليس لأن ما تنشره مجلة لانسيت صحيحٌ دائمًا. فقد يتبيّن أحيانًا أنه خاطئ. لكن الفارق هو أن هذه المعلومات تكون قد مرّت بسلسلة دقيقة من المراجعات والتدقيقات قبل نشرها، ثم تخضع بعد ذلك لعملية تمحيصٍ أشدّ صرامة عندما يقوم مجتمع الباحثين بفحصها والبحث عن نقاط ضعفها.
فالعلم يقوم أساسًا على مبدأ التفنيد والدحض، وقد أسّس لنظامٍ مؤسسي للنقد الذاتي. ولهذا السبب، توجد أسباب وجيهة تدفعنا إلى منحه قدرًا أكبر من الثقة والاعتماد.
.
Lars Svendsen
Stupid Idiots
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
لكننا لا نستطيع أن نتأكد بأنفسنا من أن أولئك الذين يُفترض أنهم حراس المعرفة الحقيقية هم فعلًا كذلك؛ لأن ذلك سيتطلب منا في نهاية المطاف أن نكون بمستوى مماثل لهم من المعرفة، وعندها لن نكون بحاجة إليهم أصلًا.
إن قدرًا كبيرًا مما نظن أننا نعرفه مبنيّ على قبولنا بأن نستند إلى سلطةٍ معرفيةٍ ما، فنختار أن نصدق شخصًا دون آخر. وبما أننا مضطرون في معظم الأحيان للاعتماد على هذه السلطات والمرجعيات، فإننا نكون إلى حدٍّ بعيد «غير ناضجين» بالمعنى الذي قصده الفيلسوف كانط. ومع ذلك، فإن هذا النقص في النضج ليس مفروضًا بالكامل من قِبلنا، لأننا ببساطة لا نملك خيارًا سوى أن نبني جزءًا كبيرًا من معرفتنا على أمور لا نستطيع التحقق منها بصورةٍ كافية.
وحتى إن لم يكن في وسعنا التعمق في فحص كل شيء، يمكننا على الأقل أن نتحلّى بتفكير نقدي تجاه مصادر معرفتنا. فنحن قادرون على اختيار مصادر خضعت لعمليات تدقيقٍ وضبطٍ للجودة. والسؤال الجوهري هنا هو: هل المصادر التي تعتمد عليها في بناء معرفتك مفتوحة على النقد؟ وهل تمتلك آلياتٍ تمكّنها من ممارسة النقد الذاتي؟
أما الأشخاص الذين يختارون أن يجعلوا أنفسهم غير كفؤين معرفيًا – أي الحمقى – فهم غالبًا لا يمارسون نقدًا معقولًا لمصادرهم.
فعندما أعتمد على معلوماتٍ طبية منشورة في مجلة لانسيت بدلًا من مدوّن عشوائي أو صانع محتوى على يوتيوب، فليس لأن ما تنشره مجلة لانسيت صحيحٌ دائمًا. فقد يتبيّن أحيانًا أنه خاطئ. لكن الفارق هو أن هذه المعلومات تكون قد مرّت بسلسلة دقيقة من المراجعات والتدقيقات قبل نشرها، ثم تخضع بعد ذلك لعملية تمحيصٍ أشدّ صرامة عندما يقوم مجتمع الباحثين بفحصها والبحث عن نقاط ضعفها.
فالعلم يقوم أساسًا على مبدأ التفنيد والدحض، وقد أسّس لنظامٍ مؤسسي للنقد الذاتي. ولهذا السبب، توجد أسباب وجيهة تدفعنا إلى منحه قدرًا أكبر من الثقة والاعتماد.
.
Lars Svendsen
Stupid Idiots
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
Review of advance copy
It is a particular kind of mood book. It is when you want something small, essay like, and want to think about thinking. Quite fun quick read.
Also, very lovely how you were writing. Would be nice to know your process. When i was reading page 11 about scientific vs judicial law I was like wow he is arrogant but then the pages after deal with the speck in the brother's eye vs own eye. Very lovely argument building, kept reading after. Now I am going to look into some of the people you quoted. Would have probably appreciated some graphs/ pics towards the middle/end to have some breathing space. Maybe my categories of stupidity merged too much between the last pages haha.
DNF all categories but was interesting and gave me a few ideas to follow up on. Thanks for writing this.
Also, very lovely how you were writing. Would be nice to know your process. When i was reading page 11 about scientific vs judicial law I was like wow he is arrogant but then the pages after deal with the speck in the brother's eye vs own eye. Very lovely argument building, kept reading after. Now I am going to look into some of the people you quoted. Would have probably appreciated some graphs/ pics towards the middle/end to have some breathing space. Maybe my categories of stupidity merged too much between the last pages haha.
DNF all categories but was interesting and gave me a few ideas to follow up on. Thanks for writing this.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews