Previously...

At this point it is imperative to elucidate the J-.. concept of human stupidity and to define the dramatis persona.

Individuals are characterized by different degrees of propensity to socialize. There are individuals for whom any contact with other individuals is a painful necessity. They literally have to put up with people and people have to put up with them. At the other extreme of the spectrum there are individuals who absolutely cannot live by themselves and are even ready to spend time in the company of people whom they do not really like rather than to be alone. Between these two extremes, there is an extreme variety of conditions, although by far the greatest majority of the people are doser to the type who cannot face loneliness than to the type who has no taste for human intercourse. Aristotle recognized this fact when he wrote that «Man is a social animal» and the validity of his statement is demonstrated by the fact that we move in social groups, that there are more married people than bachelors and spinsters, that so much wealth and time is wasted in fatiguing and boring cocktail parties and that the word loneliness carries normally a negative connotation.

Whether one belongs to the hermit or to the socialite type, one deals with people although with different intensity. Even the hermits occasionally meet people. Moreover, one affects human beings also by avoiding them. What I could have clone for an individual or a group but did not do is an opportunity-cost (i.e. a lost gain or loss) for that particular person or group. The moral of the story is that each one of us has a current balance with everybody else. From action or inaction each one of us derives a gain or a loss and at the same time one causes a gain or a loss to some one else.

Gains and losses can be conveniently charted on a graph, and figure 1 shows the basic graph to be used for the purpose.

The graph refers to an individual - let us say Tom. The X axis measures the gain that Tom derives from his actions. On the Y axis the graph shows the gain that another person or group of persons derive from Tom's actions. Gains can be positive, nil or negative - a negative gain being actually a loss. The X axis measures Tom's positive gains to the right of point O and Tom's losses to the left of point O. The Y axis measures the gains and losses of the person or persons with whom Tom dealt respectively above and below point O.

To make all this clear, let us make a hypothetical example and refer to figure 1. Tom takes an action which affects Dick. If Tom derives from the action a gain and Dick suffers from the same action a loss, the action will be recorded on the graph with a dot which will appear in the graph somewhere in area B.

Gains and losses may be recorded on the X and Y axis in dollars or francs, if one wants, but one has to include also psychological and emotional rewards and satisfactions as well as psychological and emotional stresses. These are intangibles and they are very difficult to measure according to objective standards. Cost-benefit analysis can help to solve the problem, although not completely, but I do not want to bother the reader with such technicalities: a margin of imprecision is bound to affect the measurement but it does not affect the essence of the argument. One point though must be made clear. When considering Tom 's action one makes use of Tom's values but one has to rely on Dick's values and not on Tom's values to determine Dick 's gains (whether positive or negative).

All too often this rule of fairness is forgotten and many troubles originate from failure to apply this essentially urbane point of view. Let me resort once again to a banal example. Tom hits Dick on Dick 's head and he derives satisfaction from his action. He may pretend that Dick was delighted to be hit on the head. Dick, however, may not share Tom's view. ln fact he may regard the.blow on his head as an unpleasant event. Whether the blow on Dick 's head was a gain or a loss to Dick is up to Dick to decide and not to Tom.