Относится к сборнику статей теори МВАП https://t.me/thinking_cycles
In Ancient Greece, an idiot was a citizen living detached from public life, as if guided by his own private notions.
In clinical practice, an idiot is a person suffering from idiocy—the most severe degree of oligophrenia (intellectual disability).
In everyday usage, the term idiot refers to someone who commits unmotivated, irrational acts that lead to harmful consequences or hinder normal life for themselves and others.
Sometimes the outdated phrase “idiot savants” is used to describe individuals with autism or Williams syndrome—people who exhibit developmental delays in speech or general intellect yet possess extraordinary abilities in arithmetic, drawing, or music.
In contemporary scientific psychology and sociology, there is no single, universally accepted definition of an “idiot.”
Today, when we use the word “idiocy” in everyday speech or even in journalism, we almost never refer to clinical idiocy. Instead, we describe a particular style of thinking and behavior characterized by uncriticalness, rigidity, disregard for reality, and simplistic judgments.
In modern culture, “idiocy” has become synonymous with irrational, common-sense-defying behavior that is nonetheless widely replicated—e.g., consumer idiocy (buying unnecessary things), bureaucratic idiocy (mindlessly following meaningless instructions), etc.
Thus, when speaking of “idiocy” as a psychological phenomenon today, it is more accurate to view it not as a disease but as a deficit of critical thinking—either a temporary state or a stable personality trait that severely impedes adequate engagement with reality.
In his novel The Idiot, Dostoevsky did not merely use the word—he performed a profound conceptual transformation of it. Prince Myshkin is a living refutation of situational idiocy. His behavioral style is one of perpetual, conscious reflectiveness in a world that demands impulsivity.
Society demands lies, intrigue, masks, quick and profitable decisions, and social rituals. Myshkin offers truth, directness, sincerity, deep deliberation, and compassion. He constantly “pauses to think”; his reactions are delayed; he analyzes moral consequences.
From the perspective of high society (e.g., the Epanchins’ salon), his behavior appears as “idiocy”—that is, as socially unacceptable and “foolish.” Yet Dostoevsky shows that it is precisely this society—with its impulsive passions, greed, and vanity—that constitutes the true kingdom of situational idiocy, where people repeatedly commit reckless acts without reflection (recall Nastasya Filippovna’s wager, throwing money into the fireplace).
Thus, the novel’s title is both irony and provocation. The true “idiot” in our situational sense is not Myshkin, but the world around him.
If a certain thinking and behavior style—marked by uncriticalness, rigidity, disregard for reality, and primitive judgments—exists, then the relevant academic disciplines should possess an appropriate term for it. Colloquially, people refer to such behavior using terms like “inadequate” or “idiot,” which characterize a propensity toward this flawed behavioral style.
Existing alternatives—such as “personality disorder,” “schizophrenia,” or “dysfunctional beliefs”—refer to persistent personality pathologies and are unsuitable as descriptors of a specific behavioral style manifested only in certain situations. This style may be described as a state of reduced cognitive effectiveness, deviating from established social norms and corresponding ethical standards. It is not what the majority considers normal, nor what is automatically (unconsciously) judged as acceptable, but rather what becomes evident only through conscious scrutiny of specific behavioral acts and their acceptability within a given cultural context.
One might say this represents a reckless attempt to act at a moment when the situation demands reflection and careful weighing—something people often lack the time or willpower to do.
This is a cognitive trait that becomes especially pronounced under stress. A person intolerant of differing opinions experiences intense discomfort from ambiguity and strives desperately to eliminate it—often through hasty, rigid, and suboptimal decisions. They prefer a bad but quick solution over a good one requiring patience and deliberation. This is a failure of self-regulation mechanisms in complex conditions—one usually unnoticed by the person themselves.
Using the word “idiocy” as a scientific term is highly provocative, since the word is still commonly interpreted in its clinical (rather than Dostoevskian) sense. Therefore, whenever this term is used, it should always be accompanied by a reference to this article and a brief clarification that “idiocy” here denotes not a judgment of a person but a specific behavioral response style in novel situations. Alternatively, it is preferable to avoid this term altogether and replace it with a more precise descriptor—for example:
Psychology distinguishes an impulsive cognitive style, characterized by rapid, unreflective reactions and a high error rate. The person acts on the principle of “act now, think later.” Thus, idiocy can be defined as the situational dominance of an impulsive cognitive style in conditions that objectively require reflectiveness.
This word perfectly captures a vast range of human errors—from everyday quarrels to global managerial failures—where the root problem lies not in stupidity per se, but in the tragic or comic mismatch between cognitive style and situational demands.
Idiocy thus reflects a specific approach to applying experience under conditions of significant novelty. One option—deep reflection and inquiry—is contrasted with the preference for habitual responses despite the presence of substantial novelty. When time is scarce or the person lacks the willpower to exert effort, they default to the first option: surface-level processing without engagement with complexity.
Clearly, the more experienced a person is in a given domain, the more acceptable—even if hasty—their conclusions become. Yet, it is precisely this expertise that makes them more aware that such haste inevitably masks numerous unconsidered factors. This directly links to the essence and mechanism of the Dunning-Kruger effect (fornit.ru/70928).
Situational Idiocy is a cognitive strategy characterized by the application of a reduced (simplified) behavioral model—adequate for past experience—in conditions that contain a significant element of novelty. This leads to the neglect of that novelty and, consequently, to inadequate outcomes.
Thus, the proposed term is not merely a one-word label for the established psychological concept of impulsive cognitive style; rather, it is a specific term within the framework of the MVAP theory.
As a conclusion: All of us are occasionally idiots (fornit.ru/67348). The more novel and unexpected the situation—and the less relevant experience we possess—the greater the idiocy we exhibit.
Idiocy is not a diagnosis reserved for a select few but a universal human risk, the flip side of the mechanism of cognitive economy.
No one is immune to situational idiocy. Even the most reflective individual, under extreme fatigue, stress, time pressure, or when encountering the utterly unfamiliar, may “collapse” into an impulsive, stereotyped mode, ignoring significant novelty.
Acknowledging this fact is a powerful antidote against arrogance and infallibility. The ability to recognize oneself as a potential “idiot” in a novel situation is the first step toward avoiding becoming one. This is an act of intellectual honesty and the foundation for genuine growth.
Within social interaction, idiocy becomes a mass trend in communication. The ease with which people assign blame and demand punishment—even law enforcement agencies—along with the superficiality of arguments even in academic papers (as demonstrated by commentary in a conference proceedings collection: fornit.ru/71287), and political power struggles—all of these are maturing into an absurdity with tragic consequences.
The more general culture intertwines with the development of technical communicability, the more opportunities arise for idiocy among those participating in such communication. The emergence of social media and the reduction of people to a common denominator of concepts and a new ethics have become powerful incubators of idiocy as a social phenomenon.
Researchers increasingly document the mass spread of idiocy and, consequently, the impoverishment of individual cognitive development. Serious discussions now occur about “digital dementia” and “clip thinking.”
Studies show that the habits of multitasking and constant scrolling through short-form content train “System 1” (fast, automatic thinking) as described by Daniel Kahneman, while weakening “System 2” (slow, analytical thinking). Clip thinking emerges—the inability to sustain attention on a single task or to comprehend complex, multilayered texts.
Constant information noise and distractions overload working memory—the key resource for complex cognitive operations. Researchers note that this impairs the ability to construct logical chains and test hypotheses—that is, it weakens metacognitive skills.
Data on political polarization (e.g., Pew Research Center) clearly show how society fractures into hostile camps operating with simplified stereotypes. This is direct evidence of mass “idiocy”—the rigid application of simplistic ideological templates to complex social problems.
The crisis of public discourse reveals that reasoned debate is being replaced by emotional outbursts, memes, and personal insults. In such an environment, a reflective stance holds no competitive advantage and is often ridiculed.
International assessments (e.g., PISA) indicate that, despite rising levels of formal education, many students demonstrate an inability to apply knowledge to real-life practical problems. They possess information but cannot flexibly apply it in novel contexts—the key feature of our definition.
Educators worldwide report increasing difficulty among students in reading long texts, taking notes, or conducting independent research. The educational system is forced to simplify content delivery, adapting to this new cognitive style and thereby reinforcing it.
Philosophers warn of the disintegration of a unified worldview into a set of fragmented, simplified “mythologies” (conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, radical ideologies). This signifies a cultural abandonment of complexity, reflection, and rationality as ideals.
The phenomenon whereby objective facts exert less influence on public opinion than emotional appeals and personal beliefs represents the triumph of situational idiocy as a mass practice.
Mass “idiocy” does not merely spread—it actively suppresses and atrophies the very capacity for cognitive development. The environment no longer demands effort. Why construct a complex mental model when success (likes, group approval) is achieved through simple, stereotyped reactions?
Due to the absence of accurate feedback within “echo chambers,” erroneous and primitive models never encounter disconfirming reality. Mistakes go unrecognized, eliminating any incentive for learning or model revision.
To recognize one’s own error and depth of ignorance (i.e., overcome the Dunning-Kruger effect), one already needs a sufficiently developed cognitive apparatus. If this is not cultivated from childhood, the individual falls into a trap: they simply lack the tools to realize their thinking is inadequate.
Researchers’ Conclusion: We are not witnessing merely an epidemic of foolishness but a systemic shift in humanity’s cognitive landscape. Technologies designed to augment human intellect, in their current form, have created an environment that systematically rewards and entrenches situational idiocy, making it the dominant thinking style for millions. This does not merely impoverish individuals but degrades the cognitive ecosystem as a whole, making it increasingly difficult for new generations to develop and sustain complex, reflective thinking.
The overwhelming majority of people, in the overwhelming majority of everyday situations, prefer an energy-saving, impulsive thinking style over a reflective one. Most people tend to overestimate their competence in complex matters. To an outside observer, this appears as confident use of primitive models to analyze phenomena they do not understand.
Within their “bubbles,” people see everyone thinking in similarly simplistic ways. Their cognitive style is constantly confirmed and approved by their reference group, providing no incentive for change.
Culture of Instant Gratification: Modern culture rewards quick results and instant answers. Reflection requires time and offers no immediate dopaminergic reward.
The “95%” is a situational, not a fixed, characteristic. It does not mean 95% of people are always foolish. Rather, it indicates that in 95% of everyday situations requiring reflection—political debates, news evaluation, financial decisions, parenting moments—the average person prefers not to engage reflective thinking but instead operates on autopilot, relying on habitual schemes, clichés, and emotions.
A physics professor may display “idiocy” in debates about child-rearing, while a brilliant artist may do so in financial matters. The “95% Law” highlights universal vulnerability, not innate stupidity.
Who, then, belongs to the “5%”? They are not necessarily geniuses. They are individuals who, through habit, training, or professional conditioning, have cultivated an inner “observer” who, at critical moments, asks:
These are people who voluntarily accept the cognitive burden that most others avoid.
The “95% Law” is not statistics but a metaphor for the state of culture. It vividly illustrates that the dominant mental activity in modern society is not critical reflection but ritualized, template-driven consumption and production of content and reactions.
This law is not about stupidity but about cognitive laziness as a mass choice, systematically encouraged by the very architecture of our digital civilization. Most alarmingly, this “law” is self-fulfilling: by raising new generations in this environment, we bring the hypothetical 95% closer to statistical reality.
And this cultural condition directly contributes to the intellectual degradation of society—a trend now measurable by statistics.
According to PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), many developed nations—despite increased educational investment—show stagnation or decline in reading, math, and science performance. Especially concerning is the drop in textual comprehension skills: identifying implicit meaning, distinguishing facts from opinions, and critically evaluating information. This is direct evidence of weakening reflective abilities.
Although IQ scores have generally risen across generations (the Flynn effect), recent data show slowing or even reversal in some countries. More critically, studies reveal declining working memory capacity and attention span among young people raised in the digital age—fundamental “processing” capabilities essential for reflection.
Algorithmic analysis of millions of social media posts shows that group polarization and hostility are driven not by reasoned critique but by emotional tone, sweeping labels, and personal insults. The proportion of constructive, substantive discourse is steadily decreasing—an empirically measurable displacement of complexity by primitivism.
The greatest contributor to this decline is ad-driven social media—idiocy factories—along with advertising itself (which is inherently deceptive) and business-consumer relationships, a direct consequence of a business model exploiting human cognitive vulnerabilities.
The ideal consumer for this system is an “idiot”: a person with low metacognition, high impulsivity, easily triggered by emotions, and disinclined toward deep analysis. Such users generate the most clicks, data, and ultimately, profit.
Domestic idiocy spreads as a specific relational style—not only in online discussions but in real-life interactions—through the abandonment of critical perception and thinking, leading not only to personal intellectual degradation but also to its transmission to future generations. This is no longer confined to smartphone screens; it is a lifestyle reproduced in the physical world.
Complex issues of parenting and relationships are “solved” using advice from TikTok videos offering simplistic, rigid schemes. Parents themselves thinking in clichés cannot teach their children metacognitive skills—doubt, reflection, tolerance for uncertainty. They pass on ready-made, simplified world models.
Thus, one can envision a point of no return—not when everyone becomes an “idiot,” but when the social and cultural environment loses its mechanisms for reproducing complexity. Once a critical mass of individuals with simplified thinking dominates all social institutions—education, media, governance—“islands of reflection” disappear. Science, fundamental education, and complex art are dismissed as useless relics and stripped of funding and public support.
Business idiocy: Decision-making based not on deep analysis but on “trends” and superficial analogies.
Political idiocy: Discourse replaced by slogans and personal attacks.
The education system, confronting a generation whose attention and capacity for deep focus have been undermined, is forced to lower standards, simplify curricula, and replace texts with videos. The system adapts to the student rather than developing them. The same applies to publishers, who produce not quality literature but content easily digestible by the public. Instead of cultivating artistic taste, they disseminate primitive templates.
Scientific idiocy takes on special, rationality-mimicking forms. Science, by definition, should be the antithesis of idiocy—but as a human activity, it is not immune.
Scientific idiocy is the situational dominance of stereotyped, rigid, uncritical approaches in contexts requiring scientific reflection—i.e., the re-examination of paradigms, methods, or interpretations. This is facilitated by “scientific schools” that divide researchers into “us” and “them.”
At its broadest, this is methodological idiocy—the substitution of scientific methodology with subjective heuristics, bias, and tradition. This is the highest form of scientific idiocy because it corrupts the very source of validity: method. A direct consequence of this “methodological idiocy” is the well-known replication crisis in psychology, medicine, and other sciences.
Scientific idiocy is especially dangerous because it mimics rationality.
Media idiocy becomes a culture-destroying force driven by hype and lobby-driven manipulation of the public—a mass-produced commodity of idiocy.
Journalists are rarely specialists in the topics they cover and therefore should remain honest and unbiased in reporting facts. Interpretation is not their role. Yet journalists always interpret through their own understanding and—more importantly—through the agenda set by their editors. Leveraging the authority of their outlet or personal brand, journalists act as judges and ultimate arbiters of truth.
The business model of modern media is built on selling audience attention to advertisers. In this economy, idiocy is a highly liquid asset.
Audiences are deprived of the opportunity for their own thoughtful analysis. They are not offered an object for reflection but a trigger for immediate reaction (outrage, fear, approval). This is the deliberate creation of conditions for situational idiocy.
Media have transformed from institutions of information and enlightenment into industrial-scale factories for situational idiocy. They do not merely reflect or exploit it—they are its chief designers and promoters in society. Combating this is no longer a matter of media literacy but of cultural security.
The depth at which a stimulus is processed depends on accumulated experience (historical memory). If experience is lacking and no relevant precedent exists in memory, a person tends to adopt the experience of someone more knowledgeable—especially an authority figure. If a situation does not require responsible decisions and historical memory contains no rules associating hasty decisions with negative outcomes, the individual will default to the most primitive level of processing. Only at a deeper level of reflection does voluntary selection of processing rules become possible—followed by evaluation of the outcome, which will inform future responses even without conscious effort.
The most reliable safeguard against idiocy is understanding the very possibility and danger of an idiotic behavioral style. “Knowing that you can be wrong” is the foundation of personal psychological hygiene against idiocy.
Before making an important decision or emotional reaction, ask yourself: “Am I currently exhibiting situational idiocy? Am I ignoring significant novelty?”
Always remember to create moments of pause for a quick audit of your own thinking: “What model am I using right now? Is it adequate to the situation?”
Actively seek arguments and facts that contradict your current certainty—even (especially) when it feels so right and obvious.
Replace aimless scrolling with purposeful information-seeking from trusted, reflective sources (long-form content, quality science communication, analytical journalism).
Consciously delay reactions to sensational, emotionally charged news. Give yourself time (an hour, a day) for the initial impulse to subside so analytical thinking can engage.
Be honest with yourself: when exhausted, hungry, or stressed, you are more vulnerable to impulsive decisions.
Gradually but persistently cultivate the habit of not reacting immediately—especially in emotionally charged situations (arguments, conflicts). The phrase “I need to think about it” is a powerful hygienic tool.
In serious discussions, if someone exhibits idiocy through rudeness or hatefulness, it is sufficient to state your non-participation: “You are not a legitimate participant in a respectful discussion—here’s why: fornit.ru/71498.”
All of this is difficult the moment you find yourself in a typical “idiotic” situation—but it is possible to pull yourself out of this swamp and avoid becoming a participant in idiotic discourse.
Psychological hygiene based on an understanding of idiocy is precisely the personal “survival guide” in the cultural catastrophe already underway.
This is a crucial article for the future of human existence. We are directly shaping our future and influencing others; therefore, whether the world rapidly and irreversibly descends into total idiocy will depend on our efforts—or our inaction.